Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[Eagle92]

Here are my thoughts.

 

1) I liked that back in the day, there was the Skill Awards program. All the different swimmming, camping, cooking, first aid, etc T-2-1 skills of today were combined into one award, and a scout could focus on one specific set of skills at a time instead of a bunch of skills.

 

Maybe be if Skill Awards were still given out, scouts could actually learn the T-2-1 skills instead of you having their parents pushing the troop to teach 4 Eagle required MBs at meetings in the six months since they have joined the troop. But that is a different story.

 

 

2) I also like the time requirements at the T-2-1 level. With less emphasis on getting to First Class in 12 months, and more emphasis on scouts actually mastering the skills, the time requirements didn't force the issue of advancement as you had time to really learn the skills.

 

Except for those scouts like my cousin who was pressured to get Eagle at 13.

 

EDITED,

 

2Cub,

 

Why do you have an ASM worrying about cooking instead of older scouts?(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[Beavah]

Yah, hmm...

 

Bnelon44 goes off trying to quote old stuff to show that the word "test" was used before. Fred8033 writes The trouble I have though is that I don't think it reflects the BSA intention or explicit statements in most of the requirements, advancement and the specifics documented in the GTA..

 

And TwoCubDad talks about success with kids.

 

I reckon perhaps that da G2A should read that anybody who talks about or quotes from the G2A without spending more time tallking about kids and kids' growth has their registration dropped for a year. . They've lost their way.

 

What TwoCubDad describes is the scouting program. That's what the Rules and Regulations that we all agreed to live by say and mean. And if Bnelon44 would take a closer read of his old book materials he'd find exactly that, eh? He'd find the books saying that the Second Class hike requirement should be underetaken and approved only after many other hikes have been done during which the boy developed and refined his skills. He'd find paragraphs of description of how the best way to sign off is when the patrol is just camping or hiking and the boy does everything right. No separate "test" besides the natural challenge of life. That's exactly what TwoCubDad is describing, eh? And that is the scouting program.

 

I can tell yeh from the troops that I know who use it that it works great. They have high retention. They keep kids truly active for 7 years. The boys and their families are happy and proud. Their Eagle Scouts knock your socks off.

 

And yep, Eagle92, they are extremely youth run after the first generation. TwoCubDad's troop is just startin', eh? Only 18 months in. Da adults have to set the tone and expectations to start, but then those older boys who have really learned how to cook set da tone for the younger kids coming up. The norm becomes that being First Class really means knowing how to cook, eh? And the older boys who actually know what they're doin' are actually able to teach. Unlike da lads who have only cooked a couple of times who are asked to teach and always do a poor job because they aren't ready for that yet.

 

Now, does that mean that yeh don't bend things here or there for a lad who is struggling, as B-P suggests? Of course not. Sometimes it's the correct approach to subtract from da requirements in the way B-P describes, eh? Again, because the focus is on the boy and the boy's growth, and not on "the requirements."

 

When yeh read all of Baden-Powell, though, from his saying that a First Class boy who can't perform every skill should turn in his badge and leave scouting in shame, to the message he's trying to give about not standardizing badges based on arbitrary requirements, he's arguing against the position fred8033 and BNelon44 are taking.

 

For Baden-Powell, and Green Bar Bill, and Scouting, it's always been about the boy, and not about da rules or requirements. Which is why what is being described by some folks here, apart from bein' the sort of complete adult nonsense any 11 year old can see through (being signed off for cooking without even being able to cook safely?) just isn't scouting.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[moosetracker]

One question for twoCub.. What happens when a scout comes into your troop knowing how to cook? Do you still require he take 2 or more practice runs?..

 

Take my son, once upon a time (not now) he was a fantastic cook, started off alway doing Sunday breakfast, when he tired of it, he would do a weekend dinner.. His greatest feat being a beef tenderloin dinner. I never bought beef tenderloin, and thought it was similar to pork tenderloin, at about $21 a pound, I was in shock.. Brought it home, and told him to treat it like precious gold, this was the first & last time we would ever have it.. The meal was so fantastic, it made me want to reconsider buying it again.. Summer family camping the whole family took turns cooking, he cooked on the colmen, dutch ovens, open fire.

 

Now for him to enter your troop, and be expected to take 2 practice runs at cooking before being judged would be just plain wrong..

 

Unfortunately he got lazy in his teen years, all he can cook now is Kraft mac-n-cheese, so you can retest him now, take his badge away from him, turn it over... What-ever.. (can you do that at 21, after they have aged out?)(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[fred8033]

Twocubdad wrote: "Yes, you absolutely need to cook for your patrol multiple time before passing the requirement. " ... "Are we adding to the First Class requirement? I DON'T CARE."

 

Yeah. We had a similar problem with pop tart meals for a bit. We used a bit of creativity and the normal scouting processes to solve it. We just didn't feel arrogant enough to re-write BSA advancement to solve normal issues.

 

Heck, scouts were the ones who recognized the issue. Scouts choose to have their SPL review meal plans at the troop meetings. Scouts also choose a list of items that would not be reimbursed by the troop. Our SM just coached the scouts thru how to make change happen.

 

...

 

Beavah wrote: "...." I just don't agree with Beavah's interpretation of advancement or his group's "until I happy" advancement approach or how he interprets B-P writings. My confidence is boosted in that Beavah, twocubdad and others feel it is repeatedly necessary to denounce the BSA publications written specifically to guide advancement. IMHO, that says a lot.

 

...

 

dkurtenbach wrote: ... I applaud your quoting key sources to guide our discussion.

 

Could you provide the BSA source for the quote that "Educators and counselors agree that ...". It's not in the current BSA GTA or the previous BSA ACPP. The source I can find for that is a non-BSA, 3rd party guide to BORs. But admittedly, I like that BOR guide originally credited to Ray Klaus. I've updated it for use in our troop. I'm just wondering if BSA ever published your quote.

 

Anyway ... I don't necessarily see BSA advancement or the 3rd party quote "educators and counselors agree that ..." as a rejection of the bnelson44 Baden-Powell quote from "Aids to Scoutmastership".

 

I apply the same line that starts that GTA section. "The Boy Scout advancement program is subtle." or the often mis-used quote that appears in multiple places in the GTA. "Remember, it is more about the journey. 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."

 

People incorrectly add requirements because of the part "it is not so much a reward for what he has done." I interpret this as you don't earn the camping merit badge automatically because you have camped. You don't complete the cooking rank requirement because you helped cook a few meals. Or my favorite, you don't earn the canoeing merit badge because you completed a canoe trip. Now if they did cover each requirement and an authorized person observed them completing the requirement. Fine. I'm all for it. A local troop here does do that. I don't know if it's good or bad as I haven't seen the internals of their troop. The key is it's not an automatic you camped so you get the camping merit badge. Intentionally or unintentionally, you had to meet the BSA requirements.

 

By applying the requirements, it's about what the scout can do. By games, outings and repeated focus, the scout retains the skill. Most importantly, BSA does say advancement is subtle and about the journey. That's why I think the bnelson44 Baden-Powell quote directly applies. It's also why it's BSA that repeatedly ... repeatedly ... says you can't add requirements.

 

So I believe as in the Baden-Powell quote, there does need to be some effort involved, intentional or unintentional effort. GTA it is more about the journey." I don't believe it needs to be explicit advancement focused effort such as in twocubdad's program.

 

If I had to choose one quote that I would like to use to reflect my advancement view, it's the Baden-Powell credited quote. Advancement is like a suntan. Something you get naturally whilst having fun in the outdoors.

 

Now if you want to not credit burnt pancakes or cold hot dogs or an unplanned meal. Fine. High expectations are good. I can see arguing that burning pancakes is not cooking. But to structure the program directly in-the-face contradicting BSA requirements.... well that's just not acting in good faith and is shameful.

 

 

[Lisabob]

I don't see what Twocub describes as being antithetical to the BSA's basic take on advancement (learn, test, review, recognize). His unit simply takes a more robust view of what learning entails. And I suspect boys (and parents) in his unit appreciate that. That isn't arrogant, it is a solid way to use the program.

 

Look, how many parents really want their kid in a unit where everything is one-and-done? What does that teach the kid? And how many kids really want to be part of a unit where they know the adults can be easily buffaloed into recognizing bs-work as if it were the real thing? That's not a way to build up respect (in self or in others), or to set kids on a path toward real self-sufficiency and the adventure that awaits. As Twocub said, kids can smell BS a mile away.

 

If the kid gets the sign-off for all the cooking stuff (and heck, why not also the MB) the first time he picks up a spatula, where's the sense in that? If you don't want kids to think "scouts is for wimps" (or worse), then you need to give kids an honest experience, including expecting them to really learn things and be capable, rather than recognizing them for half-ass attempts.

[dkurtenbach]

Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, #33088, 2008 Printing, available online at http://scoutmaster.typepad.com/2008AdvancementGuideBook.pdf

 

Page 23, fourth paragraph:

 

"Educators and counselors agree that the best way to build confidence is through measurement. Self confidence is developed by measuring up to a challenge or a standard. Peer confidence develops when the same measuring system is used for everyone when all must meet the same challenge to receive equal recognition. Confidence in leaders comes about when there is consistency in measuring when leaders use a single standard of fairness."

 

Guide to Advancement 2011, #33088, 2011 Printing, available online at http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

 

Page 18, paragraph 4.2.0.0:

 

"Both adult and youth leaders approve Boy Scout and Varsity Scout advancement. This permits greater emphasis on standards and more consistency in measurement, but it also places another level of importance on teaching and testing."(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

[Twocubdad]

What happens when a scout comes into your troop knowing how to cook? Do you still require he take 2 or more practice runs?..

 

Maybe, maybe not. But what's the harm if he does? Serves as patrol cook a couple weekends, shows off to his patrol mates, builds some camp cred with the older guys, maybe teaches a few things to the boys in his patrol. Or maybe right off the bat he goes to the ASM and says he wants to do his First Class cooking the next campout. The ASM will talk to him about his cooking experience to date.

 

Scout: "Well, sir, for my Tenderfoot requirement I made myself a marinated ribeye, steamed broccoli and rosemary pototoes. For Second Class, I showed my Troop Guide how to do a dutch oven breakfast casserole and we made kabobs for dinner."

 

ASM: "Really! What menu do you have in mind for this weekend?

 

Scout: "The patrol really liked the breakfast casserole, so I'd like to do that again. I think it can become a Blue Moose tradition. For lunch I want to keep it simple, so we're just doing grilled chesse and tomato soup. For dinner I have a really good chili I've made with my dad a couple times that use andouille sausage -- it's great. One thing I really want to try -- but I've never done before -- is baking sourdough bread. I've been reading about it and already have a starter going."

 

ASM: "That's great! Be sure to plan enough for a few extra guests! (wink, wink)"

 

We don't have a hard and fast rule that says "you may not complete the First Class cooking requirements until you have served as patrol cook for X campouts." The ASMs job is to work with the Scout to see that he is ready to tackle the requirement and to help him get ready if he's not. Maybe that means the ASM and Scout meet before the next troop meeting and work together on a dish. Maybe that means the Scout spends another weekend or two working with this patrol to hone his cooking skills or that he helps the ASM cook a meal for the adults one weekend.

 

No formulas, no inflexible rules, no added "requirements", just kids being given the opportunity to really learn a skill and to work along an adult of character while doing so.

 

E92 -- Why do you have an ASM worrying about cooking instead of an older Scouts?

 

Because when we started this we didn't really have any older Scouts with the skills to pull it off. And we sorta backed into the First Class requirement thing. Our initial goal was to raise the bar on the cooking skills in the troop. Placing added emphasis on the First Class requirement was one of a number of things we tried. Now, we probably do have the older Scouts to do this, but his is really working well for us and I don't especially see a need to change. Philosophically, I don't think "youth led" has to mean "devoid of adults". Youth Leadership and Adult Association maybe aren't co-equal methods, but certainly aren't opposing concepts. If the choice is to learn a skill from an older Scout who is only a step or two ahead of the younger boy (or maybe not), versus spending time with a really neat older fellow with a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience in the area, I'm going to make use of that resource.

 

In "cooking" a program for our Scouts, we have a well-stocked pantry -- lots of program options, a number of different philosophical approaches to the program, lots of guidance from BSA in terms of training and policy (which is sometimes self-contradicting), the interests and abilities of the leaders in the troop, the interests of the boys and their parents and the direction of my Chartered Organization. My job is to pick and choose the ingredients for my Scout Troop stew and make a meal which is both tasty and nutritious. Personally, I like a little okra in my stew; it adds flavor and texture. But by itself, I hate okra. Same witht the troop program. I'm not here to cut my wrists on any particular method, philosophy or even advancement policy. I'm here to provide the best Scouting experience I can to our Scouts.

 

A little a dis, a little a dat!

[Beavah]

But to structure the program directly in-the-face contradicting BSA requirements.... well that's just not acting in good faith and is shameful.

 

Again, all about da requirements, eh? Never about the boys.

 

Personally, I don't think usin' and adaptin' kid program materials to try to help kids is ever shameful. It's somethin' to be honored.

 

I will say, however, that what fred8033 and bnelon44 are suggesting is not the scouting program. I talked with ol' Green Bar Bill several times, and if yeh were to propose what bnelon44 proposes on these pages to him he'd have been pretty firm about how that was parlor scouting and had no place. Kids need to learn real outdoors stuff, and advancement should be the natural outgrowth of work in the patrol, where da recognition is first and foremost recognition of his skills by his patrol.

 

I never met B-P, but I have no doubt that Baden-Powell would have had any fellow who proposed this modern absurdity be taken out and shot.

 

I appreciate how novices in an area like scouting advancement prefer to cling to the introductory lessons and guidebooks as though they are dogma. That is the mark of novices in any field. Beginners don't know what they don't know, so they hold tight to the textbook because it feels "concrete." But a textbook is not knowledge, eh? It's a guide or a helper to acquiring knowledge by gettin' yeh started with a simplified set of basic guidelines, simple problems and examples.

 

Sometimes it's sort of funny when beginners start quoting a basic physics text to argue with a physicist, or da "Idiot's guide to plumbing" to tell your plumber he's doin' it wrong. Bright book-learned kids have done that to me on occasion both in my profession and in outdoors stuff. There's nuthin' wrong with the books, they're just simplified and the fellow isn't really understandin' 'em.

 

TwoCubDad describes a real world example where the normal scouting program is working very well for kids. Quotin' the beginner's guide to him when he's demonstrated da skills beyond being a beginner is just silly. It's like telling the EMT that he has to do compression-only CPR, because that's what yeh learned in your basic community CPR course. Nuthin' shameful either way, just one approach is a bit silly.

 

Beavah

 

[fred8033]

dkurtenbach - Thanks. I didn't look at the 2008 ACPP. I was looking at the next one which I think was 2009 or 2010. I think was released briefly and then pulled off the shelves pending the GTA release.

[moosetracker]

TwoCub- it maybe fine if you got the opportunity to do it.. I guess I just remember when son was a new scout in his first troop. They had small older boy patrols, but when the new patrol of crossovers came in they lumped them into one huge new boy patrol, of about 25 to 30 scouts..

 

This caused a continual battle between all the boys in this patrol of who could get up to bat to do anything for rank advancement that was patrol oriented, like cook for your patrol, or select a site for your patrol..

 

We were too new to question the way the troop handled the new boys. But, I still always feel there is not enough time on those type of rank advancements to wait for a boy to have the opportunity to cook 3 or 4 times. Rope tieing or hiking, fine.. But not the "For your patrol.." requirements.

[fred8033]

Beavah - "I appreciate how novices in an area like scouting advancement prefer to cling to the introductory lessons and guidebooks as though they are dogma."

 

Really? Novices? Such insults Beavah are below you. But people do tend to get grumpy and jaded with so many many many many years of experience behind them.

 

Ya keep getting confused in what we're saying. Novices like me hold tight to the BSA GTA and other BSA guidance because of the abuses we've seen by so many grumpy old scouters who remember the prestige of rank right along with marching ten miles to school in the snow every day. We deal with curmodgeons who give prestige to rank and forget it's just a tool to help the scout grow. We talk of requirements because of misguided scouters who go rogue with their own program forgetting that working with scouts requires empathy and compassion. We talk of requirements because it keeps the focus on helping the scout succeed instead of guarding advancement for fear of an undeserving scout.

 

Yet what confuses me is when bnelson44 and I focus on basic scouting experiences and BSA guided advancement scouting, we are accused at being "novices". I guess because they hold our approach in contempt the same as they hold BSA's program in contempt. Well, to be honest, it sort of makes me proud to be associated with BSA's program. Thank you.

 

I'm confused most by your advocating something such as twocubdad where the scout has to learn, take responsibility, perform, then announce he wants to be recognized only to be told that he now has to do it all over again. It's a very forced advancement approach. It's hardly a "natural outgrowth of the work in the patrol".

 

But then again bnelson44 and I have been judged novices by your wise many many decades of experience.

 

...

 

Okay. Now that I've vented ... I should probably apologize. It just gets my feathers ruffled when people keep dissing BSA but want to represent it as leaders and when they knowingly proclaim disregard for that which BSA has written pretty clearly.

 

It reminds me of a company I worked for that was trying to get ISO 9001 and SEI CMM Level 4 cert. Guides, instructions, forms, procedures ande checklists were put in place. Regular internal audits done for many years. Certification auditors were brought in each year. What I noticed is that people generally fell into two camps.

 

- Creative compliance - This camp recognized the goals and values of ISO and SEI. They then worked creatively to achieve their own objectives while at the same time keeping true to ISO and SEI. They found ways to be efficient and effective ... OR ... they provided feed back and got the company approach to change.

 

- Creative avoidance - I want to call this the eye rolling camp. They wanted to do their own thing and be left alone. They learned enough about ISO and SEI to find the holes where they could be audited compliant with the least impact. They defeated the basic concepts and values of ISO / SEI. The big kick is that they spent way more energy dissing and underming mandatory initiatives than looking for a way to get value out of it.

 

It's never been about "one-and-done". It's about "creative compliance" or "creative avoidance". It's about trying to find value out of mandatory initiatives or just going rogue, dissing the program and giving lip service to that which you signed your name to follow.

[bnelon44]

Twocubdad said,

 

"No formulas, no inflexible rules, no added "requirements", just kids being given the opportunity to really learn a skill and to work along an adult of character while doing so. "

 

I keep getting back to using EDGE to teach a skill:

 

You Explain why the skill is important

You Demonstrate the skill

You Guide them through the skill

[bnelon44]

For a number of years now, I have looked at having a unit strive to have their Scouts achieve 1st Class in 1 year as motivation to get them to have a better troop program, not crank out 1st Class Scouts. Troops with good programs tend to produce 1st Class Scouts in less than 1 year.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello bnelon44

 

I haven't noticed that myself. If boys can complete First Class in a year, fine.

 

I've tended to notice a good deal of variability in when boys achieve First Class myself. Boys who aren't prepared in swimming tend to lag.

 

Boys who aren't participating in camping trips ought to lag.

 

Personally, I concentrated on having a quality program myself. Secondarily, I used outings as opportunities to help with specific advancement requirements and getting those signed off.

 

But I wasn't especially concerned if boys took extra time, although I usually looked over what the reasons might be for that lest they be neglected for one reason or another.

 

I'm not a big fan of FC1Y. It tends to encourage a cheesy program, not a quality one, from what I see.

 

Still, I don't doubt some units do it well. They would probably do it well in any case.

 

 

[fred8033]

bnelon44 wrote: "For a number of years now, I have looked at having a unit strive to have their Scouts achieve 1st Class in 1 year as motivation to get them to have a better troop program, not crank out 1st Class Scouts. Troops with good programs tend to produce 1st Class Scouts in less than 1 year.

"

 

Exactly. No one could ever force scouts to advance. But to keep kids in scouting, troops need good troop programs. When is it good? Generally when an involved scout can reasonably achieve FCFY. If it's a big challenge for an involved scout to get FCFY, then the troop needs to step it up. And yes scouts like success and recognition. But to have success and recognition, troops need good programs.