Time requirements in early ranks

[Cito]

I became a scout in 1987 and we had the 2 month time requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class. I just realized that they have eliminated those even though they still have minimum time frames at Star, Life and Eagle.

 

What was the history there? Two months isn't exactly a long time frame. I'd imagine that very few kids can go faster than 6 months, so what was the point?

 

What's the average time frame for these first few ranks in your troops?

[Eagle92]

In August 1989, national did away with the time requirements for T-2-1 when they unveiled OPERATION FIRST CLASS which became FIRST CLASS, FIRST YEAR. ( caps for titles, not shouting)

 

Rational was that the time requirements hindered advancement to FC within a year, and that studies found that those who get FC in a year, stay in the program.

 

Didn't survey if the scouts staying were in 'Hiking and Camping Troops."

 

Also they did away with youth on the T-2-1 BORs at the same time. Although that word didn't get passed down for some until later.

[perdidochas]

Realistically speaking, it's rare to be able to get First Class in less than a year. It requires ten separate troop/patrol activities. We probably average 18 months for First Class (although it would be theoretically possible to do it in less time).

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

We average 14 months but a bunch of guys have done in 10 with a 10 campouts and Summer Camp.

[qwazse]

The real advantage of dumping the time requirements, IMHO, is that the scout can focus on complete skill efficiency. So, for example, if a boy wants to nail down knots and lashings, he can spend his first few months doing just that. He doesn't have to think that for two months he only has to do tenderfoot requirements -- some of which may bore him. He can ace everything from the square knot to the square lashing. Then for a camp gadget, he can lash together a lounge chair and read up on first aid or aquatics safety.

 

Another advantage: suppose a boy joins at age 15 and has some of these skills down already. (This happens to boys who never bother with the EDGE method and simply learn skills the more efficient way: by reading a book and practicing on their own.) He can simply knock off a rank or two by his first camping trip with the troop, and be on his way to holding responsibilities more suited to his maturity.

[puzzlepiece]

Our troop tends to take 12-18 months to reach First Class. However, my son has only been in the troop since December and is already Second Class and should be sitting for First Class the first week of June earning it in 6 months. The difference is he came in and asked the older scouts to help because some of the adult leaders wanted him to wait 4 months for everyone else to crossover and work with them to earn rank. If he had he would have quit so the plan was developed for him to approach the older scouts and set up with a few of them what he would like to work on at the next meeting and he had to be prepared for them to work with him. It depends on how motivated the scouts are! They learn at a pace they are comfortable with.

[Second Class]

I had a scout get to first. In 11 months. I thought that was good. Then a new scout of last year did it in 8 months. We camp every month. We have a lot of service projects. He didn't miss one event in that time frame. That said, 14 months is about average for us.

[Second Class]

I had a scout get to first. In 11 months. I thought that was good. Then a new scout of last year did it in 8 months. We camp every month. We have a lot of service projects. He didn't miss one event in that time frame. That said, 14 months is about average for us.

[Eagle92]

Quaz,

 

I gotta respectfully disagree with ya. One of the 2 things I liked about the 'Improved Scouting" of the 1970s that held over until 1989 was the Skill Awards. They allowed a scout to focus on the basics of a particular skill in toto in order to get to T,2, or 1. So a Scout would focus on all of the Citizenship KSAs and one other for Tenderfoot. The time requirements allowed folks to "master the skills" that was expected by the scouts per the BSHBs of the time.

 

The removal of the time requirements has encouraged the 'one and done" mentality IMHO.

[whitepine]

I think that having time requirements for the lower ranks would be very bad for encouraging rank advancement. As of now, you often get kids who are really excited once they join, and as long as a scout works hard, he can easily get first class in 1-2years. There is no reason to hamper success by having minimum time requirements. Kids would be slowed down in their advancement and it may send the wrong message (don't try too hard and be too successful).

[Eagle92]

Again must respectfully with time requirements discouraging advancement at the T-2-1 stages.

 

If memory serves, sorry don't have my 1979 ed. handbook I grew up with in front of me, it was possible even with the T-2-1 time requirements in 6-8 months. Although it did take most folks 12-18 months, again if memory serves.

 

Also the research supporting the "First Class, First Year" program was orignally based on stats from before the 1989 requirement changes. So it is a fact that even with the time requirements at the T-2-1 levels, Scouts were getting FC in a year or less.

 

Again the time requirements atthe T-2-1 stages allowed scouts to "master the skills" as expected per the BSHBs of the time. "One and done," was not a concept as you were expected to be able to do the T-2-1 skills at any time after earning the rank. In fact in some instances, i.e. First Aid Skill Award, you were TEACHING the skills prior to earning First Class. I vividly remember as a Second Class Scout teaching a Tenderfoot FA Skill Award in order to meet the "Teach First Aid Skill Award" requirement of First Aid Merit Badge, which at the time was required for First Class rank (OK there are three things I like about Improved Scouting: Skill Awards, Scouts on the T-2-1 BORs, and First Aid MB as a requirement for FC rank).

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, lets be frank, well, actually I will be OGE

 

If the idea is we need to have time requirements in the early ranks because kids are advancing to fast and the youth don't have time to truly learn he skills, the question is, will a rule, a law, a policy written on paper have any effect?

 

Why do we want to have time requirements? Because of the heavy influx of 13 year old Eagles? (I think I saw one once, but I am not sure). Youth do not determine the speed at which they advance, no matter what we think the program says. Youth advance at the rate the adult leaders of the unit approve measures to sign off requirements. Adding time requirements to early ranks assures us nothing but having time requirments for early ranks. The amount of skill learned, mastery retained, and so on will not change. If a Unit is content to have a 14 year old Eagle who can't tell the difference between a square knot and a granny, why do you think their 16 year old Eagle will?

 

Its not the youth that fail in delivering the program, that is something that is absolute

[Cito]

I think my original idea was that the time frames at two months apiece were really short anyway. So I don't think they were holding anyone back from rapid advancement. I'll have to dig out my handbook and skill award pamphlets and take a look at how they compare to the current requirements.

 

I seem to remember a lot of the boys finishing FC in under a year, I know that I did. Perhaps there are other pieces that dictate the timeline now, and it sounds like camping is one of those. If there isn't really a practical way to do it in under six months, then that explains why they eliminated the time frames.

[Eagle92]

OGE,

 

I agree with you, the youth are not failing the program, WE ADULTS ARE!

 

As for time requirements and info I posted, point I was trying to make is that the time requirements will not discourage or really slow down folks who are motiviated. Trying to show that the FCFY program was based upon advancement stats that did have time requirements atthe T-2-1 levels. So arguments that they will slow and discourage new scouts are null and void IMHO.

 

 

As to time requirements for the T-2-1 level, I admit I have mixed emotions. On one hand I do see it as a way to slow down the scouts a bit so that they truly master the basic scout skills as they are suppose to do. Paraphrasing the G2A, the badge represents WHAT THEY CAN DO, NOT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE (caps for emphasis)

 

Or more specifically it will cause leaders who are rushing things through and are doing the "one and done" to pause and give them time to really master the skill.

 

But as you stated, it's the adults, not the youth. And the adults may just keep on truckin.

[skeptic]

Unless there is a very pushy helicopter parent, boys will advance at their own rate most of the time. Often it is fast, then a lull, then another focused spurt before high school. Then they either finish by 14 or 15 or push at the last moment. I was in a troop in the 50's that had you tie all 7 tenderfoot knots correctly twice in a row one week, then come back and do it again. If you missed any, you started from scratch the next time. Took me forever I thought to get Tenderfoot. Then flew through 2nd, spent months again on First due to Morse Code, and was Life at just short of 14. Completed Eagle at fifteen and a half; but was Life a long time and almost dropped out when started high school and moved to another town at the same time. Point is, my advancement was my choice, as was all my Scouting involvement then and now. My parents were active supporters, but in the background.

 

The strongest Eagles, and Scouts in general, will always be the ones that somehow learn to motivate themselves. Realistically, if troops hold the scouts to the actual intent of all requirements, you will see First Class somewhere between 8 months and 2 years in a moderately active troop. Some will never become Eagle, but stay in anyway if you have what they want. And those are often some of your best junior leaders.

 

Still, somehow taking the "focus" off the advancement rate would be helpful I think, whether by some time restraints built into the requirements, maybe not actual limits, but stricter requirement completion somehow rather than "one and done". I do think putting the T-F boards back on the boy leaders, with adult supervision, would be a good thing. This, like anything with adult supervision, is positive if the adults do their job; same as in the tool supervision or other safety concerns.

 

JMHO