Are Board of Reviews rubber stamps?

[map909]

I'm just now getting back to this thread. There's a lot of good input. And, I now realize I should have used those opportunities to not interact with that scout further and discuss his "rude" comments. The one that really sticks out to me is that I asked what his favorite subject is in school. His reply was Spanish, so I asked can you say something in Spanish? His reply was the donkey knows more than you. I did tell him at the time that was not nice to say, but I didn't take it any further. The second comment was when an ASM asked him to tie a square knot and the ASM told him he didn't do it quite right. I don't recall the exact words he used, but it was basically, I know it's right and you are wrong. But, this boy rarely shows up anymore. Maybe I'm over reacting but, I appreciate your input.

[Beavah]

Yah, there we have it again, eh?

 

Honestly, yeh don't need a Board of Review to tell yeh things like a requirement was skipped, the right merit badges weren't earned, or all da rest. All that requires is a secretary. If that's all yeh think a BOR's role in deciding on advancement is, then yeh don't understand the Method. Doesn't matter if yeh served on the committee that compiled the manual, eh? Just shows the problem of program by committee.

 

I think part of the failure here is da whole notion of "pass" or "fail" that fred8033 describes. That school-language idea has no place in Scouting, and as soon as yeh start thinking that way you've left the trail and are off in the woods. The same with the notion of "denying" a lad the rank that bnelon44 uses, like rank is an entitlement that is being denied. When yeh start to think in such terms, you're no longer doing Scouting.

 

A Board of Review is an opportunity to have a conversation with a lad and review his performance and progress in the troop. They should happen regularly, and not just for advancement. That's the only way they can fulfill any of their purposes, eh? The purpose to help the boy grow in character requires review and feedback. The purpose of informin' the committee on the troop's program requires review of all the lads, not just those advancing.

 

At some fraction of those BORs, the board determines a boy is ready to advance. At many or most of the rest, they review the boy's progress and help him focus. If a lad has a requirement signed off but he indicates he really has forgotten the skill, they advise him on how to review and re-learn. If the lad is havin' difficulty, they play their part in helpin' the program find resources to help him. If they discover a weakness in his instruction and understanding, they address da program weakness and send the boy back to meet the level expected by the BSA and their program.

 

Now, to my mind, I personally think those conversations have a better feel and tone and are more effective when the review is done by youth leaders and scouters who know the lad, because the boy really wants to earn credit and respect in their eyes, where the lad really doesn't care as much about the troop committee and the committee doesn't know him as well. Yeh see that on da forums when committee members come looking for "questions to ask" at a BOR, eh? Da relevant questions and comments for review are generally obvious to those who know the lad well, and generic question lists or examples really don't accomplish very much. But we have what we have, and so if you're goin' to use MCs then it's the job of the youth leaders and the youth-serving scouters to provide 'em with the information they need to conduct a meaningful review.

 

The BOR is not meant to be a retest, of course. The BOR should not expect the lad to cook 'em a meal, hike 5 miles or perform a water rescue. But it is meant to be a meaningful review, eh? And that review is meant to be a separate step in the advancement process, which fred8033's post accidentally muddles up. It's not part of testing. It occurs after testing, down the road a pace, when there's time to see whether the lessons really "took." That's how yeh review both the performance of the program and the readiness of the boy, eh? By whether the lessons Scoutin' is trying to teach actually "took." If they didn't, then that's always, always, always the fault of both the program and the boy. The board members should help to correct both. Help the program improve, and help advise the lad how to meet the expectations.

 

No passing, no failing, no denying. No mindless restriction to the trivialities of paperwork that can and should be handled by a Scribe. No wasting adult time by getting together to ask meaningless generic questions and pull out da rubber stamp. Real, genuine, meaningful review of da program and the lad's progress in it.

 

And sometimes, a hearty congratulations and the award of a rank.

 

Beavah

 

[fred8033]

Ulitimately it's attitude and power control. I recently found a really great article about that. Published by BSA for their advancement teams.

 

Read "Guardian of the Gate" in the BSA Feb 2012 Advancement News. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf

 

...

 

Beavah - Congratulations in drawing a picture of an advancement program, but it's not the BSA advancement program. Your picture is less about describing the right program and much more about justifying a BOR power trip.

 

Now if you want to argue BSA's advancement is wrong. That's fine. If you want to argue GTA needs to change, fine. But I think BNelson had it right when he said if you want to understand the BSA BOR, then read the GTA section 8. http://scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/BoardsofReview.aspx And I'd add read section 4.2.1.0. And I'd reflect on the writings until they read as internally consistent.

 

Beavah wrote: - "Now, to my mind, I personally think those conversations have a better feel and tone and are more effective when the review is done by youth leaders and scouters who know the lad, because the boy really wants to earn credit and respect in their eyes, where the lad really doesn't care as much about the troop committee and the committee doesn't know him as well." ... That's not the program. Why are you recommending something that's directly contradicting explicit BSA statements. See GTA section 8.0.2.0.

 

Beavah wrote: - "At some fraction of those BORs, the board determines a boy is ready to advance. At many or most of the rest, they review the boy's progress and help him focus." - Huh? I wanted to say your not explicitly wrong, but ... you are. "At many or most of the rest" - no. 99% of BORs do find the scout ready to advance and 100% of BORs exist to do the review for advancement. Now you can probably convene a BOR for some other purpose. Probably no rule against it. But of course BSA does not define rules or guidelines for extra things added to the program. BSA only describes BSA's rules and guidelines for BORs. See GTA section 8.0.0.1 and section 4.2.1.0.

 

Beavah wrote: - "If a lad has a requirement signed off but he indicates he really has forgotten the skill, they advise him on how to review and re-learn." Huh? Your describing your own version of BOR or some BOR version from scouting history. BOR is a review. See section 4.2.1.0 (and sub sections). To enter a BOR per GTA 8.0.0.1, the requirements are done. He's been tested. GTA says "After a Scout has completed the requirements for any rank or Eagle Palm, he appears before a board of review." AFTER Now if the scout forgot a skill, that's feedback saying that the troop isn't doing enough to re-inforce skills. And it's just natural to not retain 100% of what is taught. That's life. The point is he was tested (step 3 in advancement ... GTA section 4.2.1.2) BEFORE THE BOR. The BOR is now guided by GTA section 4.2.1.3. Also see 8.0.1.2 "What should be discussed".

 

Beavah wrote: - "If the lad is havin' difficulty, they play their part in helpin' the program find resources to help him. If they discover a weakness in his instruction and understanding, they address da program weakness and send the boy back to meet the level expected by the BSA and their program." ... Again, that's not the program. Your advocating for a scouting double jeopardy. You passed the test the first time, but now you don't. Requirements go from completed to not completed. It might be a noble attitude, but it's not the BOR program. After being tested, knowledge and skills are retained and strengthened through the unit programs. Again see GTA 8.0.0.1 PURPOSE. Also, see GTA 4.2.1.0 "Four Steps In Scout Advancement" paying special attention to the differences betwen "4.2.1.2 The Scout Is Tested" and "4.2.1.3 The Scout Is Reviewed".

 

...

 

Ultimately, your going to read into the program what you want to see and if your scouts can live with it, fine. All I can do is learn to the best of my ability what BSA promotes. If you disagree with BSA, that's your choice. I just can't follow down your scouting road as that's not the program I promised to follow as a leader and it's not the program BSA documents.

 

Again, I really suggest reading "Guardian of the Gate".

[Beavah]

Yah, I have no problem with the trite little "Guardian at the Gate" article and would agree with the author. But it would be improper to believe that a reflection by one individual represented da views of the entire BSA.

 

Again, fred8033, if we're goin' to get into games of book-quoting, then yeh have to start with da Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, which is the only authoritative document that defines the parameters of the BSA program that all of us agreed to. Yeh can't understand the real BSA program without beginning there.

 

General Principles

Education is the chief function of the Scouting movement and it shall be the basis of the advancement program.

A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boy's progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit.

In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration.

 

Administration

All advancement procedures shall be administered under conditions that harmonize with the aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

----

 

So yeh see, that is the real definition of the program that the guidebook is supposed to adhere to and help to define. Yeh can also look to other sections of the Rules and Regulations which define what it means to be an active member.

 

And we're even given explicit instructions by da Rules and Regulations that in administering the program, we must interpret things in a way that harmonizes with da Aims of the BSA (and of the Chartered Organization, of course). The Guidebook is just a guidebook in that regard. The problem you're havin' in understanding the program is that yeh don't yet have a depth of experience, and you're lookin' to the materials to define the program rather than guide yeh to understand the program. It's those goals for kids that really define the BSA program.

 

Now it's true that the new G2A didn't include some language which stated things like "A periodic review of the progress of a Scout is vital" and "Not only is it important to review those Scouts who have learned and been tested for a rank, but also to review those Scouts who have shown no progress in their advancement over the past few months." Periodic review, eh? The new G2A didn't repudiate those notions either, as they're also present in other texts, and it reaffirms that much can be learned from reviewing boys who are not advancing, and gives a nice description of some possible conversations at the end of a BOR in 8.0.1.5.

 

The BOR is meant to be a formative review, eh? Like a performance review at work, it helps inform a lad of where he's at and where he should be going.

Yeh see, that's how yeh keep the BOR from being a "test", where the result is to either "pass" or "fail". By makin' it a regular conversation where sometimes yeh end with "congratulations" and sometimes yeh end with "nice job so far, here's what we want to see next" or "it seems like you're really strugglin' with this, so we're goin' to try to do some more to help yeh." It's all about helpin' the boy, not about the paperwork or the guidebook, just like your "Guardian at the Gate" article is tryin' to tell yeh but you're missing. Once you have gone away from that sort of formative review to a review where you're lookin' to "pass" or "fail", yeh have stopped doin' Scouting and entered the realm of school testing or rubber stamping. It's become "fake" in the eyes of any reasonably intelligent red-blooded teen. Yeh can't achieve the Aims that way.

 

And yep, in terms of doin' it well in the BSA, IMHO it was done better when we honored youth leadership and didn't have relative strangers take it away from 'em. I think that was again the case of some national folks who just got lost in da trees, with da result of steady membership decline and less engagement by older scouts. But yeh can use that as a good guide for what a committee-run board of review should feel like, eh? What would the conversation be with the boy's older peers and members of da community who know him well? Or, if it helps yeh, what would a performance review look like for the "job" of being a scout? Yeh don't pass or fail a performance review, though sometimes it may lead to a promotion.

 

If yeh really want to get the full benefit of Scouting for yourself and your boys, yeh have to let go of the book thumping and think a bit on your own, focusing on the bigger picture of how to use Advancement Method to best achieve our goals for boys. That's the only way to properly interpret da guidebooks, according to the Rules & Regulations. Once yeh do that, yeh realize that calling together 3 or more MCs just to do somethin' that a computer program or a Patrol Leader can do better isn't good scouting.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BadenP]

Boy the fred and Beavah debate goes on and reminds me of the old Merlyn and Ed debates, like watching two boxers go toe to toe.

 

One point about any BOR and especially EBOR's is that they should not be run like the Inquistion, but rather like a supportive part of the scouting journey of that boy. Not letting it become mired down with misinterpretations of advancement rules or an adding on of requirements. I agee with Beavahs point of the scout's peers and troop leadership doing the BOR's, at least up to the EBOR, they know the boy better and know the right questions to ask, it is not a time to retest or challenge whether or not the scout has passed all the requirements. It is the BOR's responsibility to validate the scouts accomplishment, not try to tear it down. Too many adults I have seen on BOR's have used them as a platform for some sort of personal power trip and that goes against everything scouting stands for.

[fred8033]

Beavah wrote: - "Yah, I have no problem with the trite little "Guardian at the Gate" article and would agree with the author. But it would be improper to believe that a reflection by one individual represented da views of the entire BSA. "

 

Trite? Really. Improper to use as guidance? ... Ummm ... It's published by the BSA Advancement Team to clarify advancement. It's published to local council and district advancement committees. The BSA advancement team preface says "Occasionally we run across material written by council volunteers that does more to explain the Boy Scouts of Americas advancement program than any of us at the national level have been able to create."

 

 

Beavah - "General Principles" and "Administration" ... So your saying you can discount very directly specific BSA GTA instructions because you see general statements having a higher calling? That's a pretty slipper slope that just doesn't hold up to the light of day. Your creating your own justification to create the program you want and not the program BSA designed. Heck you say it yourself. "The Guidebook is just a guidebook in that regard."

Really!

 

 

Would you be okay with me using this BSA advancement team guidance? http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ... "Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices" ... "The new Guide to Advancement clearly identifies mandated procedures with words such as must and shall. Where such language is used, no council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to deviate from the procedures covered without the written permission of the national Advancement Team. Recommended best practices are offered using words like should, while other options and guidelines are indicated with terms such as may or can. ... It seems that BSA wants the GTA to be much more than just a take-it-or-leave-it guide.

 

Beavah wrote: "yeh don't yet have a depth of experience" - "yeh have to let go of the book thumping and think a bit on your own" ... Yeah, but fifty years of out-of-date training or misguided experience doesn't help either. That's why we do have BSA publications. That's why we read books. Book thumping is necessary when responding to people who go awall on the program. Once everyone has a common agreement (i.e. the BSA program), that's when we can start thinking on our own.

 

 

...

 

 

Beavah - It comes down to you want a different advancement program. "it was done better when we honored ..." and "some national folks who just got lost in da trees..." let go of the book thumping..."

 

You want a different program. I'm fine with that. It's a valuable debate that should never end and we will all benefit from. I can see pluses and minuses of scouts on BORs. I can see pluses and minuses with an examination oriented BOR. If that's what you want, argue for it with BSA. Promote change.

 

But ya don't go rogue and pretend to be the honorable wise old scouter. Ya don't promote the value of advancement, but not the BSA advancement. Ya don't put Eagle on a platform, but ... ummm ... not the current BSA Eagle. ... And you don't advise scouters who commit to the BSA program with advice that contradicts BSA. Ya need to work within the program until you can get the program to change. That's how you become the honorable wise old scouter.

 

[bnelon44]

I am enjoying the debate.

 

I have a bit of a question about the BOR recommending program though. If it becomes apparent that a Scout doesn't remember a skill, shouldn't the best approach be to refer him back to the SM or to a troop program already in place? There is a danger that a BOR member may remember how something was done 'back in the day' which isn't done anymore and may be against the G2SS. Remember committee members are not required to attend either SM Specifics or Intro to Outdoor Leader Skills. They are not usually experts on program and current regulations, that is the job of the Scoutmaster and the direct contact leaders.

 

I can just imagine some BOR member explaining the importance of trenching a tent.

[Beavah]

Sorry fred8033, I confused yeh by writing too much. I do that sometimes.

 

But yes, if yeh have learned anything right from this old furry critter, it's that general principles have a "higher calling." If there's a general principle called "Conservation of Energy" then yeh have to read the text for a specific problem in a way that harmonizes with da general principle, or you'll get it wrong. Yeh can quote ol' Haliday & Resnick's physics text to your heart's content, but if your quote implies violation of da Conservation of Energy, you're wrong. Or da book is wrong. (hey, packsaddle, I used a science analogy instead of a legal one. Aren't yeh proud? ).

 

Same with every other discipline. Proficiency demands that yeh understand and be able to apply general principles in different contexts, rather than memorize pages of guidelines that only apply in specific contexts. And sometimes, da textbook is wrong, or more likely offers advice that doesn't apply in the situation yeh happen to be facing.

 

To learn the real, non-rogue, actually-works-for-kids BSA program, begin with da principles set forth in the BSA Rules and Regulations, and keep your focus on the outcomes for kids. Not on the guidebooks, not on this month's national newsletter, not on checkin' off boxes for requirements. Not on what badges they get or how many Eagles yeh have. Focus on whether young George is makin' better choices and Bill is steppin' up to challenges and Charlie is demonstratin' character and commitment in and through the program. The BSA and da worldwide Scouting movement have 100 years of success in helpin' kids in that way, and yeh inform your judgment by building your understanding of the principles which have remained true during that time, as well as the individual program guidance which has succeeded and failed.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

I have a bit of a question about the BOR recommending program though. If it becomes apparent that a Scout doesn't remember a skill, shouldn't the best approach be to refer him back to the SM or to a troop program already in place?

 

Sorry, bnelon44, I crossed with yeh.

 

There are so many different ways of handlin' this in different troops that I'm sorta loathe to offer specific guidance lest someone start quotin' me.

 

But let's say a lad comes to a BOR who is ADHD and he seems to be falling behind his peers in terms of understanding. Maybe that's a case where the board and committee need to help find additional outside resources to support the lad and his patrol leader and Scoutmaster.

 

Or maybe, if a BOR has been gettin' nuthin' but hot dog meals for a stretch without any understandin' of nutrition, it's time to figure out how to help support some program improvements in cooking and menu planning instruction. I know one troop that went out and recruited a young male executive chef who enjoyed the outdoors to help out with such things. Really upped their game.

 

Da point is that they wouldn't have been successful if they didn't also send the boy(s) back to work some more. Yeh can add program resources all yeh want, but if what you're rewarding is hot dog meals, then you're goin' to get hot dog meals. If instead yeh choose to reward only lads who are able to plan, purchase, and cook a nutritious weekend's worth of meals for their patrol, then you'll get that. And if yeh aren't getting it, then yeh should add resources to improve the program.

 

To my mind, a First Class Scout should be able to plan, purchase, and cook a nutritious, outing-appropriate weekend's worth of meals for his patrol. On demand. That's "proficiency in outdoor skills". That's the proper outcome of advancement that is really based on education and learning. And that's the only proper way to interpret "the requirements" because it's the one that harmonizes with the Aims of Scouting.

 

My biggest worry about da current approach used by many troops and stated eloquently by fred8033 is that in most of the cases it leads to poor scouting program, because it doesn't push the troop to improve. A Board of Review being a rubber stamp often means the boy isn't challenged, but what's worse is that the Troop Committee and Patrol Leader and Scoutmaster aren't challenged. They aren't forced to face and push to correct a program where boys can't cook. That's the real hidden role of a BOR in evaluatin' the troop program, and they don't really perform it if they rubber stamp.

 

That's why I like to see boys on BORs. When a Patrol Leader realizes that a boy still doesn't understand something even though he's been "taught", even though he's been "signed off", that really impacts how hard the Patrol Leader will work in da future and how thoughtful he'll be as an instructor. Then that PL followin' the review can say "I'm sorry, George, I should have done better for yeh before I signed yeh off. We'll work on that together some more this month so you'll have it down for your next review."

 

Beavah

 

[fred8033]

Beavah - Your mixing your metaphors and confusing Physics Laws with inspirational statements. We're debating advancement because you can violate the rules. "Conservation of Energy" is a Physics law and it can't be violated. Ya can't create get more energy out of a system than put in. Ya can't go faster than the speed of light. But, ya can go rogue with advancement.

 

"Proficiency demands that yeh understand and be able to apply general principles in different contexts..." Absolutely agree. ... But wait! General principles? I thought you just said the were laws? Not some vague general thing. Anyway... That's why BSA doesn't leave us with only two or three sentences to guide advancement. That's why BSA wrote the GTA and went to the trouble to explain "shall" and "must" and "should" and "can". The GTA is our educational guide on how to apply the general principles.

 

I don't have trouble keeping focus on the general principles. Heck, I use the GTA to help guide me toward those general principles. I do have trouble when someone thinks it's necessary to violate the specific to honor the general.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[bnelon44]

Beavah,

 

Maybe I'm prejudiced because I was a Scoutmaster for a long time and I now teach Scoutmasters but program is my Scoutmaster turf, not the committee's turf. If the committee wants the patrol to have a more balanced diet on campouts then the committee talks to me about it. It maybe that I didn't realize it or maybe I am concentrating on getting the boys to do their own shopping first. Whatever the case, it isn't up to the committee to recuit a chef.

 

Well meaning committee members muck too much in program and it confuses the Scouts. The BOR should feed information back to the Scoutmaster to improve the troop program, not start outlining program.

 

But maybe I didn't understand you correctly (happens)

 

my 2-cents(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[fred8033]

Beavah - I'm mostly fine with your last post in reply to BNelson. IMHO though, the focus is in the wrong place. It's not the BOR's job to make sure the scout knows the skill or did a good job. It's the guy/gal authorized to sign off on the requirement.

 

The whole program falls apart when the steps aren't done in sequence. Learn. Test. Review. Recognize. Ya review how things went so you can make the teaching and learning better. But ya don't use the review as a test because the test was done poorly or the tester is a scout and ya don't really trust the scout. Ya trust 'em or don't trust 'em. There is no try ... and no oh we can catch it later at the BOR.

[Beavah]

Maybe I'm prejudiced because I was a Scoutmaster for a long time and I now teach Scoutmasters but program is my Scoutmaster turf, not the committee's turf.

 

Yah, hmmmm.... Bnelon44, I think if you're thinkin' in terms of "turf" yeh have probably lost your way. The committee and the Scoutmaster need to work together, eh? The former to provide guidance as to CO and BSA expectations as well as resources for the program. In actual fact, if yeh read the Rules & Regulations, it is the troop committee, and not the Scoutmaster, that is responsible for ensuring the quality of da Advancement program. That's why there's a notion of committee review.

 

That having been said, I did not mean at all that the committee should be "mucking around" in program stuff. Of course the BOR should feed information back to the SM and the PLC. It's a shame IMO that the youth in particular don't get to sit on BORs where they could get that information directly themselves, because by and large I think BORs do a poor job at this sort of "feedback". Poor or not, it should definitely occur.

 

Of course if you're gettin' the lads to do their own shopping first, then we're still in the learning phase, eh? The boys won't have any signoffs for that cookin' stuff, and the BOR should naturally understand that and be talkin' about how the learning is coming and such. No big deal.

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44]

I posted this on the G2A thread but it properly belongs here:

 

Doing some research on if the BOR ever was allowed to retest. Keep in mind that in the early days of Scouting it was taught that the examination and sign off of the Scout from T21 should be done by the Scout's own Patrol Leader, as long as the Patrol Leader has made it to that rank.

 

From the Handbook for Scoutmasters 1947 (Author is listed as William Hillcourt):

The members of the Board should keep in mind that the review is not a re-examination and does not require that the boy again demonstrate the skills in which he has been examined. The main purpose of the review is to check-up to see that what should have been done was actually done....

 

The 1947 handbook is the 1st edition after the famous Hillcourt 2 volume 1936 set which is the real 1st Scoutmaster Handbook that introduces the Patrol Method. The Board of Review is not described in the 1936 edition of the handbook only to go to your local council for instructions.

[fred8033]

BNelson44 wrote: "From the Handbook for Scoutmasters 1947 (Author is listed as William Hillcourt):"

 

Now that's funny. People always use Hillcourt as a father figure who created a great scouting program that has now been corrupted by the ignorance of current BSA national staff. It's funny when you find that Hillcourt wrote differently.

 

I really think people remember their past experiences different than it actually was. They put their past leaders on a pedastal. I think we can remember the past with respect and happy memories, but should try to work together toward the program BSA documents.(This message has been edited by fred8033)