Introducing the Guide to Advancement

[fred8033]

"Some lazy adult just pencil-whipped a requirement." ... "Pejorative." ... Yeah, I was thinking that too. The quoted "mastered" only appears in a magazine blowing air into scout achievements. I always fear when marketing hype is taken too seriously by some mean spirited adult that remembers his white-washed youth with fuzzy bifocals. Sorry, I was just too lazy to find a nicer way to say it.

 

The word mastered never appears in the GTA. It only appears in the ACPP when talking about parents signing off on Bobcat requirements. What does appear in the GTA is the explicit discussion of no re-testing. Also, a discussion of "Once It Is Earned, Its Earned". That's about MB, but it's also written in other words about other requirements.

 

If you want scouts to "master" skills, take them camping every month. Take them to district camporees that have competitive skills testing. Have patrol competitions. That's how they learn mastery.

 

Advancement is a tool, not a certification.

[Eagle92]

If you want scouts to "master" skills, take them camping every month. Take them to district camporees that have competitive skills testing. Have patrol competitions. That's how they learn mastery.

 

Darn tootin you're right. I'd also add having the older scouts teach the scouts.

 

[Venividi]

And we've come full circle. Perhaps even gone around the circle several times. Put energy into a challenging and exiting program, so the boys have a need to learn the skills needed to survive in the woods by themselves, and you and up with scouts with those skills, and oh-by-the-way, scouts that are wearing a first class patch, or have the skills if they are internally motivated rather than externally motivated.

 

Sure beats the other way, with a focus on advancement driven once and done.

 

Sure is like that suntan, which you can get by having fun in the outdoors, or by sleeping in the backyard or in a tanning bed. The good thing is, we as adult scouters, get to choose which we think is more beneficial to the the boys that parents have entrusted us with. I may disagree with the choice that some make, but then, they disagree with me as well.

[Beavah]

"Some lazy adult just pencil-whipped a requirement." ... "Pejorative." ... Yeah, I was thinking that too.

 

Yah, well, maybe . Just tryin' to push people to think a bit, eh?

 

The quoted "mastered" only appears in a magazine blowing air into scout achievements.

 

True, but the quoted "proficiency in outdoor skills" appears in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America which we all agreed to follow. I think "proficient" is da right term, eh? Not quite mastery, but definitely solid skills.

 

I always fear when marketing hype is taken too seriously by some mean spirited adult that remembers his white-washed youth with fuzzy bifocals. Sorry, I was just too lazy to find a nicer way to say it.

 

Yah, I think we have to get over da notion that folks who want kids to learn are mean-spirited. To my way of thinking, folks that just give kids candy all the time because they don't want to be "mean" are really the ones who do enormous harm to children. Yah, sure, there's a time and place for a bit of candy, but it's as an occasional treat, not as a matter of policy.

 

Put energy into a challenging and exiting program, so the boys have a need to learn the skills needed to survive in the woods by themselves

 

Yah, sure, I agree with this and am an advocate for it, but only to a point. In a lot of troops, yeh see a lot of adult-run stuff designed to give boys exciting entertainment, but never really to push 'em to develop necessary skills or values. Lots of outfitters are geared this way too, eh? Provide da exciting and fun guide-run raft ride down the whitewater river, where really the guide is doin' all the work in da back of the boat and for the most part the clients are just sittin' there air-paddling. Oh, yah, and there's a safety lecture at the start. Too many troops believe that because they gave the lecture and ran the exciting tourist trip that that's the same thing as actually makin' the boys work and learn, and deserves da signoff.

 

It isn't. As a friend of mine says, we're not about givin' the boys experiences. We're about helpin' 'em become experienced. That requires an active program, but it requires an active program with a certain kind of vision and action. Not all "activity" is equal.

 

Beavah

[fred8033]

"Yah, I think we have to get over da notion that folks who want kids to learn are mean-spirited."

 

Generic logic like that has been used for thousands of years to justify treating kids badly. The right logic to use is "what is the requirement" and "did the scout fulfill the requirement".

 

It's mean spirited to demean a scout's (or scouter's) accomplishment just because it's not up to your personal standards. He's graded against the BSA standards, not yours. And it's not candy to give a scout his due. If you don't like the standards, talk to BSA. Don't knock the scout or his volunteer leaders.

 

 

"True, but the quoted "proficiency in outdoor skills" appears in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America which we all agreed to follow. I think "proficient" is da right term, eh? Not quite mastery, but definitely solid skills. "

 

That's not in the current GTA, but it is in the previous ACPP under rules and regulations. And even there it's not the "shall" (i.e. the requirement) and is more a general statement than something that can be directly applied.

 

But it does say right before it. "The rank requirements in these phases of the Scouting program, as set forth in the official publications, shall furnish the basis of the activities of the unit." So if the rank requirement says "demonstrate" or "discuss", it means "demonstrate" or "discuss" and not mastery or proficiency. The only requirement close to a proficiency requirement is in the swimmers test (75 yards in a strong manor, etc.) and even that I would not call "mastery" or "proficiency". I'd call that not drowning.

 

The key is the previous sentence in the ACPP rules and regulations. "A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boys progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit." And the "BSA" rank requirements reflect that. Help with. Participate in. Complete a.... Demonstrate. Discuss. Identify. Advancement just means that at some point in time you knew how to tie a bowline.

 

Mastery and life-long skills are established through program activities both before and after achieving rank and demonstrating the skills.

 

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Every time I read the requirements for the various ranks, I never see the words Mastery or Proficiency. Sure, the rules and regulations says something about proficiency, but where in the requirements that a Boy reads does it mention proficiency, or mastery? A Scout demonstrates a skill as required and is dinged because he isn't showing proficiency at it a month later?

 

"Gee Mr. Scoutmaster, the requirement say's demonstrate, I demonstrated and passed back then, why aren't I getting rank?"

 

"Because, Bobby Scout, the rules and regulations says you have to show proficiency and you haven't"

 

"Golly, Mr. Scoutmaster, are those rules in my Boy Scout Handbook"?

 

"Why no, Bobby Scout, they aren't - they're in a binder at Council office"

 

"Well golly gee whiz, Mr. Scoutmaster, are there any other secret rules and regulations I need to know about?"

 

Through 9th grade, most boys see the world in very distinct shades of black and white, and have a high sense of justice - being told there are requirements they have to meet that aren't in their Boy Scout Handbook and aren't common knowledge really turns them off.

 

So the question becomes what is more important, following the requirements in the Boy Scout Handbook, or relying on some rule about proficiency in the rules and regulations. Heck, we can't get people to agree on what the rule that says don't add to, subtract from or alter the requirements means, let alone follow it, and now we need to make sure they follow some rule about proficicency, and who is going to define that term anyway?

 

Should First Class Scouts show a mastery of certain outdoor skills? Sure - I think all of us would agree - but the mastery comes from a program that gives the Scout plenty of time to practice, and thus master, the skills they've learned and demonstrated for rank. If they are't showing mastery, it's not because they were "pencil-whipped" into rank, it's because the unit's program is lacking in opportunities.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and require mastery and proficiency - and I'll go ahead and define it. As of right now, mastery and proficiency in knot tying, lashing and rope whipping is hereby decreed to mean that a Scout can do all of the required knots/lashings/whippings behind their back while blindfolded in a raging thunderstorm while standing on a floating dock in the middle of a wind-whipped lake.

 

What, you don't like that? It's not fair? Surely it shows mastery and proficiency, right (and if not, why not?). If you have a weaker definition of mastery and proficiency, then is it ok to say any Scouts that go through your program are just pencil-whipped through?

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Every time I read the requirements for the various ranks, I never see the words Mastery or Proficiency. Sure, the rules and regulations says something about proficiency, but where in the requirements that a Boy reads does it mention proficiency, or mastery? A Scout demonstrates a skill as required and is dinged because he isn't showing proficiency at it a month later?

 

"Gee Mr. Scoutmaster, the requirement say's demonstrate, I demonstrated and passed back then, why aren't I getting rank?"

 

"Because, Bobby Scout, the rules and regulations says you have to show proficiency and you haven't"

 

"Golly, Mr. Scoutmaster, are those rules in my Boy Scout Handbook"?

 

"Why no, Bobby Scout, they aren't - they're in a binder at Council office"

 

"Well golly gee whiz, Mr. Scoutmaster, are there any other secret rules and regulations I need to know about?"

 

Through 9th grade, most boys see the world in very distinct shades of black and white, and have a high sense of justice - being told there are requirements they have to meet that aren't in their Boy Scout Handbook and aren't common knowledge really turns them off.

 

So the question becomes what is more important, following the requirements in the Boy Scout Handbook, or relying on some rule about proficiency in the rules and regulations. Heck, we can't get people to agree on what the rule that says don't add to, subtract from or alter the requirements means, let alone follow it, and now we need to make sure they follow some rule about proficicency, and who is going to define that term anyway?

 

Should First Class Scouts show a mastery of certain outdoor skills? Sure - I think all of us would agree - but the mastery comes from a program that gives the Scout plenty of time to practice, and thus master, the skills they've learned and demonstrated for rank. If they are't showing mastery, it's not because they were "pencil-whipped" into rank, it's because the unit's program is lacking in opportunities.

 

But for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and require mastery and proficiency - and I'll go ahead and define it. As of right now, mastery and proficiency in knot tying, lashing and rope whipping is hereby decreed to mean that a Scout can do all of the required knots/lashings/whippings behind their back while blindfolded in a raging thunderstorm while standing on a floating dock in the middle of a wind-whipped lake.

 

What, you don't like that? It's not fair? Surely it shows mastery and proficiency, right (and if not, why not?). If you have a weaker definition of mastery and proficiency, then is it ok to say any Scouts that go through your program are just pencil-whipped through?

 

 

[Beavah]

Generic logic like that has been used for thousands of years to justify treating kids badly....And it's not candy to give a scout his due.

 

Yah, yah. Kids are entitled to awards and recognition by others. It is their due to have other people applaud and give 'em things, regardless of whether or not they have actually learned anything, or have any skill, or have demonstrated da character and values that we care about. That is the Scouting Way.

 

NOT.

 

Da Rules & Regulations are the official BSA Policy document, fred8033. The old ACP&P put excerpts in for informational purposes, but the full thing is still there and in force. The difference between da Rules & Regulations and the G2A is like the difference between a state law and the promotional pamphlet yeh get at the information booth at the state capitol. One is a rule, the other is just a program material.

 

I reckon there's a point to the BSA Rules & Regulations opening the section on Advancement with da statement that education is our primary purpose, eh? And that's the basis for advancement.

 

As our colleagues in New Hampshire demonstrated, when we don't live up to that we put the safety of kids at risk, because they go into the field not really knowing the thing that they were "signed off on" 6 months ago.

 

When a lad is confronted with a drowning victim and goes to do a rescue, then that failure on our part to really make sure the boy has learned puts the boy's life at risk.

 

When we tell colleges, employers, and the community at large that an Eagle Scout has meaning in terms of character and ability, but we don't actually assess the lads on character and ability, then we are stealing from other kids who may not be selected because someone valued the Eagle Scout on da resume, and we damage da reputation of the program.

 

I get where that this "don't be mean", "he did his best" stuff is a product of da Cub Scout program, and some Cub Scouters and parents have a hard time with the transition to Boy Scouting, just like da transition to middle school expectations can be rocky for 'em as well. I'm sympathetic. But it's just not da best Boy Scouting.

 

Should First Class Scouts show a mastery of certain outdoor skills? Sure - I think all of us would agree - but the mastery comes from a program that gives the Scout plenty of time to practice, and thus master, the skills they've learned and demonstrated for rank.

 

Yep, exactly. And they should not be given the rank until they've had plenty of time to participate in the program, practice and master those skills. The award recognizes what a scout is able to do.

 

If a unit program isn't providin' those opportunities, then da solution is not to give the lad an award anyways. That's what I mean by "pencil whipping". It's to improve da program and to give the lad more time to learn and to practice. It takes time and effort to learn things, and often some degree of "push" or challenge. Be an adult, and push and challenge.

 

Yah, each unit can define "proficiency" for itself, but I reckon in honesty most would be pretty close. A boy who gets signed off as being able to plan, purchase, store, and cook a weekend's meals for his patrol should be able to do that, in whatever conditions are common for the region. So a PL should be able to call up a First Class scout and delegate the weekend's food to him, and the lad should be able to handle it, with nutritious and tasty results. A boy who gets signed off on da taut line hitch should be able to set up the patrol's dining fly or rig a clothes line or whatnot when asked. And yah, sure, if da troop arrives in camp in the dark and rain, then he should be able to do it in the dark and rain. A lad who is signed off on recognizing poison ivy should be able to recognize it whenever he comes across it, and a boy who is signed off for first aid for cuts should be able to perform first aid for cuts. Yep, even if he hasn't seen a cut in 3 months.

 

A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a scout is able to do.

 

Beavah

 

[fred8033]

"I get where that this "don't be mean", "he did his best" stuff is a product of da Cub Scout program, and some Cub Scouters and parents have a hard time with the transition to Boy Scouting, ..."

 

There you go again. "product of da cub scout program" is a way to dismiss valid points by blowing hot air.

 

 

"Yah, yah. Kids are entitled to awards and recognition by others." It's not their entitlement. It's an earned result of completing requirements as published by BSA. If you don't like the requirements, take it out on BSA. Don't take it out on the scout or other scouters. That's the mean part.

 

"A boy who gets signed off on da taut line hitch should be able to set up the patrol's dining fly or rig a clothes line or whatnot when asked."

 

Taut line is a fine example. If they can demonstrate it and explain the use, sign off on the requirement. It would be great if there's a rain fly to put up to use as demonstration of capability. But if not, we make do and support the scout. they should not be given the rank until they've had plenty of time to participate in the program, practice and master those skills. is just wrong. You might personally want that, but that's not the BSA rank requirement.

 

 

 

"A boy who gets signed off as being able to plan, purchase, store, and cook a weekend's meals for his patrol should be able to do that, in whatever conditions are common for the region. So a PL should be able to call up a First Class scout and delegate the weekend's food to him, and the lad should be able to handle it, with nutritious and tasty results." There you go again. You've drank the marketing hype cool-aid. The requirements are "help plan" not to plan by himself. Nothing says tasty. Nothing says "whatever conditions". Though the program goal is what your describing, the advancement requirements are just one tool in the basket to teach those skills.

 

 

"A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a scout is able to do." No. You're thinking of a Norman Rockwell painting and marketing brochures. The rank recognizes completion of requirements as published by BSA. No more. No less.

[Venividi]

I see a distinct difference in view points here between those looking at the letter of a requirement when viewed seperately from the overall program (i.e., do it once is what the requirement is), and those that are looking at the spirit of the requirement in the context of the overall aims and mission (i.e., what is the program trying to acomplish.)

 

One can paint all sorts of imaginary conversations between a SM and a scout where the SM is a hard hearted SOB, and therefore draw the conclusion that the best alternative is to have low expectations and ignore the learning component. Gotta tell ya, I haven't seen a SM like that being described by Calico. I caring SM would be more likely to have a friendly conversation with the scout providing encouragement; not being harsh, nor being a pushover. A caring SM sometimes says no.

 

There is a video clip in the SM training about advancement that shows a patrol working on a requirement. The PL is shown checking the scouts' results. Most of the scouts are signed off, but one scout that has clearly completed the bandage, though not to the satisfaction of his patrol leader, is told that he still had more practicing to do. The scout is obviously disappointed, but he hasn't met his units expectations. So even the SM training class provides support for having reasonable standards rather than a once and done approach.

 

In the 11th addition of the BS Handbook on page 14 is this statement: "Scouting provides many oportunities for you to learn skills and take part in terrific adventures. The [bSA] will recognize your achievements by awarding badges of rank." Thus BSA explicitly tells the boys that badges of rank are tied to learning skills. So why the animosity toward units that implement a program that supports this? (I leave it to others to look at the current edition of the handbook to see if BSA has severed the relationship between learning and the advancement program.)

 

I repeat once again that if a unit believes that once-and-done is equivalent to learning, (i.e. that if a scout completes a requirement on a campout, he has still learned it even if he can't remember how to do it a month later because there is no requirment to retain knowledge), and is the right way to approach advancement for their unit, no one is going to pull their charter. But don't insist that other units must do it that way when their reasonable standards are clearly supported by scouting program material.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

[Venividi]

> "A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a scout is able to do." No. You're thinking of a >Norman Rockwell painting and marketing brochures. The rank recognizes completion of requirements as published by BSA. No more. No less.

 

The rebutal statement above really puzzles me, since the words in quotation marks are equivalent to "A badge is recognition of what a young person is able to do, not merely a reward for what he or she has done." (which is Bolded text on page 3 of Advancement Committee Guide Policies and Procedures, 2004 printing.)

[Eagle92]

Fred,

 

The standard in Cub Scout is for the Cub Scout to do their best. Beav is not doing anything but stating the rule. And yes Cub Scout leaders who move up DO have a hard time adjusting to Boy Scouts and the new standards. I've seen it when I was an ASM. Heck I was talking to two CS leaders today who could not understand how a SM could let his scouts be 300' away "unsupervised." I tried to tell them that the scouts need to do things on their own, letting older scouts help them out, and the adults are in the background for safety and guidance if needed. These two trained CS leaders could not comprehend that.

 

"What about new scouts who just joined and don't have those skills?" Well you put them in a patrol with those scouts who do so that they teach him.

 

'But how do they show things to the adults to sign off?" Well In my troop and in others, PLs and older scouts signed off on the T-2-1 ranks, and adults signed off on S-L-e.

 

"What if they don't know anybody in the troop?" That's what the meetings are for, as well as teaching skills.

 

And sometimes the former CS leaders keep applying CS methods to the Boy Scout Program.

 

Also in regard to ranks

 

(b) In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, (emphasis mine)and career exploration. p 75 G2A.

 

I do not think "one and done," show proficiency.

[Eagle92]

Fred,

 

The quote A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do; it is not a reward for what he has done. is also on p23 of the 2009 printing of the ACPP.

 

Now we all know the G2A replaces the ACPP. So here is what the G2A says

 

It is important thus, to remember that in the end, a badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much a reward for what he

has done. ( bold emphasis is mine) p 19

 

and

 

A badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much, a reward for what he has done. p 45.

 

So if a Boy Scout is not proficient with doing something, I am not going sign off the requirements. Nor would I encourage any jr. leaders to sign off a requirement until the scout is proficient.

 

An aside about these skills. Did you hear about the NASA astronaut who fixed a problem in orbit using the square lashing he learned as a scout? I believe the shuttle's arm broke, and he stated he could use a square lasing to fix it. NASA engineers then spent the next three days trying to figure out how they could fix it to the maximum benefit using equipment on the shuttle. The result: the engineers said that a square lashing would be the best thing to secure the problem with.

 

Or how about the service member, I believe a Marine, who's sent overseas to Afghanistan, and the unit is having problems with the tents. Apparently several of the plastic pieces to adjust the guy lines broke. He fixes the problem by using the taunt-line hitch, and is then told to teach every member of his unit how to do that knot.

 

Proficiency.

[qwazse]

I think each year a good program should provide multiple opportunities for a boy to exercise every T-2-1 requirement.

 

In this age of velcro and ratchet straps, I'm never surprised when a boy forgets how to tie a sheep-shank. But, when he can't re-learn it quickly by going to the book, that's a problem.

 

If a boy shows continued ineptitude with knots, I don't want him advancing. Why? Because his patrol can't count on him to pull it together (literally) when they need him to. He is, by definition, not a First Class Scout.

[trainerlady]

A bit if background before I launch into my questions on this subject. We chose our current troop based on my sons friends heading there (their parents liked the program), it was on a good night of the week for us, and its leaders were very well trained (several WBers), and the CC and SM sit on district committee for MBC chair and advancement chair. Two gentlemen I respected a lot.

 

So what happens to the kid whose troop doesn't give him the opportunity to practice his basic T-2-1 skills multiple times each year? Our troop is all about MB classes during meetings (I don't even want to go there right now), no patrol games, no patrol meetings and definitely no advanced scouts teaching younger scouts except when needed for advancement, its webelos III. T-2-1 skills are taught onceby adult and signed off by an ASM or SM when the scout shows him/her their work. We camp regularly, do community service, but the kids don't use a lot of the T-2-1 stuff during these outings. Then months later the candidate is expected to complete mastery of the skill for his scoutmaster conference/interrogation.

 

Son had his SMC tonight for first class and was failed because he couldn't remember the parts of the first class badge. He was told to go look it up and come back, by the time his turn rolled around again it was the end of the meeting. Come back next week. I admit bear mom came out tonight. I just went to ASM training and had it drilled into me that SMCs aren't tests. So I asked the SM and CC why they retest signed off requirements when the literature (I was holding the SM handbook and the Scout handbook) say otherwise. SM and CC (the former SM) saw nothing wrong with making SMCs into interrogations. They told me this was their last chance to insure the that the scouts knew what they were signed off on. Its the way we have always done it. So does years of wrongs make it right?

 

Son and I (especially me) are so disillusioned right now we don't know if this is something we want to keep doing. I don't want to switch troops at least not right now. I don't want to show son the if you have a problem here you can fix it by leaving and going somewhere else philosophy. I want to show him that you can fix a problem by standing up for what is right.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, sorry if this post is off the topic a bit but it seemed (to me at least) to fit in here based on the way the discussion has been going.