Is it Once and Done?

[Beavah]

Similarly for skills ... explain hiking skills and what to do when lost does not require mastery that lasts a life time. It's explain. Yes, one time.

 

Seemed like this discussion still had legs, and it was gettin' mixed up with tryin' to help trainerlady in da other thread (not to mention da more important consideration of the ban on pirates, Arrrh! )

 

Fred8033 keeps tryin' to make da same point as what he writes above, and claims that it's just "marketing" puffery that Eagle Scout has any meaning or value in terms of character, leadership, or skill.

 

I say that a Scout is Trustworthy, and that when we tell parents and da community that ranks like Eagle Scout actually mean something that has merit for employment or college admission, it's not just marketing puffery, it's what we're really trying to accomplish and what we really intend the rank to signify.

 

So I believe that when we teach a Tenderfoot what to do when lost, we actually want him to know what to do when lost. Because we're taking him into the woods where sometimes life happens, and he might actually need that skill for health and safety. Like our scouts in NH earlier this month did. To tell him, and his parents, and da community at large that he merits an award for knowing what to do when lost when in fact he does not have that skill is subtracting from da requirements, and it not only is a poor and improper use of da program, it puts the boy's safety at risk.

 

I say this because we agreed in the Rules and Regulations that education is the primary purpose of the advancement program, and that awards in Boy Scouting are based on proficiency in skills. We are instructed that advancement is only a method to help achieve our educational goals, and that we must interpret G2A and all other program materials in such a way as to harmonize with our fundamental educational mission. We acknowledge that proper use of da advancement method begins with A Scout Learns, and takes as long as he needs to in order to really learn, and only then is he tested.

 

It is not "mean" to expect a boy to actually know what to do when lost, it is the actual Scouting program. Boys don't "fail" in Scouting, but there is a stretch where they are not yet proficient in their skills, and therefore do not yet merit recognition for those skills.

 

Da BSA advancement method can be boiled down to this: we publicly recognize boys for developing proficiency, because it encourages boys to develop skills and proficiency. In the end, we hope they will value learning and hard work and proficiency even without recognition, not seek recognition without truly developing proficiency. That's what character and honor means.

 

What says da group?

 

Beavah

[OldGreyEagle]

I always thought that when a scout got signed off on a skill it meant he had the skill. If he knows how to tie a bowline, and we as the adults say he can tie a bowline then he can tie a bowline. No, Ughh I forgot that one auuhhhhh

 

Then again, it is incumbent on the unit to assue the scout has ample opportunity to use that skill. If he doesnt use it, he loses it so its never once and done

[John-in-KC]

For me, the issue is parallel completion of basic skills. You cook for the patrol once, wham, bam, all your cooking requirements are done.

 

I remember learning to cook in the field. It took me a while to get it right. In fact, the de facto standard was the Patrol had to eat my cooking and, if not like it, at least not out and out reject it, or get the trots from it.

 

Yes, my Troop used car camping ... with old fashioned canvas Baker tents ... a lot back in 1968-72 or so. We also backpacked. I was capable by 14 of living in a "house on my back" to quote Colin Fletcher, I was capable of bivuoacing at a site for a week.

 

I'm not saying our methods today are better or worse: I like the structure in the advancement plan for S-L-E. A kid who makes first class will almost certainly get Star 4 months later. That's a retention advantage and a motivator. I'm just saying the methods 40 years ago were different, and we might want to look at what worked right in that day, what worked wrong, and what we can use again!

[fred8033]

Beavah, I appreciate your creative interpretion of what I'm saying. It educational to have someone tell me what I mean.

 

Yes Eagle Scout is a statement of character, leadership and skill. But it's achieved thru all eight methods of scouting. Not one. Ideals. Patrol method. Outdoors. Advancement. Assocation with adults. Personal growth. Leadership development. Uniform. They stand together to achieve that marketing puffery.

 

From the previous chain, I have several issues with what was being discussed.

 

ISSUE #1 The scout is accountable to the BSA published requirements. No more. No less. If the requirement says "Explain" and the scout can clearly explain what to do when lost, he should be signed off and that requirement is completed. If you think the explanation is insufficient, communicate that, ask him to go work with an experienced scout and come back when he's ready.

 

But it is not acceptable to make him wait weeks to be tested. It's not acceptable to require him to be on N number of hiking trips to build enough proficiency. The requirement is as BSA published it --> Explain.

 

It is made proficient and made a personal learned skill through the full use of all the scouting methods. Don't use advancement to do that when the requirements don't require it.

 

IMHO, it's mean because it's telling a scout he's unprepared / failed / insufficient when he's completed the BSA published expectations.

 

 

ISSUE #2 If it's signed off, it's signed off. We don't undo merit badges. We don't undo ranks. Why undo completed requirements? If an authorized person signs off on the rank requirement it's complete. If the scout didn't complete the requirement, correct the authorized person and find a way through the troop program to get the scout the learning he deserved.

 

To get it to stick, the troop program should have opportunities to regularly reinforce those skills for the whole duration of the scout being in scouts. It's the same reason we say the oath and law before each meeting and not just as part of the tenderfoot rank requirements.

 

 

ISSUE #3 It is not the job of the SM at the SMC to pass/fail scouts or send them away if he doesn't think they have mastered some set of skills. Each individual requirement is signed off by someone authorized. Once signed off, it's signed off. The example in the thread was the SMC that failed the scout for not knowing the parts of the scout badge when it had already been signed off by an authorized person.

 

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[trainerlady]

I think OGE has it right. If you don't get a chance to use it you lose it.If you live in the great white north as we do your bicycle gets hung in the garage for 4-6 months over the winter. The first ride in the spring is usually pretty shakey and maybe has a fall or two. It doesn't mean that you are a poor bike rider it means you're out of practice and will get you groove back with some practice.

 

In my son's case he know the required items cold when they were signed off, but there was no practice offered within the troop given their warped way of doing things. So one year later when tested on it he falters, and fails an SMC. Even if you "can't fail an SMC", getting told to come back next week and try again is seen as failure in the eyes of an 11 old.

 

As someone with an advanced degree in movement science, and sportsmedicine I can tell you without a doubt that muscle memory declines rapidly without regular re-enforcement that practice gives. The same holds true for brain memories. Processes used everyday have premenance (talking, writing, simple math, etc), those that aren't used fade over time (advanced math, an used foreign language, a favorite song from your childhood,etc). It isn't a fair assessment of one's skills to expect what was once a flawless skill to stay such over time when there has been no practice or need for that skill over long periods of time.

 

To put it in another line of thinking. Most of us have taken CPR training at one point in time. Your skills a few days after class were probably very good, you passed the class right. Unless you need to do CPR regularly your memory of the skill fades over time. Six months out from class you could probably pull it off, but not as well as in the days after class. A year or 2 out from your class you may or may not remember all the steps, and may or may not get them in the right order and you may/may not give adequate compressions. You give the best care you can if the need ever arises and you know in your heart that you did what you could. It was better than standing there panicking. But you were certified and competent a year or 2 ago, you just got rusty from not using it. Not a bad thing, a fact of life actually. That's why all major CPR agencies require re-certifiaction after 2 years.

 

The same thing happens with scouting skills.

[IM_Kathy]

in the years I've been working with scouts I have found that the boys who retain the basic skills the best are the boys that attend most campouts and volunteer (or agree when asked) to help teach those skills to a younger scout.

 

my son is used a lot in teaching skills... at one time he was a den chief and the boys that crossed over were further along than some that came from another pack. He's since held just about every position, but his favorite is Quartermaster as he hates how some boys don't put things where they belong and then no one can find anything. Plus during the beginning of the school year he is in Debate which has meets the same night as our troop does, so he can't do a position that requires him to be at most meetings that time of year, but he can still perform his job with attending the couple he can and then attending the campouts.

 

I work a lot with the T-2-1 boys... and because of this I've learned which boys are better at certain skills and when it comes to teaching a new group of boys I will ask those boys to teach.

[Beavah]

Beavah, I appreciate your creative interpretion of what I'm saying. It educational to have someone tell me what I mean.

 

Only too happy to be of service.

 

We all agree that Advancement is just a Method, eh? It works for some lads, not as well for others. But in order for it to work even for some lads, it's important to understand how or why it works to achieve our goals.

 

Boys like to be recognized, eh? They appreciate being recognized by adults, but even more than that they want to be recognized by their peers. Advancement takes this desire for recognition and uses it as a way to motivate effort toward learning and personal growth.

 

Da thing of it is, boys have a very finely honed sense of "real" vs. "fake", eh? They know from personal experience with their peers which of their peers can be trusted with dinner, or with setting a tent up in the dark, or with managing a water sport. It's that peer recognition which they crave. So da Advancement Method works best when earning the awards aligns with recognition by their peers and fellow scouts. Boys don't care a lick about "signoffs" and paperwork. That's an adult game they only play grudgingly and with reluctance.

 

The real BSA Advancement Method is smart, almost inspired. It takes da practical and adventurous things boys care about and turns 'em into a tangible thing that can be strived for. It teaches 'em it's worth the effort to work hard and become proficient at things, to really behave honorably and earn da recognition of others for genuine skill. It helps him engage more fully with da other seven methods as he works toward a goal. That's what's behind all the words I and others have been quotin' from the Rules and Regulations and the program materials over decades of development into the present. It's how the BSA program is designed to work.

 

Turnin' it into a once-and-done exercise in lawyering da meaning of "explain" or the validity of a signoff as a contract turns it into an adult make-work exercise of little value to youth. Yeh can try it, but the results yeh get in terms of growth and character development in youth will be substantially weaker. Better just to drop da Advancement Method from your program and use the other seven well.

 

If yeh find, though, that boys in your program for some reason are not "retaining" their knowledge, that is a sign that they never learned it in the first place. Instead, what yeh did was conduct a "class" where yeh felt that because the boy was "told" something and regurgitated a piece of it, he actually learned. Yeh were just fooling yourself. Being a good adult leader means puttin' in more effort than that, eh? Yeh can solve that by actually puttin' in the effort, or by convincing yourself that all the BSA really wants is "once and done" and actually expecting lads to have learned somethin' is "adding to the requirements".

 

Beavah

 

 

[Venividi]

Quote from Fred: If you don't like the standards, talk to BSA.

 

Perhaps I am going out on a limb, but I assume that Fred would agree that his statement above applies to all BSA's docs, including the new GTA, and would therefore support it.

 

 

GTA: [The first step in Advancement]: The Scout Learns

He learns by doing, and as he learns, he grows in his ability to do his part as a member of the patrol and troop. As he develops knowledge and skill, he is asked to teach others; and in this way he learns and develops leadership.

 

So why discount the learning component of the advancement method, when BSA went to so much trouble to document such? The entire description of the first step of advancement belies the once-and-done approach - the scout learns by doing and by teaching. According to this, requirements should only be signed off after a scout has learned, not after he has done a requirement once.

 

GTA: 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.

 

Why take the opposite position that a badge is a reward for what a scout has done (i.e., requirement is done once and checked off), and discount the specific statement that a badge is recognition for what the scout is able to do?

 

GTA: Unit Advancement Responsibilities: Work with the unit leader and help to support

and facilitate his or her vision for advancement.

 

The GTA acknowledges that a unit leader should have a vision, and that the unit's advancement committee is to support it. Does any unit truely have a leader whose vision for advancement is to create scouts that are not proficient in scouting skills?

 

GTA: It [advancement] is a means toward accomplishing the Boy Scouts of America mission. It is not an end in itself. When as advancement administratorsboth volunteer and professionalwe recognize this, we can expect success. To see it otherwise is to indicate we have forgotten our purpose.

 

Lets not forget our purpose.(This message has been edited by venividi)

[fred8033]

You know I finally realized what I'm stating is exactly what GTA is saying.

 

GTA 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.

 

Every one of the rank requirements is an action and a reflection of capability that has been learned. You can debate if it sticks or not. That's a reflection of the troop program reinforcing the skills. But the point is the scout demonstrated, explained, participated, repeated or another action exactly as BSA wrote. Those are exactly a reflection of what the scout can do and how he's grown.

 

The key is GTA also says no retesting and no adding requirements. You can dance all you want about the honor of learning, but there is an honesty and duty in presenting the BSA program as BSA wrote it. Testing a scout at a SMC after an authorized person observed the requirement fulfilled is wrong. Telling the scout to come back and do it again three months later is wrong as it's adding to the requirements.

 

I agree youth have a high sense of right and wrong; fair and unfair; achievements and empty recognition. But then again, that's a matter of effective teaching. The difference is asking the scout to drink a cool aid that's not described in his scout handbook or the BSA advancement requirements.

 

...

 

The title of this thread is "Is it Once and Done". GTA says explicitly no retesting and no adding requirements. So yes, it is once and done ... at least for advancement. But you can use patrol method, outdoor program, adult association, ... to reinforce the rank skills. Hopefully your troop program does that continually so as to produce a strong skilled scout.

 

...

 

I think it all comes down to a fundamental attitude. I've sat in district committee meetings for years now where the district chair said how proud he was that our district advancement committee did such a great job defending the Eagle brand. Another responded another time that scouting is producing just too many Eagle scouts today and that it should be more special. Another responded recently to the new GTA saying it was yet another watering down of the Eagle rank and then complained that if they reject an Eagle candidate it will just be overturned by council or national.

 

Thank God for our DEs and the other committee members. I always wonder if they know that not everyone has the same interpretation. That sometimes people just sit and smile and then move on.

 

It comes down to is your primary purpose to support the scout or support the legend of scouting. If your supporting the scout (what we signed up for), why aren't debates like this decided in the favor of the scout. "ahhhh... but if we send him back he'll feel the inner integrity and honor of having truely earned it." What total hogwash, eh.

[Beavah]

If your supporting the scout (what we signed up for), why aren't debates like this decided in the favor of the scout.

 

But yeh see, fred8033, when yeh tell a lad that he needs to be proficient and hold him to that, yeh are deciding in favor of the scout. You're doin' the hard work of actually pushing, cajoling, and inspiring the lad to do what he is fully capable of, and at the same time helpin' the other lads see what a First Class scout or Life Scout or Eagle Scout really is, and why it's cool and valuable.

 

Da notion that "deciding in favor of the scout" means always giving him the award is shallow. I'd almost say juvenile, except that most juveniles would never buy into it. Even da most spoiled of youth don't really buy into da adult "entitlement" thing.

 

To understand and properly apply da BSA program, yeh have to start with da Rules & Regulations that yeh agreed to, and then read all of the program documents in their proper context and with consideration for the outcomes we want for youth, as an organization. Sorry, but yeh just get it wrong when yeh try to base the whole method on two isolated phrases "don't add to requirements" and "don't retest". Those are qualifiers and guidance, not core principles. And quite frankly, if yeh award lads who have not really achieved proficiency, yeh have clearly subtracted from da requirements of the BSA. That's da far more common error these days.

 

I get that yeh have had issues with a few of your DAC folks. We all view things through the lenses of our own personal experience. I think perhaps your lenses have gotten a bit too fogged up by da real or perceived problems in your own district.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle92]

Sorry Fred, but you are wrong. A person does not sign off on something just because they do it one time. GTA even states that "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." emphasis mine.

 

You do not sign it off after they just learn it. You let them use the skill some and practice. you give them time for them to get comfortable with the skill before signing off.

 

Then once it is signed off, THEN they need to keep using it and teach others.(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[JoeBob]

I'm bemused by the whole argument.

 

Scout skills are not 'once and done' in traditional, old time, scouting.

Important Scout skills should be CUMULATIVE.

Can anyone argue practically why not?

 

30 years ago this discussion would have been booted down to Daisy Scouts (appologies to the ladies).

 

This is what happens when you let a bunch of management consultants write your leadership courses. You get a bunch of techniques for dodging responsibility, and filling out paperwork.

 

Regarding the Eagle scout lost in NH: he was once and done. When those parents trusted their children to a former Eagle leader, they expected to have someone who could find their way out of a paper bag looking out for their kids. I think BSA failed them dramatically by selling cheap Eagle Scout badges to get BSA numbers up.

[desertrat77]

Slowly, but steadily, the indoor managerial aspect of scouting has impacted the outdoor program. And not for the better.

 

In decades past, there were leaders who gravitated towards paperwork and meetings. Other scouters avoided all that as much as they could, and were at home in the outdoors. Each party more or less coexisted, paying a grudging respect for the other's necessary role in scouting. A few were good at both.

 

Somewhere along the line, I think the indoor folks got tired of being upstaged by the outdoors folks. So the reduced focus on outdoors and adventure was reflected in scout advancement requirements, and woodbadge as well. No more embarrassment for the folks not so good at sharpening an axe, who hated sleeping in the outdoors, or smelling like campfire smoke....

 

Blend this with the misbegotten notion that "everyone is a winner because we don't dare harm their self esteem" along with chasing stats, and you've got a watered down program that isn't appealing to anyone--except the folks that like paperwork and being indoors.

 

The scouts? They can handle the challenges of the old style program. It was the BSA's winning formula, and it was shelved because the majority of the SCOUTERs weren't up for the challenge.....

 

 

[qwazse]

I think Kathy nailed it.

Not only does a scout learn, a scout teaches.

 

We teach our PLs to find out what their boys need for their next rank, build a program around it, and teach the skills for it.

 

We have our scout-ranks/tenderfoots teaching newbies the parts of the badge.

 

Second class scouts teach basic knots and let the tenderfoots know who they can talk to about rights and responsibilities.

 

First class scouts demonstrate line rescues and arrange hikes.

 

Now we don't intentionally make every SMC a review session, but if a boy can't show he knows a skill, we send him back to the books. (Since I don't teach EDGE, our boys know that learning a skill starts with reading a reference.) We don't delete his signature. We won't take away his 2nd class rank. But we aren't going to worry about a week's delay. We don't give him a pass because that just insults his intelligence.

[Oak Tree]

I think I'm with Fred on this one.

 

A boy feels like if he meets the letter of the requirement, he should get it signed off.

 

Now, the problem is, the letter of the requirement doesn't generally match the spirit of the requirement. The spirit is that a boy really knows how to tie a bowline and will remember how to do it in a week or a month - that is, he's committed it to long-term memory. But that is not how it is written.

 

As far as requirement sign-off goes, I think yes, it is, "once and done". If the requirement is an important one to the everyday operation of the troop, then the boy will keep getting practice at the skill and will retain it. If it's not important, then he won't.

 

This is primarily an issue for those people who have their own expectation of what a "First Class Scout" is, or what it means to be an "Eagle Scout".

 

I'd be fine with tougher standards, but I'd want them to be written out.