FCFY - is it really possible?

[SR540Beaver]

LongHaul,

 

I've got that document on my PC and have used it as an idea resource in the past. It was written by an individual and isn't a formal BSA plan.

 

A better link for the doc is:

 

http://www.arrowhead-district.org/pdf/program_aids/boy/FirstClassFirstYear.doc

[BadenP]

SR540

You will not find an authorized or official FCFY program from the BSA because it is not either. FCFY was just a not well thought out marketing idea by National to assist in boy scout retention, which unfortunately it has not accomplished.

 

Is it a good idea? Yes, if it is done correctly within the methods of scouting, but with no official guidelines it is a hit and miss proposition, some troops do it well and yet many just slam the boys through like it was some sort of race. Now if National is really serious about this idea taking hold they need to come out with a official set of guidelines so that the program is done consistently throughout the country and not the hodge podge mess that is currently passing itself off as FCFY.

[Stosh]

Beavah,

 

I'll take a shot at it and basically agree with you.

 

There is nothing wrong with designing a program that could possibly entail getting FYFC. We have a NSP and a FC PL. That means with the five days of summer camp (patrol cooking in site) and a spring and fall camporee every boy will have an opportunity to do patrol cooking (7 boys, 21 meals). A mess hall camp would cancel out this program for troops going to such camps. Obviously for those troops it won't work without five extra one day outings. So the "possibility" still remains for the cooking requirement. If the patrol goes out on a one-day hike they could do their cook one meal over a wood fire. No problem Maybe they could do a individually cooked Sunday breakfast at a camporee all at the same time, that would work too.

 

Each one of the requirements if planned AND attended by the boys it's possible. Now, with that said, is it probable for some of the boys? Yep, for all the boys, nope. Not all boys learn at the same speed and some with learning disabilities aren't going to be able to do it, but even then there's a possibility one could be surprised.

 

If the boys work on knots only at patrol meetings, then they're probably not going to master them without extra practice outside of scout time.

 

First aid? Same thing. A motivated scout may take non-scout time to master the skill that was only demonstrated at the patrol meeting. But it's possible.

 

Lashing? Same thing

 

The key to each one of these is the fact that the program or curriculum is not the stumbling block, it's the motivation and interest of the scout that determines whether or not he finishes up the first year. That variable is not predictable and should not be the criteria for measuring success/failure of the program/curriculum.

 

I'll agree that the opportunity for FYFC can be easily designed. But I don't think that most scouts at age 11 have the proper motivation and skills to follow along diligently enough to succeed at it. Some will, most won't.

 

Given this observation, at 1 yr, 6 mo's, more scouts will be successful at it and at 2 years most scouts will be successful. Gee, I've known scouts at the end of 3-4 years in scouting didn't get first class for some reason or the other. I spent 4 years in Boy Scouts and only made 2nd Class due to a poor program/opportunity. As an avid outdoors person, I just couldn't figure out how I accomplished so little in scouts. Within 2 years I rose to squadron command in Civil Air Patrol. Different opportunity, different personalities, same kid.

 

It takes a combination of program, opportunity and motivation to make it work. Getting all three right at the same time MAY get the boys to FYFC, but even then every kid is different.

 

Stosh

 

 

[Beavah]

SR540, yeh really have a single patrol with 20 new scouts in it? That's a new one for me. Never seen anyone try that before. How does it work for yeh? Plusses and minuses that you can share?

 

Yah, I'm all in favor of good scout leaders doin' what they need to do to make the program work in their circumstances. My point with FCFY is that yeh have to fudge it one way or the other. The thing wasn't thought out well enough, so it simply doesn't work as presented. Scouters either fudge by just ignorin' it and taking longer, or by reducing the requirements/expectations in some way.

 

Of the two, I'd be more in favor of takin' longer to teach/earn First Class than reducin' the quality/expectations for the lads. I think reducin' the quality/expectations is far more common, though, when folks are actually focused on the FCFY bit.

 

Thanks for pointin' to that absolutely dreadful First Class done as a school curriculum document. Always wondered where it came from. No wonder Chicago Area Council is such a mess, with so few traditional scouts. Reminds me of a fellow who once told me he encourages boys to earn Eagle as fast as they can because "after that, they can have fun!".

 

Beavah

[SR540Beaver]

Beavah,

 

That is why I keep pointing out that FCFY is a concept and not a program. BSA is at least smart enough to realize that troops vary so much in their size, experience, skill, etc. that a one sized solution doesn't can't fit all. FCFY is more a mindest than anything else. Setting hard and fast rank requirments is totally different from producing an official FCFY program that a troop of 5 boys is expected to do like a troop of 60 boys. FCFY is kind of like the oath and law. You have a set of principles to live by, but everyone does is trurstworthy or brave in their own way and life experience. You can't dictate the experience a boy is going to have to be cheerful or clean.

 

I ran our new scout program for two years and turned it over to one of my assistants and have served as his assistant for the last two years. Yes, we have one "super" patrol of all new scouts whether it be our low of 15 scouts one year or our high of 24 another year. That was not my choice, but a request of our SM. We had been running two NSP's with two TG's each. One set of TG's was strong and the other was weak. It really showed in rank advancement and retention at the end of about 18 months. Our NSP exists roughly from February thru early November before they move to regular patrols. Our SM decided that he wanted all new scouts to get the same skills training and opportunities across the board and asked that we keep them in one big patrol. It has made a difference for us in the long run. Now, that doesn't mean we run a Webelos 3 den with a lot of classroom lecture. In addition to three TG's, we have three ASM's in our NSP program. We often split the boys up into smaller groups with an individual TG for skill training and testing. Same with cooking on a campout. For our SM, keeping one large patrol was a means to ensure quality control in getting new scouts up and running.

 

Even though we do NSP's, the NSP's are part of the troop, engage in the same programs and activities and get regualr exposure to the mixed age patrols they end up moving to.

 

Personally, I'd like to see 2 to 3 NSP's, but know from experience how unweildy that can be as the adult in charge of the program.

[Stosh]

Being in charge and doing the work are two entirely different animals. This is why SM's burn out and there are other adults crawling all over the boys.

 

Why not have a FC PL for every NSP and a functional TG and Instructor to help out. One can have 3-4 NSP's and just add more TG's and Instructors as needed. Never do what a boy can do!

 

Boy-led, patrol-method, right from the git go. And if these boys all want to stick together and have an ECOH on the same day, I say go for it! Each patrol should be it's own little "family" of buddies with a common interest and goal. Other scouts are there to help them with their interests and goals.

 

Stosh

[SR540Beaver]

jblake,

 

When I say in charge, take that with a grain of salt. It is rare that we three ASM's are ever up in front of the NSP. That is the job of the three TG's and a JASM that often pitches in. We work with the TG's to define what needs to be worked on requirment wise, but it is up to them along with other older scouts to deliver the program. We are highly selective in who we recruit to be TG's. That isn't that a boy can express an interest, but he has to have a good track record. We had one kid who was a Tenderfoot and had just moved to a regular patrol that told us he wanted to be a TG. We told him it was a worthy goal, but he had a ways to go before he could do that. On average, our TG's are 15 and above, Star and above and have some have been previously elected SPL.

 

Our TG's start out very hands on with us in the background and they slowly pull back more and more as the NSP gains in skills and confidence and elects their own PL. Then they function in a support and resource role.

[Stosh]

"Personally, I'd like to see 2 to 3 NSP's, but know from experience how unweildy that can be as the adult in charge of the program."

 

Sounds like you're not going to burn out any time soon.

 

Stosh

[SR540Beaver]

Burn out? Me? Nah! If I was doing the same thing over and over, I might. In addition to being a NSP ASM, I'm the incoming OA Chapter Adviser, ASM-Program and backup Course Director for next spring's WB course and ASM for one of our Jambo Troops. I did have to give up Campmastering to make some temporary room for next year though.

[Buffalo Skipper]

FYI,

I was reviewing the BSA issued training CD which accompanies the trainer's material for all the scout leader training. Interestingly, in the PDF folder is a form entitled "First Class First Year" which is an advancement tracking form.

 

That is not to justify, approve or give and opinion on the concept, only to indicate that it does exist in the "official" record.

[BadenP]

Hey Buffalo, an advancement tracking form does not make it an "offical program", there are no official BSA guidelines, program or procedures in print. Again all FCFY was ever meant to be was a marketing ploy for boy scout retention which never accomplished its goal.

[Buffalo Skipper]

BadenP, I never said it was an official program, only that BSA training curriculum provided the resource to distribute this as a handout at training. As I said, that is not my opinion; it exists in the BSA documentation. Anyone here is welcome to interpret BSA's intent in doing so any way they choose.

 

When I get home tonight, I will glance at the training syllabus to see of and/or where this handout is to be passed along at the course.

[evmori]

Emphasize the objectives of new Scouts earning the First Class rank during the their first year and other Scouts earning at least one rank advancement each year.

 

A basic goal should be for each Scout to advance a rank during the year. New Scouts should earn the First Class rank during their first year in the troop.

 

Both are from the Advancement Committee Guidebook. While they don't specifically state there is a FCFY program, the guidebook does state this to be a goal and should be emphasized.

[GKlose]

It's not only on the CD mentioned, but it is also here, directly on the BSA website:

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34118.pdf

 

You can find it and many other documents on the "Forms" page: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/forms.aspx

 

Guy

[sherminator505]

"all FCFY was ever meant to be was a marketing ploy for boy scout retention which never accomplished its goal."

 

I think this was more than a marketing ploy. I see it as a guideline for running an active program that would provide the opportunity for a Scout to earn First Class in his first year. Not all Scouts accomplish this, and in fact many do not, but having a weak program shouldn't be an excuse for that.