Introducing the Guide to Advancement

[bnelon44]

Beavah,

 

Star in 2 years isn't new after all. From the old Advancement Committee Policies and Proceedures:

 

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.

 

[perdidochas]

Scouts seem to make First Class in about 18 months in our troop (First Class in First year is our goal, but hasn't happened with a boy yet, although a new boy is getting close. He did through Second Class in 6 months (quickest of the previous year's Scouts took a year to do Second Class)). First Class in 18 months seems reasonable to me. My oldest did that, and will probably do Star in 4 months. He just has one merit badge left, and time in rank in a POR for Star. He just got elected patrol leader about a week after getting First Class.

[John-in-KC]

TECHNICAL WARNING:

 

Firefox stopped me from going direct to the secure website of yousendit.com. There are certificate errors:

 

1) The certificate is self-signed

 

2) The certificate was not issued by a verified issuing authority.

 

GO TO THIS WEBSITE AT THE RISK OF YOUR OWN PC!

 

 

YIS

[bnelon44]

From a friend who had input into the new guidebook:

 

"We believe it is a responsibility of a troop to establish programs that will retain youthcall it deliver the promise, or what have you. Topic 4.2.1.0 ties in advancement: Well-delivered programming will take boys to First Class in their first year of membership. Advancement is a simple matter when the four steps or stages outlined below are observed and integrated into troop programming. Since we are convinced that advancement is one of the key contributors to retention, then we should expect that units would consider it when planning program. Were all about fun learning experiences, right? So why not plan fun learning experiences that also contribute to advancement? Taking kids to First Class in a yearwith this approachis a reasonable accomplishment; its done all the time. Many Scouts will get a few merit badges at summer camp during that first year, so by the time they make FC theyre already on the way to Star. It then becomes a matter of planning for positions of responsibility, putting Scouts together with merit badge counselors, and then picking up a few more MBs at the second year of summer camp. Again, with planning, thats not onerous."

 

Also note: 3.0.0.3 states: The following responsibilities are not all-inclusive, but typical.

 

And as I have mentioned before: This is an Advancement Guidebook, not a Scoutmaster Handbook. The full program is covered in the Scoutmaster Handbook.

[Eagle92]

CUB SCOUT SIDE OF THINGS AGAIN (caps for warning)

 

While Cub Scout 2010 did in fact move advancements to the meetings, all supporting literature: the handbooks, leaders manuals, etc, still state that parents can sign off in the books and it get recorded.

 

But it sounds as if the new books wants only that stuff that the new den planning book says is to be done at home. And I can tell you that A) not every den is using hte book and B) Some den leaders are adamant about not using the new program b/c when they did the FASTTRAX version of it, it didn't work and the Cubs were not having fun.

[bnelon44]

Is the currently outlined program the same as FASTTRAX ?

[Twocubdad]

All due respect to your friend, Bill, but I disagree that well delivered programming naturally produces First Class Scouts in a year.

 

Take the FC cooking requirement. In a new Scout patrol of 8 or 10 boys, for everyone to complete FC in a year, someone will have to attempt FC cooking at least by the second campout. So when did they learn to cook? Have they had an opportunity to experience a number of different camp menus, or do they cook something they already know from home? With everyone focused on FC cooking, when did they complete the second class cooking requirements? Of course you can split the patrol and have two or three cooks on the same weekend, but that's not really the requirement. And what does that do for patrol teamwork? That's not advancement resulting from activity, it's activities being adapted to advancement. It's an adult jumping in and figuring out a cooking schedule so that everyone has a turn before next January rather than the boys stepping up and volunteering to serve as patrol cook when they feel they're ready.

 

I believe a well delivered program allows all boys the opportunity to grow and develop regardless of the level at which they begin. Back to the cooking example -- a Scout who is a great cook and accustomed to cooking at home, jumps in and serves as patrol cook right after crossover. Now what? He doesn't have the opportunity to serve as cook again until the rest of the patrol finishes FC cooking. Sure, he can help teach the other guys, but HE doesn't have another opportunity to show his stuff for a year.

 

I've written about it any number of times, but over the past couple years we've been working to EXTEND the time our Scouts take to get to First Class to something approaching 18 or 24 months. As a new SM, I took the training and was a big proponent of the new scout patrol system and FY/FC. But now having finally completed a full cycle of scouting (meaning I've worked with a class of boys from crossover to age 18) I think FY/FC is a bad idea.

 

I do not believe FY/FC helps retention, in fact just the opposite. Encouraging boys to earn FC in one year then Star, Life and Eagle a year each removes one of the great motivators we have for retaining older Scouts -- ADVANCEMENT! Clearly, many boys are motivated by the challenge of advancement and goal of reaching Eagle. Making Eagle is one less incentive for remaining in the program. And I believe boys who are that focused on advancement early-on probably don't take the time to develop interests in other areas of the program which may sustain their interest through high school.

 

So what's the rush? My ever-evolving philosophy is Scouting is an experience and experience requires time. It's not a process or product, and certainly not a check list.

 

I saw a t-shirt recently that said if you're going to drink all day, you have to start in the morning. If we want boys to slow down and experience the trail not just the destination, they need to start at Tenderfoot. You can't push boys through FC or Star in a year or two then expect them to slow and enjoy the Scout experience.

 

Adding First Year First Class as a "responisbility" of the unit is misplaced. It should be one program option which may be emphasized or not, depending on the needs of the Scouts and the philosophy of the unit leaders and chartered organization.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Beavah]

Since we are convinced that advancement is one of the key contributors to retention, then we should expect that units would consider it when planning program.

 

Yah, this is da fundamental error that we made back in 1990, eh? Confusin' correlation with causation. You'd think after 20 years of declining membership through FCFY and kids learnin' statistics earlier in school that someone by now would have figured it out. Nope. We're still makin' da same mistake.

 

Which really makes more sense? Advancement causes retention... Or retention leads to advancement? Does focusing on advancement really cause kids to stick around? In that case, we should create 12 ranks instead of 6, and hand out patches as fast as we can. Or does havin' a good program cause kids to stick around and engage more deeply, and kids who stick around and engage more deeply also advance? If the latter is true, we shouldn't be worried a lick about the pace of advancement, we should instead be lookin' at the depth of the program.

 

This sort of error happens because da national folks get driven by "numbers" in odd ways. They have advancement reports, not reports of unit activity level, quality, variety, youth satisfaction, etc. And so they latch on to da numbers they have and come to conclusions that nobody workin' with kids would ever accept as bein' sensible.

 

It's like da No Child Left Behind thing. Test scores are a measure of learning, sure, but just focusin' on improvin' da test score doesn't get yeh a thing. Da easiest way to improve the test score is to dumb down the test, cheat, or teach to the test. None of those things improve learning. Same with advancement.

 

Far better if national would start emphasizing patrol method, number of outings per year, and variety and quality of outings. For troop Journey to Excellence Bronze level, yeh have to do at least one backpack trip during the year, hiking and camping by patrol along different routes; one water trip a year, paddling or sailing in patrol groups for at least two consecutive days; and one deep-winter outdoors campout, again by patrol and a goodly ways away from da cars. For silver level, even more, includin' a bike trek and a shooting sports day or what have yeh. That would push program, and push councils and districts into supportin' a variety of program opportunities and resources to help troops that can't put such things together on their own. You'd see retention, and gradual, at-their-own-pace, fun advancement to boot.

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44]

One advantage that the National Committee has that we don't is visibility of the total program numbers. They can see if units who have an active advancement program retain Scouts or not. We have our own experiences with out own units and limited visibility of other near by units. The rest, I think, is guessing and opinion on our part.

[bnelon44]

Patrol size should be 6-8, not 8-10. Patrols should be camping monthly. (that is the program element people here are talking about) So that gives a Scout 12 opportunities to serve as patrol cook.

Trying to get your Scouts to 1st Class in 1 year will force you to have more program, not less.

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[moosetracker]

bnelon - the 12 months is only if you are plop camping all 12 months.. It is hard to be the patrol cook on a backpack trip.. It also means counting the trips out that the boy cooked up burnt pancakes and not fully cooked chicken.. Doesn't matter that you failed as a cook.. you were patrol cook, so you get a gold star!!

 

And then some monthly events are not camping.. You are to have a monthly outing, so sometimes it is a day long bike trip, or day long canoe trip, or whatever..

 

Of course your right, units with poor program are even worse off trying to deliver the advancement.. My once great troop that has fallen on bad times can't.. Last year after complaints by parents and boys that they couldn't meet the advancement due to the lack of the troop going camping.. They set up a camping evening in the backyard of the Charter Organization and somehow justified signing off 5 scouts as being the patrol cook for that one evening meal..

 

Nope, bad units are bad units and forcing the expectation of advancement to first class in one year on these units does not improve their program.

[SMT224]

From what I've read so far, this seems like good guidance.

 

However, I just got to jump in here with the misguided 1st in the 1st year BS. My experience over the past 12 years as a Scoutmaster is that a rank a year works just fine. If a Scout make more progress that's just fine, but an obsessive focus on rank advancement cheapens the experience of Scouting IMHO. We have a very active Troop, 30 Scouts now who go camping almost every month of the year. The vast majority of them make it to Eagle. And if they make Tenderfoot during their first year, all is good. Some make it to Second Class, but 1st Class? No, it really take a few years of experience and maturation to make a good 1st Class Scout. What's the hurry anyway?

[shortridge]

They can see if units who have an active advancement program retain Scouts or not.

 

I really doubt if National's statistics allow the decisionmakers this kind of close look, given the horror stories we've heard about screwed-up council records.

[Twocubdad]

I'm having flash backs to 10-year-old debates with Bob White.

 

I had a long post ready to go but moose and SMT224 summed my experience and how our troop operats rather well.

 

And I think Beavah pretty well nailed the arguement regarding national's statistics. Before the financial industry screwed us the last time (remember the S&L crisis?) I was in marketing. The old guy I worked for summed things up well -- a long chat with your best customer is worth a room full of MBAs and computer printouts. In other words, don't discount the anecdotal data. It represents real-life experience.

 

[Eagle92]

BNELON,

 

As a former pro who has dealt with records, I can tell you that I never see anything related to a unit's program. The closest thing would be the old quality unit reports, and they didn't deal with program, but numbers.

 

Now I am going to do some guessing since I was a Scout having fun when FCFY came out in 1989, but based upon my expereince since then all the national folks did was use stats from recharters to come up with the data.

 

That said, anecdotally via looking at units in the districts I've been in, those units that have an active program tend to keep the Scouts longer. Those units that focus on advancement, tend to get large numbers of Eagles, and then they drop out of Scouting, not keeping them active. Those units with poor programs tend to lose scouts. And of course those units that have an active program, may or may not have scouts getting FC in a year, but the scouts tend to be a little bit more knowledgeable, and tend to stick with the program, even if Eagle is no longer possible due to time requirements. Again that's my anecdotal expereince.

 

EDITED: In regards to FASTRAX and the current Den and pack meeting book, I was told both by folks who used FASTRAX, as well as form postings that they about 90% identical. One change for the better is that you are no longer obligated to use the format in the exact format it is presented, you can adapt it and move meetings around.(This message has been edited by Eagle92)