Signing off on Advancment

[BrentAllen]

"The BOR is a review of the Scout's performance."

 

No, it is much more a review of the Scout's experience, than of his performance. It IS a review of the SM's performance, as he is in charge of the program, and advancement. If Scouts aren't doing the requirements, but are getting them signed off, there is a problem with the program. If the Scouts aren't planning campouts, there is a problem with the program. The job of adults concerned with advancement (mainly, the SM) is to provide the right environment. The review has three purposes - to make sure the work has been learned and completed, to see how good an experience the Scout is having, to encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank. The first two items fall directly on the SM, as a measure of his performance as the leader responsible for the program.

[Stosh]

"The BOR is a review of the Scout's performance."

 

No, it is much more a review of the Scout's experience, than of his performance. It IS a review of the SM's performance, as he is in charge of the program, and advancement. If Scouts aren't doing the requirements,

but are getting them signed off, there is a problem with the program.

 

>> No, there's a problem with the process and the next time the Instructor and PL have a BOR it will be a review of those scouts' performance. They were given leadership POR and they haven't functioned well in those areas. It is the philosophy of our troop that the boy-led program means they are responsible for the program. We, as adults, assist them develop their program within the guidelines of the BSA.

 

If the Scouts aren't planning campouts, there is a problem with the program.

 

>> No, there's a problem with the process and a review with the leadership of the PLC and the boys involved will need to be addressed.

 

The job of adults concerned with advancement (mainly, the SM) is to provide the right environment.

 

>> Yep, but if the boys are not functioning within those environments, then a review of the processes are in order.

 

The review has three purposes - to make sure the work has been learned and completed,

 

>> That's the leadership job of the PL. He's supposed to be taking care of his patrol members.

 

to see how good an experience the Scout is having,

 

>> This will be fed back to the PL, SPL, and PLC for review.

 

to encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank.

 

>> Everyone needs a cheerleader, the adults, the troop officers, and especially the boy's PL.

 

The first two items fall directly on the SM, as a measure of his performance as the leader responsible for the program.

 

>> The program is made up of processes in which different individuals are given leadership opportunities. If the SM is going to take over those leadership opportunities to guarantee a "successful" program, then what's left for the boys to lead?

 

Instead of looking for whose fault these issues are, it isn't solving any problems nor giving opportunities for learning for the boys. It would be a lot easier for the SM to take over all the responsibility for every aspect of the "program", but it does nothing for the development of the boys.

 

So, why have a SM? Sure, s/he's there to seek out how to best develop the leadership of the boys. S/he will adapt the various aspects of the "program" so that the boys will have the best opportunity for success if THEY decide to actually do it.

 

Instead of asking the question: "Whose fault is it?" which solves no problem ever, the question should be: "How are we going to adapt an opportunity for the boy to succeed?" "Is he best served where he is? "Should we give him another chance in a different POR more suitable to his skill set?" These are far more productive questions in IMHO.

 

The "program" is the goal, the "processes" are those means by which the goal is attained.

 

Stosh