The Purpose of a Board of Review

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah such a long post and you never did address where I said

 

"...signed off the boy has demonstrated the skill once, in that easy controlled environment."

 

So in abscence of denial or explanation the only alternative is acceptance

 

I had thought the purpose of this thread was the purpose of a Board of Review, Moosetracker made a comment on another thread about the Board of Review was a time to review/evaluate or audit the program which was challenged by the original poster.

 

How we got on this topic demonstrates the Forrest Gump's Feather Theory better than most

 

I do not beleive I ever explained when a scout should get signed off by a troop. Or how either, by youth, adult, its up to to the unit. WHat constitues profeciency? I leave that up to the troop, they know the boy, its up to them.

 

My comment has been, consistently, that once (and that is once as in once apon a time. not the numeral 1) has been learned the troops program gives the scout opportunity to use that skill.

 

When the requirment involving that skill gets "signed off" is up to the unit

 

Consistently saying something that is not true does not fabricate truth

[FScouter]

Hey Beavah!

There you go again!

Youre being a little rough on OGE, eh? Hes got it backwards, eh? No one contributing to this thread, or anywhere in these forums, ever, has advocated 10 minutes of practice followed by a test of short term memory. No one has ever advocated test first, learn later.

 

Theres really no need to make up false statements, attribute them to someone, and then use them to bolster your position. If youre going to argue the merits of what someone said, at least start out with what was really said. Eh?

[Beavah]

Yah, FScouter, I see once again that your first and only post to da thread is solely to take a public pot shot at another forum member, rather than comment on scoutin' (or calling attention to what yeh felt was a personal error in private). At least you're consistent, eh?

 

Still, as I sit here waitin' to pick up family members at the airport, I wish you and all of your family a very healthy and happy Christmas. People debate how to do scouting well because we're all passionate about it, and being passionate about doin' right by kids is a good thing. Enjoy the young ones in your life this week. We'll no doubt return to debatin' da various ways to use BOR at a later date!

 

Beavah

[FScouter]

I post to clarify misinformation, counter incorrect facts, and in this case to defend against straw man arguments directed against other forum members.

[Beavah]

And I post still to wish yeh a Merry Christmas, and a blessed Feast of Stephen.

 

Joyous Noel!

 

B

[acco40]

Requirement: Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used.

 

I have done this. I have also screwed up tying a bowline. I've tied one handed (around the waist ) bowlines. I struggle with that. I'm a "rabbit & tree" guy. I can tie a bowline rather quickly but when asked to tie it around something, I struggle.

 

So, if I were a Scout would you sign off on my requirement (1st Class, req 8) if I took a single rope, tied a bowline knot and described several ways it could be used? I would hope so.

 

Later on, there is absolutely nothing wrong if during a BOR for 1st Class, if a Committee member threw a piece of rope to a Scout and asked him to tie a bowline right then and there. The issue is how the board would use the "result" of what the Scout could or could not do. If used as evidence on how the program is operating - no issue. If used as information to pass or not pass the Scout for advancement, that would be incorrect.

 

Again, the actual ability to tie a knot is not the prime purpose of Scouting. We shouldn't forget that.

[Beavah]

Yah, knots are often a poor example, because they're so easy, and for some troops they aren't that important, eh? But I think we should care about whether the lads learn skills, like first aid and cooking and buddy system and all that. Those are important things to learn. Education and learning are the prime purposes of scouting according to the Rules & Regulations. A First Class scout who might be leading a patrol has to really know those things in order to be safe without direct adult supervision. Dat's why a BoR is supposed to look at those things, eh?

 

So let's try cooking...

 

1) A Scout Learns. In his patrol, he should get a lot of practice cooking and cleaning, eh? Breakfast, dinner, first as an assistant and then as a cook and then planning single meals. Then buying, then planning a whole weekend. By the time he's ready for the "test" for First Class cooking requirements, he's had practice planning and cooking meals for several weekends in different conditions and different times of year. He's really learned how to plan and buy meals on his own.

2) A Scout is Tested. His PL gives him the job of planning, buying, and serving has head chef for this month's Klondike. He does it all on his own, ASM Beaver checks out the menu for nutrition and it's solid, the food is safely stored, the cooking is excellent. The lad gets signed off.

3) A Scout is Reviewed. At the BOR several months later, the board asks the lad what he would plan for a spring car campin' trip. Because he really learned all this stuff, he immediately whips off some suggestions, explains about nutrition and how he would store the stuff. Even makes some suggestions about da best way to use the Dutch Oven in the rain... even though he hasn't been on an outing for three months because of hockey season. The Board is impressed, and moves on to asking him about his experiences and encouragin' him to find a POR to start workin' toward Star.

4) A Scout is Recognized. He gets his badge that night, and called out at da next BOR.

 

That's da way it should be, eh? But sometimes, a lad falls through the cracks, so here's how it plays:

 

1) A Scout Learns. Billy has helped with cooking once or twice, but has missed some campouts. His PL assigns him to do food for da Klondike, but mom helps with the shopping. Even so, breakfast is just pop tarts. Still, nobody starves.

2) A Scout is Tested. Billy comes to ASM Beaver at the meeting a few weeks later askin' for a sign off on the FC cooking requirements. He tells ASM that he did da meals for the Klondike. ASM takes him at his word and signs off.

3) A Scout is Reviewed. The BOR asks da same question about planning a weekend's meals. The lad fumbles and stumbles. He doesn't offer a nutritious breakfast, he doesn't have any idea about shopping, he's not clear about food storage. BOR concludes that despite the sign off, he really hasn't learned. They ask him about his experiences, and he talks about how his patrol mates were mad at him for poptarts on da Klondike, and he wishes he would have done better. Because learning is da prime purpose of Scouting, and because they want the lad to be proficient so that his patrol will be safe on patrol outings with him as an up and coming leader, and because they want to see him be proud of his accomplishments, they congratulate him on what he's done so far and tell him that they want him to practice cooking and meal planning some more. They offer encouragement and support, and set up a time for a new BoR after a few months.

4) A Scout is Recognized. Billy works hard over a few months, and his cookin' improves markedly. He goes shopping with ASM Beaver, and becomes confident shopping on his own. He goes to da next BOR and knocks their socks off, and the Board awards him his badge. Billy learns what it really means to work hard and be successful, and carries that in to his POR work for Star.

 

That's da BSA program. The BoR is not retesting, but the Board is asking questions about the learning of skills to make sure they have been learned, and doin' it in a way that encourages the boy. The board feels just like a regular, non-advancement BOR, which the boy would have experience with.

 

Now, maybe, if da board is seein' a lot of lads who are weak in cooking, they come back at the SM and let him or her know that they're seeing a spot where the program needs some attention. Until then, it's all about the boy.

 

Beavah

[acco40]

Beavah, I have no issue with your scenario but my experience has been ...

 

1) A Scout Learns. Billy has helped with cooking once or twice, but has missed some campouts. His PL assigns him to do food for da Klondike, but mom helps with the shopping. Even so, breakfast is just pop tarts. Still, nobody starves.

 

2) A Scout is Tested. Billy comes to ASM Beaver at the meeting a few weeks later askin' for a sign off on the FC cooking requirements. He tells ASM that he did da meals for the Klondike. ASM takes him at his word and signs off.

 

3) A Scout is Reviewed. The BOR asks da same question about planning a weekend's meals. The lad fumbles and stumbles. He doesn't offer a nutritious breakfast, he doesn't have any idea about shopping, he's not clear about food storage. BOR concludes that despite the sign off, he really hasn't learned. They ask him about his experiences, and he talks about how his patrol mates were mad at him for poptarts on da Klondike, and he wishes he would have done better. Because learning is da prime purpose of Scouting, and because they want the lad to be proficient so that his patrol will be safe on patrol outings with him as an up and coming leader, and because they want to see him be proud of his accomplishments, they congratulate him on what he's done so far and tell him that they want him to practice cooking and meal planning some more. They offer encouragement and support, and set up a time for a new BoR after a few months.

 

4) Billy's mother get's wind of the BoR's actions and angrily states that her Billy can "out cook and out shop" Johnny and the BoR passed Johnny. Why are they picking on my son?, she asks the Scoutmaster. She then starts spouting off about once a requirement is signed off the Board can't add additional requirements, the Board can't test, I'm going to council, yadda yadda yadda.

 

I guess I've dealt with enough #4s to feel that sometimes it is just not worth it and think a better approach would be to pass Billy but inform the Scoutmaster & SA Beaver (it's always the Beavers isn't it? ) about possibly raising the bar on that requirement - not adding to it, but being more thorough. Also, keep an eye on Billy during all future outings and mentor him more (or better yet have his PL, Instructor, etc.) on the subject.

[OldGreyEagle]

So I am to assumme that I never said

 

"is that at the point of being signed off the boy has demonstrated the skill once, in that easy controlled environment."

 

I never said you sign the boy off if he does the skill "once" not did I ever say anything about an "easy controlled environment"

 

Moving on and not addressing a topic is the same as admitting it, so thats the story here folks rephrase another poster's comments to fit what you want it to and then continue on with the thread as if what you rephrased is true and people will believe

[FScouter]

That's da BSA program. The BoR is not retesting, but the Board is asking questions about the learning of skills to make sure they have been learned, and doin' it in a way that encourages the boy ...

Now, maybe, if da board is seein' a lot of lads who are weak in cooking, they come back at the SM and let him or her know that they're seeing a spot where the program needs some attention.

 

Well it heartening to see that dah Beavah is coming around to the BSA way of thinking. The board of review certainly does have an element of troop program review as the BSA publications tell us, and a few words with the Scoutmaster can lead to ASM Beaver being reminded that testing is more than just dropping a signature in the boys book.

[Beavah]

Well it heartening to see that dah Beavah is coming around to the BSA way of thinking

 

The Beavah's been describing the BSA way from the very beginning, FScouter. Sorry yeh haven't recognized the BSA program, but there's training and printed materials yeh can take to fix that .

 

Acco40, I hear yeh on the tangles of dealing with da helicopter parent. Sometimes yeh do what yeh have to do to make it work with the personalities yeh get dealt. It's an interesting tradeoff, since if yeh hold the line on the earlier ranks and junior becomes successful, yeh save yourself even worse grief come Eagle time.

 

Plus, it's a public service to teachers and coaches and band directors in the rest of the lad's life to help him cut the apron strings and ground da helicopter.

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

Kudos and congrats to dah Beavah for reading and now agreeing with the BSA references posted by OGE and Acco40 and moosetracker earlier in this thread. We can all learn a thing or two eh? Welcome to the sunny side of the street!

[Kudu]

The original "Purpose of a Board of Review" was to stamp out any traces of Baden-Powell's Patrol System that had been established in the United States prior to 1910, and replace them with the BSA's first bogus "Leadership" theory: "The Six Principles of Boy Work."

 

In a nutshell, the Six Principles boil down to:

 

Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader...The activities of the patrol should not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader...

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/index.htm

 

This idea that a bunch of parents can run a Troop better than the Patrol Leaders is now called "Adult Association."

 

As I understand it, the basic idea behind Adult Association is that without sanctions like Boards of Review, Scoutmaster Conferences, POR Requirements, and of course the ultimate wild card, the right to judge a Scout's "Spirit," Boy Scouts would never talk to adults.

 

Hand in glove with Adult Association is the toxic policy of "No Retesting."

 

Like Boards of Review, the purpose of "No Retesting" is to stamp out the heart of Baden-Powell's Patrol System, the principle of "Current Proficiency."

 

"No Retesting" is what gives artificial importance to this thread's wrestling over the seemingly subtle nuances of the official "Purposes of a Board of Review."

 

Otherwise if a Boy Scout had cheated his way past, say, a first aid requirement, then we could at least formally catch it the next time the Red Cross recertifies his First Aid badge (every twelve months).

 

No Retesting is the real meaning of "Once an Eagle, Always an Eagle:" A former Boy Scout's "values" (opinions) are more important than his ability to cook over a fire, or save a life.

 

If a grown man wants to claim that he is still an Eagle, then he should be held to Baden-Powell's standard for King's Scout:

 

432 (2) He must be repassed in all his qualifying badges once between twelve and eighteen months from the date of his being awarded the badge... He must cease to wear the King's Scout badge should he fail in any of them.

 

acco40 writes:

 

Again, the actual ability to tie a knot is not the prime purpose of Scouting. We shouldn't forget that.

 

Maybe we should forget that, Acco

 

According to the Congressional Charter "the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, [and] to train them in scoutcraft" are two of the three "Purposes" of Scouting.

 

Our official "values" ("patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues") are only one of the three "prime purposes" of Scouting, and note that "self-reliance" is one of the three specified virtues.

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/bsa_federal_charter.htm

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

 

[Beavah]

Kudos and congrats to dah Beavah for reading and now agreeing with the BSA references posted by OGE and Acco40 and moosetracker earlier in this thread.

 

I was always just fine with da references, FScouter. Just as I'm sure you were fine with all of my references on all those pages. What I was suggesting was that yeh have to read all of da BSA materials, and understand 'em in context. In that way I disagreed with moosetracker and others in their interpretation of the complete scouting program, based on my experience. And in moose's case I wasn't disagreeing with her, as it turned out, just with what she remembered a bunch of other folks told her. Besides, it's a discussion, eh? It's OK to argue and disagree.

 

But yeh haven't yet shared what you feel, eh? Surely yeh can tell us what your troop does and how it thinks about these things? What your personal experiences have been with da challenges of implementing these program features? Whether yeh feel da cooking examples I gave above reflect what you do in your troop or how you'd handle those differently in your program? Do you use BoRs as program audits/evaluations rather than Journey to Excellence? I thought SR540 had a great question: when do yeh choose to "test" in your troop? Right after the boy has been taught? Do yeh build in a delay for practice? Do yeh wait until a PL says the lad is ready? What do yeh think about Kudu's notion that the BoR is all an adult-run hijack of da traditional scouting program (the same point Eagledad made in the original thread)?

 

Instead of talkin' about individual posters, why don't yeh take some time to share some scouting thoughts and ideas? This has been an interesting discussion. Yeh should join it.

 

Beavah

 

[boomerscout]

"2) A Scout is Tested. Billy comes to ASM Beaver at the meeting a few weeks later askin' for a sign off on the FC cooking requirements. He tells ASM that he did da meals for the Klondike. ASM takes him at his word and signs off."

If this happens, it is the ASM that messed up since no testing took place. The ASM needed to understand the Klondike was one of Billy's practice sessions; he needs to inform Billy of the time & conditions for the test, who will judge it (PL of a different patrol is always good - prevents inbreeding; the "foreign" PL will visit for the day)

Other than that, we retest all the time by having the rank candidate teach the skill to the newer Scouts or perform that activity unassisted on the next few camps. The PL/APL is supposed to keep track of when the tenth troop outing approaches (5th for 2nd class)so the candidate can make ready for testing.

We don't use BOR to review Scoutcraft; that's kind of an insult to the various troop instructors. Scoutcraft is reviewed on various outings anyway; everyone gets a chance whether they want to or not. We view BOR as a continuing test of character; we look for an experienced, more mature view of the Oath & Law, what he has gotten from Scouting in general, how have his views changed. We also ask for his "customer" feedback on the troop, and on the BSA in general. If we don't meet the needs of our customers, then what are we doing?