When do you test?

[Beavah]

I also don't see anything that requires one to be proficient in a skill to get a sign off.

 

Yeh should read da Rules & Regulations of the BSA then, eh?!

 

I think we also want kids to be proficient because that's what allows us to let da kids run patrol outings safely. Yeh can't let a patrol go on a day hike unless they really are proficient at (2nd class) navigation. If a lad isn't proficient at what to do when lost and the buddy system (Tenderfoot), it's not goin' to be safe trusting 'em on their own. Yeh can't allow a boy who can't light da stove safely (2nd Class) camp unsupervised 300 feet away. And goodness knows First Aid skills are useless if they're not proficient.

 

I'm with Eagledad on this, eh? If by First Class Scout or Eagle Scout or a sign off we don't mean that a boy is proficient at certain skills, what's the point? In that case a badge is just like one of those "participation awards" every kid has a deskful of. "I was there" rather than "I can do".

 

Yep, in order to become proficient at somethin', yeh really have to use da skills in real circumstances. That's why we EDGE, eh? It takes a lot of time on that final "E" before a lad has learned. They have to use the knot, spend time on the stove burning pancakes and figurin' out Dutch ovens, really navigating on trails. That's part of EDGE - part of the "A Scout Learns" step to advancement which happens before testing or sign off, not after.

 

It also makes sign offs lest test-like, eh? Because yeh just watch the lad cook or navigate or set up the patrol dining fly using da right knots well, and when he's proficient yeh sign off. No extra test required.

 

Now, if he gets the sign off this week but can't perform down the road, yeh have to look both at why the program didn't give him enough practice during da Guide And Enable steps, and why he got a bogus sign off that told him he was proficient when he really wasn't. It wasn't fair to the lad to give him poor feedback like that, when he should have been coached and encouraged to practice more. Yeh have to fix both things.

 

Beavah's

[CalicoPenn]

The Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America describe proficiency as a general principle, not as a requirement.

 

Howver, it also says that there shall be four steps in Boy Scout advancement procedure: learning, testing, reviewing and recognition. So I suppose that does mean "we need steenkin tests".

 

Or does it? Maybe it gets down to semantics. What is testing? What do people think of when they see the word test? I've stated I think of rigorous skills testing and pen and paper exams as tests. On the other hand, my letting the Scout show off his skills while listening and observing is just a different form of a test?

 

 

And what about proficiency? As i've said, it's a principle, but not a requirement - and I suspect the reason it isn't a requirement is because the BSA doesn't want to define what qualifies as proficient. So what say us? What if proficiency wasn't a principle, but was a requirement? What is proficient?

 

In cooking, you can create meals that meet nutritional needs just by boiling water. You can make oatmeal, boiled eggs, pasta, veggies, all kinds of food, just by boiling water. You can meet the cooking requirements simply by planning a menu based around meals that just require boiling water. But does the ability to boil water and cook food in boiling water really meet a definition of proficiency in cooking? I don't think so - but the requirement was met. Should I not sign off on the requirement because the work doesn't meet my definition of proficiency in cooking?

[OldGreyEagle]

awhile ago the troop took a trip up to lake placid in the winter. We watched the guys (not our troop guys, other guys) going off the Ski jump. The next guy up would stand and the gate and sometimes they would race right down and other times they would almost sit on the edge, like a bird on a perch and then almost imperceptively lean forward and slide down. Afterard we caught up to a few and I asked why the differing styles especially since its wasnt like a personal style, a guy who would start right down one time would sit still for awhile the next time.

 

The guy said it "depends" on the wind, the air, the conditions, the inner calm or lack thereof the skier. The intonation of the coach, who was next in line, etc, Then in all seriousness he said it depends on the gestalt.

 

I think that sums it up, when do you test? It depends on the gestalt and that will be different based on so many different things

[Beavah]

Should I not sign off on the requirement because the work doesn't meet my definition of proficiency in cooking?

 

Yes, of course you should not sign off. Because yeh want the lad to actually learn and be independent, able to be a full member of a patrol that can operate without you being around. So if the lad hasn't achieved that yet, yeh have to keep helping him and encouragin' him until he does.

 

Da thing is, I think CalicoPenn is right overall, eh? Having seen a lot of troops, I think each troop really does have different notions of what constitutes proficiency. That's OK in my book, to a point. A troop that is focused on lightweight backpackin' and equipped with nuthin' but JetBoil stoves might consider what Calico describes as being perfectly proficient cooking, while a troop that does primarily car camping with lots of Dutch Oven meals would expect somethin' different.

 

I do think what happens fairly often in troops, though, is that I see general program weakness. In an adult-run unit, it's easy to define "proficiency" for signoffs as being "what a kid needs to be able to do with a bunch of competent adults hovering about" - which means "nothing.". As Kudu keeps sayin' with his 300 feet bit, if you're goin' to trust boys to be on their own without direct adult supervision, then proficiency in outdoor skills is necessary. It's necessary for patrol members and especially for leaders, so that's where yeh have to set your proficiency. Now, a car-camping troop might set da expectations a bit differently than a backpacking troop, but both will be fairly solid.

 

But if you're an adult-run or troop-method unit, then real proficiency in outdoor skills isn't necessary for the boys, eh? So you're free to sign off outdoor skills at indoor meetings, shortly after Explain and Demonstrate, but without much (or any) time for da Guide and Enable steps so that the lad actually develops real experience. Those are da cases where I think people aren't using da program well, eh?

 

I'm sorta with OGE, there's a certain gestalt to proficiency, which is easy to recognize when yeh see it. I can tell when a lad is ready for Canoeing MB just by watchin' 'em paddle. It doesn't need a separate test, though sometimes I'll set that up for fun. But just like those snowboarder fellows, there is also a standard of proficiency, as judged by instructors and peers, eh? If yeh can't really ride da rail, or make da grab on the half-pipe, you're just a poser in everybody's eyes. Doesn't matter if somebody signed a piece of paper, everyone knows yeh can't keep up with your peers, and you do too.

 

To avoid that, I think yeh need to have a lot of time for guiding and enabling, eh? A lot of time for the lad to practice the skill and use da skill in the real world, on his own. So if yeh put the testing/sign off on the same night, or same week, or even same month as when yeh taught him the very first time, it's probably too quick.

 

Beavah

[SeattlePioneer]

For a lot of Scouters who usually talk with pride about their boy led troops, I see a lot of talk about how adfult leaders are imposing their standards on what gets signed off.

 

I repeat my earlier question:

 

What do YOUR SCOUTS sign off as completing a requirement? And frankly, if you say they sign off requirements when they meet your standards of proficiency, I'd say it's doubtful that you have a boy led troop.

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, SP, good point, eh?

 

In my experience, da scouts are universally "harder" than the adults, eh? When yeh put a scout on a BOR, they want it to be tough and to mean something. When yeh let a PL test, he's really goin' to expect the boy to be able to cook. Da youth tend to be the most critical of boys they feel earned "paper" advancement.

 

That having been said, boys will almost always follow da "culture" of the troop which is set ultimately by the adults. So if a lad is workin' at a camp where the norm is to be very lax about things, they'll be very lax about things. They don't "like" that, IMO, in that it doesn't make 'em happy or proud, so they'll do other things for fun, hang out and goof off more,etc. But they will follow da adult lead.

 

That's why in my experience da real youth led troops have higher expectations for proficiency. Yeh need it for da youth to be independent. In turn the kids recognize, value, and are proud of it, and then they expect it of each other.

 

Problem in some high functioning youth run units is da boys just forget about testing, eh? They just get into the fun, independence, and gettin' good at stuff that they forget about testing or advancement ( especially the adult-style bookwork requirements). In a lot of ways, advancement itself is an adult run thing. Like uniforming. Kids don't think that way unless pushed to by adults.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle92]

SP,

Again a great question. In response, my troop allowed PLC to sign of on T-2-1 only. So the standard I stated was used as a youth, is the one I use now today with scouts.

 

Now to be honest, with the exception of MBs, I've only signed a BSHB 2 times in the past 7 years, and that was for BORs I sat on.