Is it time to just shoot FCFY in da head?

[Eagledad]

I think the results of the FCFY program are more complicated than saying National is encouraging more priority of advancement.

 

National added the FCFY in, I think, 1989 because they found from polling data that scouts who earned 1st class in the first year tended to stay in the program for at least three years. Sounds logical I guess, but Im convinced they misread the data. What they should have read from the data is that scouts in a quality program want to be involved for several years because it appeals to scouts of all troop ages. In other words, the program is so much fun that scouts stay involved for several years.

 

If one could find the data, they would find that the BSA has struggled with first year losses long time, maybe since beginning of the program. It is in fact the largest loss of scouts of all the other ages. It took our own troop about six years to shape our program so that we didnt loose first year scouts. But as we constantly developed the first year program, we also constantly reviewed and change the rest of the program as well. After about five years, we had a pretty solid program where 40% of the scouts were 14 and older. We had a program that scouts enjoyed for several years. But we didnt start out that way. We lost over 50% of our new scouts for the first three years.

 

A lower quality program where scouts dont hang around long dont stay long enough for scouts to get their FC in two years much less one. By simple math, a lower quality program could never show a high number of FCFY scouts because only the scouts who like what ever program existed (Leaders kids?) stayed long enough to earn the FCFY.

 

The other part that I personally think complicated the FCFY issue is over 50% of scout leaders today never had a youth experience in scouting. Adults with no experience have to rely on training to guide the program. Women were allowed into the program in 1989, so when the FCFY program started, it still had some balance of leaders who had some scouting experience as a youth to guide the way they shaped the goals of their troop program. Adults who dont have that experience have to rely more on what National tells them the goals should be and how they should get to those goals. It is obvious to Eagle92 and I what the goals are and how to get to those goals because we have been there and done that. But what about folks like Lisabob and adult males who werent in scouts. Now I know that Lisabob has a very good sense of what a quality program looks like, but from my experience, that is not typical for inexperience adults (male or female).

 

WE should ask ourselves, if an adult doesnt have a clue, how should we explain the advancmement method. Actually I think Lisabob did a pretty good job of that in the other thread.

 

And its not a good or bad adult thing, adults by their very nature look for ways to know that they are performing well in what ever we do. So its natural for us who want to do a really good job and have no other frame of reference to see that FCFY gives us a good achievement number to prove that we are performing our duties well. I have found that these same adults tend to change their goals if they hang around for a few years because they start to see what works and doesnt work.

 

National uses the FCFY program to give adults a short term goal. But, my problem with it is not just the advancement issue, FCFY also encoruages aged based patrols, which in my experience does not work well in developing a quality boy run program. I don't think National really cares because I've heard more than once that an aged base program is Nationals long range plan.

 

Sorry this is long.

 

Barry

 

[moosetracker]

Jay, Maybe you have found a way to do FCFY well, (I can see it working if you mix the younger scouts in with older boys rather then setting them up in their own patrol, because then the older ones can help, and it is only a few boys in each patrol needing to do the camp cooking, site selection.. So they can have a couple of rounds each in a year if needing some repeat lessons.)

 

The problem is most troop can not or do not.. So why do you need the rule to continue to do what you are doing.. Isn't it better to remove the rule, and encorage the poor troop programs with something different that throws light onto improving their program, not just their advancement?

[KC9DDI]

Eagle92 -

 

When FCFY came out in 1989, the rationale behind it was that research showed that those scouts who achieved FC within 1 year of becoming a Boy Scout tended to remain in scouting

 

That's also what heard, but I thought that the rationale behind the poor retention was due to a weak program, and/or not providing positive re-enforcement and recognition of the boys' early accomplishments in the Boy Scout program. I have no official source for that, but I guess it makes sense as a plausible explanation.

 

But I think it's a theory that only works if you recognize the Scouts for actually achieving the rank - not just passing out patches based on some kind of arbitrary schedule.

 

SP -

 

I know it's popular to bash National for being too concerned with numbers... but there's also nothing wrong with trying to strengthen retention in Scouting by promoting a quality program. FCFY may not be the best way to do that, but I think it's at least a step in the right direction. Currently, my biggest gripe is that (at least in my council), the focus is getting 1st graders signed up for Cub Scouts, with no interest shown in keeping them in Cubs and Boy Scouts long term. So FCFY is obviously not a perfect solution, but it's at least an attempt to address an area where we seem to loose a lot of Scouts.

 

To take a step back- Say a parent with a new Scout in your troop, who has no experience with the Advancement program, were to ask you about how long it takes to earn the various ranks. He or she isn't trying to get a philosophical "well, it depends on how motivated... yada..."-type answer, he's just trying to get a general idea of whether it takes a weekend or takes a year to earn a rank. Would it be fair to say something like, "Well, if your son is active with the troop and takes it seriously, most of our Scouts get to First Class in about a year or so"?

[OldGreyEagle]

So there is no link to the BSA particulars about First Class First Year First CLass Emphasis, our opinions are based on what we think and what we hear and we have nothing official to hang our hats on?

 

Should it take a year to learn to tie the 6 basic knots? How long has the bowline been required? That an Eagle cannot tie a bowline is not because he got First Class in a Year, its because he never saw fit to actually learn it or had the chance to use it. That is not National's fault, or a fault with FCFY its a unit thing. We jumped on Basement Deweller when he wanted rules for Boy Scouts in the Back country because what good is a rule if no one follows the ones we have. First CLass First Year is only worth as much as we adult unit leaders make it. If you want to kill it because its too confusing, I may actually agree with you. But its the local units that sign off requirments, not National

[vol_scouter]

The problem is that national did not understand the data correctly. So they found that Scouts who got to First Class in one year stayed in Scouts longer. They thought that achieving the rank was the reason for hte retention. That is not the likely reason. the more likely correct interpretation is that the boys who achieved First Class in one year were the most interested and self moivated boys. They were going to stay in the program because their goal was to become an Eagle Scout. The boys who were taking a long time achieving first Class were more likely to be less interested. Cheapening the requirements by not requiring some degree of mastery of the skills has gotten boys to First Class faster but did not improve retention rates because earning the rank was not the reason those boys were staying in the program. I favor going back to earning the ranks sequentially, i.e. working only on the requirements of a single rank at a time. We should expect some mastery of the requirements and make the ranks mean more. Pride in what the boys are doing will more affect the retention rate in a positive way than moving boys through the ranks quickly.

[Beavah]

Yah, perhaps some review from an old fellow may help a bit. Da other old fellows can jump in too.

 

It was my understanding that FCFY was originally introduced to address two concerns:

 

There were a bunch of thoughts at the time, but they came down to this. In da 1990 program materials revision, they again departed from old Green Bar Bill in a few ways.

 

First, there was a notion that mixing ages of boys in a patrol led to bullying, and so there was a move toward NSP and youth leaders were removed from Boards of Review. Now, of course, yeh then needed something for the NSP to do, eh? So the thought was to just try to run a year-long Brownsea program. That got patterned after Webelos, with an ASM/Den Leader and a TG/Den Chief.

 

There were also data that suggested 1) most boys who drop out of Boy Scouting drop out in the first year, and 2) most boys who achieve First Class stay in scouting for 3 more years. From this, da conclusion was if we use da NSP to get boys to first class in the first year, we will "solve" the dropout problem.

 

Most of us recognized da "correlation is not causation" problem at the time, and after 20 years of FCFY da results are that most boys still drop out in the first year, boys who make First Class stay in a bit less long, and overall membership is down. We gave it 20 years, eh? It was a failed experiment.

 

I think FCFY originated from the idea that the T-2-1 requirements were developed in such a way that, on average, motivated Scouts in units with quality program could earn the rank within their first year

 

This is certainly not true. Da basics of First Class rank were developed decades before FCFY, and back then there was never an expectation it could be done in a year. 2-3 years was da norm I think.

 

As I've pointed out, with a NSP and a troop of average, by-the-book activity level, it is not possible to do FCFY unless yeh treat it as once-and-done, and even then yeh can't quite make it even with 100% attendance. And that's only if it's also adult-run, so yeh carefully fit everything in.

 

[Oak Tree]

correlation does not imply causation

 

Well, here on the forum we all recognize this. I see little or no benefit in the FCFY program. Of course, it's not really a "program"; it's just a thought that gets mentioned here and there.

 

My vote is to stop mentioning it. Every time I see it I'm reminded of how ridiculously statistics can be used.

[desertrat77]

Back in the '80s, when I was an ASM, my SM and I wrote a letter to National that was critical of the new, about to be implemented FCFY. For many of the reasons stated in this thread.

 

We got a letter back from National that said "We find it curious that someone would criticize a new program that has not been implemented, and without knowing the details...."...or words to that effect, but the tone stands out in my memory. What the heck did we lowly troop level guys know? That was the upshot.

 

The author finished with "We have provided a copy of your letter and our response to your local council." So they let Dean Wormer know we weren't on board, which probably wasn't a surprise to our council leadership, as our troop and the council were on different planets (pro-outdoors v. anti-outdoors).

 

So fast forward to now. If the SM and I were hasty, or wrong, I'd be willing to admit it. I don't think we were.

 

The original selling point was "get the scout to first class, and he'll be more likely to stay in scouts." A worthy idea? Perhaps. The problem? Emphasis was on speed over competence, quantity over quality.

 

Some of the best scouts and scouters in the world topped out at First Class, Star, and Life. It wasn't about a race up the ranks. They were great patrol leaders and SPLs, thoroughly proficient in all aspects of outdoor living. They enjoyed passing along the spirit of scouting and inspired many new scouts to continue the journey.

 

A few "management problems" with these great scouts: the BSA doesn't really give a rip about anything other than Eagle, so great Life scouts aren't "counted" in any respectful way. And how do you quantify how many quality Star/Life SPLs exist? Too hard. Not glorious enough. Count Eagles, it makes a bigger splash.

 

What do I see today? Climb the ladder, fill the squares, and get as many Eagle congrats letters as you can from people that don't know you from Adam's house cat. The more letters mom can stuff in that leather memory binder, the better. Then off to college, with the same mindset.

 

PS Truthfully, the squared away SPLs that finish as Star and Life give more lasting value to the BSA than many Eagles. And the FC/Star/Life guys continue to provide outstanding leadership as scouters. Can't put that on a nifty spreadsheet, or on a powerpoint slide, but that doesn't lessen their contributions.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello KC9,

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

I'm not sure there is a head to put a bullet in. The only place I ever hear FCFY mentioned is here in this forum. You certainly can't find any mention on scouting.org. As others have said, BSA once made the claim that studies showed that boys who made 1st class i nthe first year tended to stay in the program longer than those who didn't. Scouters out in the units then began to build on that, right or wrong. The troop I serve, doesn't formally have a FCFY program where we out kids thru some sort of schooling and then rubber stamp their book in assembly line fashion. But we do keep an eye towards the rank requirments when working with our troop guides to develop the new scout program thruout the year. We typically get between 15 to 20 new scouts per year and we do a pretty darn good job of retaining them. Having been a campmaster, I've had plenty of opportunities to watch the troops who come to camp and spend the weekend poking sticks in the fire. Those troops just never seem to grow and have quite a few dropouts. Then I see the troops like mine where each campout has a (boy) planned program and sitting around the fire happens after the campfire program on Saturday evening. Few of our new boys make 1st class in the first year. It usually takes them about 18 months. Some do it faster and some do it slower. We've got one 16 year old scout who is still at 2nd class while some from his "class" are working on their Eagle projects. There are two factors. First, having a program that supplies the opportunity to advance at your own pace. Second, scouts willing to avail themselves of the opportunities. For me, their doesn't seem to be anything to the myth of an official BSA FCFY program beyond simply saying studies show a boy who makes FCFY stays in longer. Well duh, kids that do that are your motivated, dedicated kids who will most likely end up as Eagle, Vigil, camp staff, etc. That units decided to up their game and make sure they are providing an active program that supports advancement, isn't really a bad thing is it?

[shortridge]

Actually, it is mentioned in the literature.

 

Here's a First Class - First Year tracking sheet: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/34118.pdf

 

And as Beavah has said, it's now an official unit responsibility in the new Guide to Advancement: "Establish practices that will bring each new BoyScout to First Class rank within a year of joining,and then to Star rank the following year." http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

(It's also apparently a special award in the Buckeye Council, FWIW: http://buckeyecouncil.org/Program/Advancement%20and%20Recognition/Youth%20Awards)

[Eagledad]

I don't have one nearby to verify it, but I believe there is some mention of a promise of FCFY in the begining of the Scout Handbook.

 

SR540Beaver and I come from the same council, but times are changing because getting all the first year scouts to FC in one year was a common Wood Badge ticket item back in the 90's and early 2000's.

 

Barry

[Tampa Turtle]

It was mentioned in my Scoutmaster training a Woodruff SR. In fact I got static when I protested the accelerated T-1 in 4 months schedule handed out.

 

In our Troop we instituted T-1 with about 20 boys and 90% of them made it. We are two years in and most still lack basic skills--they just weren't ready for it and really are just too young at Star/Life. They just need more time to season...

[SR540Beaver]

Tampa,

 

Why were they signed off on rank advancement requirements?

[moosetracker]

Tampa - Can you describe more about the "accelerated T-1 in 4 months schedule".. Hopefully it was some wigged out, over zealous idiot that no one was listening to, and not something they are seriously thinking to roll out in the near future..