First class in first year - or not

[Eagle92]

Beavah beat me to some of it

 

Yes with an active program it is possible to get FC within a year. Even back in the day when time requirements were around for T-2-1 and First Aid MB was required for FC rank. But as others mentioned, it wasn't one and done. Scouts learned the skills, practiced the skills, and then were tested before signoff. Sometimes the "test" was seeing the skill in use and the scout having no problems doing the skill. Other times after a month of so of practicing and working on the skill, you ask on the monthly camp out, "ok do XYZ for me." and if they could do it, you sign off.

 

As for not signing off after they have just been shown how to do something, no it is not adding to requirements. That's only a part of the learning process. And teaching the skills IS mentioned in the G2A as a method of learning. G2A pp 19-20 outlines the entire 4 step advancement process

 

4.2.1.1 The Scout Learns (all bold in original)

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.

 

4.2.1.2 The Scout Is Tested

The Scoutmaster authorizes those who may test and pass the Scout on rank requirements. They might include his patrol leader, senior patrol leader, an assistant unit leader, a troop committee member, another Scout, or the Scoutmaster himself. Merit badge counselors teach and test him on requirements for merit badges.

 

4.2.1.3 The Scout Is Reviewed

After he has completed all requirements for a rank, the Scout meets with a board of review. For Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, and Life ranks, and Eagle Palms, members of the unit committee conduct it. See Particulars for Tenderfoot Through Life Ranks (or Palms),8.0.2.0. The Eagle Scout board of review is held in accordance with National Council and local council procedures.

 

4.2.1.4 The Scout Is Recognized

When the board of review has approved his advancement,the Scout deserves recognition as soon as possible. This should be done at a ceremony at the next unit meeting. The certificate for his new rank may be presented later, during a formal court of honor.

 

As for not testing Scouts, if you are not testing them, then you are not following G2A, as "The Scout Is Tested" is the second step of the process. The key to testing IMHO is to allow the scout to practice, practice, practice to really learn the skill. As for allowing the scout to teach the skills, that is a leanring method mentioned in the G2A, and I have used it in the past..

 

I'll give you an example of a scout learning a skill and helping others learn it. One of my Bears has been practicing his knots with older brother. When we were doign the Knots den meeting, he was helping not only his fellow Cubs, but a few of the dads, including his own, learn the knots. Did he know every single knot required for sign off, no he didn't. But the knots he did know, he was helping others with. And other Cubs helped him learn the knots he was having trouble on.

 

Best analogy on testing and "one and done" I have is school: you wouldn't give a kid a test on a subject he learned 10 minutes before would you?

 

Scouting is "Experiential Learning" and the G2A has the following to say

 

Experiential learning is the key:

Exciting and meaningful activities are offered, and education happens. Learning comes from doing. For example, youth may read about first aid, hear it discussed, and watch others administer it, but they will not learn it until they practice it. p 8

 

On a different note, I can see another source for the "One and Done" mentality besides FCFY: Intro to Outdoor Leader Skills Syllabus. Sorry can't find the exact page in the pdf I have, but somewhere in it there is the comment to have a checklist of skills being taught and sign the leaders off after they do them during training. One weekend is not enough time to really learn the basics well enough to go out completely on your own, which is what a First Class Scout should be able to do.

 

Let's face it how many folks would allow anyone with just 1 weekend of outdoor training take a group of scouts camping? heck How many folks with just 1 weekend of outdoor training would be comfortable leading a group of youth in the outdoors?

 

 

We expect leaders to be able to do the T-2-1 skills, why can we not hold the Scouts, who ARE in charge, to the same standards?

[CricketEagle]

Beav and E92,

 

I think we are talking past each..For ours, and I expect almost all units

a scout is absolutely tested. I am not sure how you guys jumped to that. let's not jump to character development issues.

 

But beyond that there is some grey area.

 

If we are going to quote verbatim from the Guide to Advancement 2011.

 

(I hate quoting rules, as the are always rules that contradict other rules, BSA is no exception)

 

Look a few paragraphs up the page you quoted from.

Section 4.2.1.0

 

"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."

 

Note it clearly says first year of membership.

 

It does say:

4.2.1.1 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.

 

It does say "as he develops....he is asked to teach"...it does not say exactly what and when he is asked to teach. The only place that it is sepicificaly laid out is in some of the rank requirements. It is part of the personal growth experience. This section lays out long term goals and paths. It does not lay out each step along the way.

 

Oh yep, they break off into small groups and do help each other to learn in pairs at these begining ranks. But the higher level "organizational" parts of teaching get left to older scouts. Does a young boy have to teach each and every skill? likely not, or else we would be doing Communication MB over and over for each task.

 

 

By "one and done"...Let me ask you this. how many of you are in units that have a chance to go over "Safety afloat" more than once a year if even that? How often would of a repeat would be enough? When do you stop? If you asked your scouts 6 months after a float trip even though you went through all of this? What level of "memory" retention would you expect? By one and done we are lucky to have a few weeks per year on a single subject.

 

Knots are easy, they are absolute. It is right or it is wrong. What is an acceptable meal plan? Did they make the budget? Did they put the tent up by themselves..easy things to prove. (Physical and concrete items)

 

You are asking about things that are leadership development. Those are more subtle.

 

CE

[Eagle92]

Cricket,

 

We may be talking past each other I assumed, and I know what happens when you do , from your posts that you sign off on skills the same night that the scout learns them. Unfortunately I've seen it happen, and IMHO the IOLS syllabus encourages that mentality. Also with new BS leaders who were CS leaders, they may beleive that is how things are done since the 2010 CS program encourages that model.

 

My thoughts on testing is let them have a chance practice and use the skills until they are confident they have mastered the skills. THEN you test them. Exception to that is when you see them using the skill with confidence and they haven't asked ya yet to sign off.

 

As to this quote you cite

Section 4.2.1.0

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.

 

Yes a program should provide, stressing PROVIDE, the opportuntity for scouts to advance to FC in a year, but it doesn't mean it will happen. The scout still needs to learn the skill, be tested in it, etc. etc.

 

I'll give you one I know first hand. My troop was a 'hiking and camping troop," and most folks would get FC within 15- 18 months of joining ( remember this was back in the day with time requirements for T-2-2 so it could take a little extra time) because we taught the skills and used them repeatedly. But we had one scout who was forced to be a Scout. Spent 3 or 4 years as a Tenderfoot, and he only got Tenderfoot because he got his book signed off and an impromptu BOR on a camping trip (aside: after that camp out he "lost his book").

 

As for this quote:

4.2.1.1 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.

 

I didn't say teaching was necessary for every skill in order for them to learn. And I admit in possibly misinterpreting the "and in this way he learns" part as it may specifically mean leadership.

 

BUT I do know some MBs, First Aid comes immediately to mind, where a scout has to teach skills in order to meet the MB requirements.

 

In regards to seasonal topics like SSD and SA, that is where an active program helps. I have found that Scouts learn SSD and SA if they see it in practice. I admit they might know the proper BALLSPDG and QPSPBSPED terminology a year later when the topic reappears, but they can explain what needs to be done because they have seen in action. They reflect on the trainings and trips we did the previous summer and can tell you exactly what we did.

 

In regards to leadership, that comes at the S-L-E levels so i'm actually not talking about it. T-2-1 needs to focus on the basics. Once you get the foundation down, then you can expand. That's why the HA bases and Jambo have a First Class rank requirement, it is assumed that they scout knows the basic outdoor skills and is ready to expand upon them.

 

As I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, if you have an active outdoor program that allows scouts to use the basic skills over and over and over 10-12 times a year, you don't have these problems.

 

Heck even the resentful, wisecrack 3 year Tenderfoot knew his outdoor skills b/c of repeated use. And thinking about it, as much of a joker as he was, I am willing to lay money that if things hit the fan, he could handle himself.

 

In fact upon reflection he did. But that is another story for another thread.

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, CricketEagle, I don't mean to be talkin' past yeh. I think these are interestin' discussions and we should always challenge ourselves about whether we're doin' what's best for the boys, because that's how we get better. Thank yeh for engagin' in the discussion!

 

I think what you're hearin' from long-timers like E92 and myself that were around when FCFY was introduced along with New Scout Patrols / age based patrols is that both of those innovations were ill-considered. They were based on poor and misinterpreted "evidence", and were a departure from 80 successful years of scouting program. They set up exactly da contradiction you point out in G2A. Yeh can't simultaneously meet the advancement guidelines and the Rules & Regulations in terms of expectations for rank, and at the same time get every boy to First Class in a year (and Star in Year 2).

 

So yeh have to choose between those two options. Some of our large chartered partners like LDS choose to use an age-based, NSP program and to emphasize gettin' to First Class in a year. They do that to fit with other aspects of their Young Men's religious program. Long-time scouters like this here furry fellah respect that, but we tend to be advocates for the other choice - makin' First Class "real" in terms of skills even though it means taking much longer than a year for most boys.

 

Let me ask you this. how many of you are in units that have a chance to go over "Safety afloat" more than once a year if even that? How often would of a repeat would be enough? When do you stop? If you asked your scouts 6 months after a float trip even though you went through all of this? What level of "memory" retention would you expect? By one and done we are lucky to have a few weeks per year on a single subject.

 

Yep, that's the conundrum, eh? It takes more than one "going over" of Safety Afloat before a boy really understands and learns it, which means if you're tryin' to do it all in a year it gets too crowded unless you are extremely active. So yeh have to choose. But in answer to your question of "how often of a repeat would be enough", the answer is "however often a boy needs to learn". Learning can't be scheduled. Each boy comes with different backgrounds and learns at a different pace, and in Scouting we care enough to take the time it takes. We're not a factory like a school, churning out X number of student widgets in a year. We want each and every boy to be able to cook, and navigate, and do first aid.

 

When do yeh know a scout has learned? Well, if a lad has learned to ride a bike, can he still do it after a long winter? If yeh have used spreadsheets for the last year, can yeh still add two numbers by hand? When we really learn things, long-term retention is a given, especially for young people. Thank goodness, because if a lad really needs his first aid or water rescue skills, it's goin' to be some time down the road when he's least expecting it. Our job is to make sure that the boy has really learned, so that he is prepared for that if it comes his way.

 

Now, as far as retention goes for us old folks with brains that are shrinking every year, that's a different story. I often don't remember where I set down my fancy newfangled cell phone without calling it and listening for the ring.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle92]

Must respectfully disagree with 1 comment Beavah made:

 

... and were a departure from 80 successful years of scouting program.

 

In 1972, BSA took the "Outing out of Scouting" and IMHO doing a lot of the stuff that they are doing today, i.e. taking the outdoors out of scouting. It was a major catastrophe for the BSA, and Green Bar Bill had to come out of retirement in '78 to write the '79 ed. BSHB and put the outing back into Scouting.

 

So I would ammend the comment to "a departure of 74 successful years of scouting program and 1 failed 6 year period that looks as if we are revisiting."

 

but that is my opinion.

[SeattlePioneer]

Scout units vary quite widely in the emphasis placed on various parts of the program. So different Scout units each have their own culture.

 

Among those variations include the degree of competence needed to get various requirements signed off. Different units require varying amounts of competence.

 

You can point at this and that portion of the literature all you want but the bottom line is that units choose such things for themselves.

 

The most you can establish is what your own unit will require.

 

 

 

 

[CricketEagle]

Beavah, E92 and others, Thanks for the conversation as well. I learns a great deal during these and it forces me to look up details. Question assumptions. I am not always right. We would all prefer to have the boys outdoors as much as possible. Practice all those skills over and over. Having them learning things in the environment they want to be in.

 

 

[Eagle92]

SP,

 

You are so right. Units do vary in their culture. I remember back in the day that the culture might be differences in activities and how things were done. But when a Scout was a certain rank, there were certain expectations as to what he could do.

 

Unfortunately that has changed. Now the culture is how fast you do advancement. I met an Eagle Scout who couldn't tell me anything about some of the things he did to earn the MBs he was wearing. I met Star and Life Scouts who didn't knot how to pack a backpack properly or knew what to bring on a camping trip. Part of that IMHO is the BSA taking out the Outing out of ScOuting; kinda sad that instead of using the BSA handbook your student manual for IOLS, you have to create your own pamphlet b/c basic outdoor info IS missing.

 

But a part of it is the "one and done" mentality that I believe has come about since FCFY came out in 1989

 

Cricket,

 

Hopefully this is a good conversation, and not a rant on my part. Scouting has been wonderful to me, even during the dark times I was a DE. I want Scouting to continue to be the best program for youth, but I am seeing it make some of the same mistakes it made in '72. I know scouting needs to change with the times to keep current, but some of the changes I am seeing are doing away with the foundation of Scouting: the OUTING.(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[Beavah]

Must respectfully disagree with 1 comment Beavah made

 

Yah, that's OK, E92. I was simplifyin' a bit for da younger crowd. I think it was the '72 debacle, followed by Bill's rescue in the 80s, then the partial return of the '72 folks with the 1990 edition. Bill was too old, and he didn't get to choose his successors, eh?

 

Since then we've mostly had corporation, and corporation by its character tends to lack vision and sense of mission. At best yeh get mediocrity, eh? The average opinion of a few hundred or so corporate-picked scouters. Ol' Bill was better than the average of such a group. Corporations give us textbooks, eh? Those bland, generic, poorly written things that suck the life out of interestin' topics. To give us Harry Potter or a true Scout Handbook, yeh need a great author, like Rowling or Bill.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle92]

Beav,

 

 

Gotcha and understood.

 

Agree 100% with the comments on corporations and authors. A great author will transport you to the world they created, or in Bill's case, get you actually into it.

[bnelon44]

Adding to this thread a bit late. But IMHO the reason for First Class Emphasis is to give the boys the skills to play the game. That is what T2F is: learning the skills to be able to camp.

 

We want them to learn to camp so they can get going on the adventure we promised them. And in doing the T2F requirements it gets them out right away to experience camping.

 

It doesn't have to be done in 12 months, but about that amount of time. Say 12-18 months.

 

my 2-cents

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello bnelon44,

 

 

I agree that when FC1Y is described as a general goal, it's a good thing. If it's used as a rigid program, not so much.

 

 

My Council Membership Chair has limited experience in Boy Scouts and no experience as a SM, but she repeatedly has promoted FC1Y as THE goal for troops.

 

She just buys into it as a principle method of retaining Boy Scouts as suggested by BSA.

 

That's all too common in my experience.

 

 

[Beavah]

We want them to learn to camp so they can get going on the adventure we promised them.

 

Yah, hmmm... Well that doesn't make any sense.

 

The adventure we promised 'em was goin' out and learning how to camp. Why would we rush is or shortchange it? It's fun to go out and challenge yourself and learn and figure out new stuff.

 

This sounds to me like "Oh, we have to get you through all this boring camping stuff in a hurry.". I remember once I was talkin' to a Council Advancement Chair, a fellow who was servin' on a national committee who told me that "I always tell boys to hurry up and get Eagle by age 14, because then they can have fun.".

 

To my mind, that's exactly da wrong way to think. Goin' camping and learning and gettin' good at stuff is fun. Ever seen those lads who hang out at skate parks or in your neighborhood? They spend hours and hours together just tryin' to learn one trick. It's fun to learn. It's fun to practice. It's adventurous.

 

It's not somethin' to rush through because then they can go have adventure. It is the adventure.

 

Beavah

 

 

[bnelon44]

You think taking 18 months to teach a boy how to camp is in a hurry?

[Eagledad]

Just an observation bnelon44, but a quote you wrote in another thread:

 

>>Focusing on any rank, including Eagle is getting your eye off the goal. Your making advancement an end in itself. But that isn't the goal. The goal is character development, citizenship training, and mental and physical fitness.