Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[Venividi]

And yes scouts like success and recognition. But to have success and recognition, troops need good programs.

 

Success:

Depends on definition of "success". Given the discussion that has been going on, lloks like there is dissagreement as to what "success" entails.

 

Recognition:

Young scouts like recognition. For anyting.

Mature scouts like recognition when it is for real accomplishment.

 

Challenging opportunities for real accomplishment will keep boys in scouting. Recognition without being tied to accomplishment will not. (my opinion based on observation)

 

The common ground that all are agreeing upon is "gotta have a good program".

 

[Beavah]

Really? Novices? Such insults Beavah are below you.

 

No insult intended, fred8033. There's nuthin' at all wrong or bad about being a novice. Just like there's nuthin' at all wrong or bad about a boy not being Tenderfoot, eh? Ranks and assessments and such are meant to be helpful and formative, not evaluative. It's when yeh start thinkin' about 'em as being evaluative and demeaning and "flunking" and such that yeh lose all their value.

 

I'm usin' the term novice in the way that da outdoor leadership community uses it, eh? See for example http://www.nols.edu/publications/toolbox/judgment.shtml There'a great paragraph about half way down that page that's worth readin'.

 

As for bein' grumpy, that's about as far from da truth as yeh can imagine. In truth, I'm a jolly old fellow.

 

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.

 

Yah, I'm always a bit mystified when people have a notion of "The BSA" as though it's some monolithic entity. "The BSA" is just a corporation, eh? In many ways a sort of odd and not particularly well-run one, but with lots of good folks nonetheless. "Dissing" to my mind is somethin' yeh do to people, and no matter what Mitt says, corporations aren't people.

 

But da real issue here is that the core rules and practices of the BSA are in the Rules and Regulations, eh? And to my mind, you and bnelon44 are the folks who are disregarding that which the BSA has written pretty clearly, and tried to practice along with da worldwide scouting movement for a century. In the process, you're proposing interpretations that make a wonderful Scouting program in the U.S. a pale shadow of what da real program is.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[fred8033]

Everyone also agrees on high standards which then leads to recognition when it is for real accomplishment.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

@moose -- "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..

 

Hard to call that a misapplication of the advancement program, eh Moose?

 

 

Fred -- finally! Common ground. I can get behind your description of the two camps, creative compliance and creative avoidance. Creative compliance is excatly what we're trying accomplish -- we're taking the BSA program wholistically -- advancement, mission, ideals, individual requirements, -- analyzing the strengths of our particular units and coming up with a program which is faithful to the overall goals of the organization AND meets the needs of our Scouts. The creative avoidance guys are the folks who parse the requirements, hide behind pedantic policies an avoid the big picture, right?

 

Here's what I see as the difference between the two camps: I am more than willing to accept that you can make FY/FC work in your troop. If it works out as the best approach for your Scouts and unit, then you just knock yourself out over it. I'm not so arrogant as to think I know what is best for your Scouts and unit, having never laid an eye on any of them. I'm willing to stipulate that you know what you're doing, are well trained, understand the nuiances for the different tweaks to the program and have the best interests of your Scouts in mind.

 

But you're not willing to extend that courtesy to me, huh. Why do you feel the need to impose the FY/FC program on our troop when our fully-trained leaders, with decades of experience in the program, have made the determination that it is not in the best interest of our Scouts?

 

Beavah's analogy about lay CCC-CPR vs. ACLS is good. My understanding (and I don't want to start a debate on the merits of various CPR protocols) is the old-school, chest compressions and mouth-to-mouth is more effective on any given patient. But CCC CPR has been judged better from a public policy standpoint because more people can be trained and are more likely to use it. Consequently, ON AVERAGE more total lives can be saved using CCC. But IN PARTICULAR an individual may be better off with the old standards.

 

Same with Scouts. If I'm in Irving looking at 3 million members, maybe FY/FC is a better program ON AVERAGE. (I tend to think not, but then I don't get paid to make those decisions.) But they are idiots if they fail to recoginize that with 3 million members there will be those with the knowledge, skills and abilities far above and below the averages. Sure, a national program needs to target the center, but it needs to accommodate the margins.

 

Instead of hauling out the Advancement Guide and thumping it under our noses, they need to be thanking their stars there are folks out there who have dedicated substantial parts of their lives to the program and have the understanding to apply it ar beyond what the AVERAGE program policies and guidelines contemplate.

 

So tell me, when you drop over in the tall grass along side the trail and Eagle92 is coming up behind you, do you want him to use his all his knowledge and ability as an ACLS provider or do you want him to just do CCC because that's policy?

[fred8033]

Beavah - Dude ... Ummm ... Thanks for the clarification on "novice". Not sure if I feel less offended by your clarifying "notice" with a document that uses the terms unconscious and incompetent. Not sure if I'd sign off for you on any requirement to be courteous. Or even knowledgeable on what I know and don't know. This is less about who is competent and more about compliance versus avoidance. But I'm willing to accept that non-compliance is defacto incompetence.

 

Anyway, um, good try, um, thanks.

 

....

 

Beavah wrote: - "But da real issue here is that the core rules and practices of the BSA are in the Rules and Regulations, eh?"

 

No. That's like ignoring a 55mph speed limit because the general principle is to drive at a safe speed and your a professional race car driver. And since you can ignore the speed limit, you get a waiver automatically on all the other pesky little rules.

 

Essentially, your justifying ignoring some rules because you choose mutually exclusive interpretations. Meanwhile, conveniently ignoring interpretations that work together.

 

...

 

Because I'm always curious.... Charter and bylaws and rules and regulations ....

 

Article X - Section 1 General principles - Clause 1 - ... "natural outcome" ... "The rank requirements in these phases of the Scouting program, as set forth in the official publications, shall furnish the basis of the activities of the unit."

 

Okay. Good stuff. Fine.

 

Article X - Section 1 - Clause 1-b "(b) 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."

 

This is a core issue that BSA could clarify. Is it a fluffy general statement? Is it a requirement? How do you apply this to specific requirements? I can see two interpretations.

 

--- #1 Proficient - It's the troops job to gear up individual requirements until the scout is "proficient" in the topic. Proficiency has multiple definitions. Most applicable would be "skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity".

 

--- #2 Proficient - The requirement as stated is the level of proficiency BSA expects.

 

Until resolved, I can see debating this point. But the debate is bounded by all the other BSA guidance as described in the many other BSA statements, newsletters, guides, rules, policies and procedures. As long as you work within those boundaries, you have discretion. That discretion essentially comes down to having high standards.

 

But there is more that leans me closer to the second interpretation.

 

Article X - Section 1 - Clause 5 - "Basis for Advancement. The Boy Scout requirements for ranks shall be the basis for the Scouts advancement. There shall be four steps in Boy Scout advancement procedure: learning, testing, reviewing, and recognition."

 

Many of the Boy Scout requirements call out specific quantities that seem to indicate the expectation. Five activities. Ten activities. One hour. Many of the quantities are there, but not enumerated. Cook a meal means one. Cook breakfast, lunch, dinner means three. One of each.

 

Many of the requirements don't lend to apply "proficient". "Spend at least one night on a patrol or troop camp out." - How do you proficiently spend a night? No crying or asking to call home? The statement itself is the proficiency level expected. Same with "Show improvement" and "Earn an amount..." and "visit and discuss with...".

 

Where you have discretion and should apply high standards is with "repeat from memory" ... "identify" ... "show" ... "explain". Even then, is it proficiency or just looking for quality? If you hesitate on the scout oath and law, then go back and practice. If you miss a plan, go figure out what you missed and come back.

 

...

 

I guess it comes down to opinion. IMHO, it's an unworthy cheap interpretation to justify ignoring specifics because there's a contradicting statement, especially when there's a way to avoid the contradicting interpretations. ... but as you said ... I'm just a novice.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[fred8033]

twocubdad - I don't see any requirement for FCFY. It's an initiative, but I don't remember reading in GTA or any other guiding document that FCFY is any type of "requirement". Heck the term itself does not lend to a requirement statement. It's just a term around which to discuss and evaluate unit quality.

 

...

 

Glad that we can agree on creative compliance versus creative avoidance. But who's in which camp? It you need to say one requirement trumps another, I'd call that avoidance because your saying to meet one requirement you need to throw out another. Your saying BSA is not publishing an internally consistent program. IMHO, compliance is looking for interpretations of all the parts such that you can work within the boundaries of all the requirements. Compliance looks at the sum of everything produced and finding a solution that complies with it all.

[bnelon44]

twocubdad - I don't see any requirement for FCFY. It's an initiative, but I don't remember reading in GTA or any other guiding document that FCFY is any type of "requirement". Heck the term itself does not lend to a requirement statement. It's just a term around which to discuss and evaluate unit quality.

 

True

[Beavah]

False. BNelon44, have yeh even read your Guide to Advancment? Right there in the section on Unit responsibilities, eh? The responsibility of the unit is to get every scout to first class in first year and to second class in second year.

 

To my mind FCFY is part and parcel with the "don't add to the requirements" crowd that don't understand advancement method. In fact, the only way yeh can get all or most of the boys in a New Scout Patrol to FCFY is if yeh subtract from da requirements in just the way that bnelon44 describes, eh? Yeh get credit for cooking just once, not for knowing how to cook.

 

That is not holding' high standards, and so I don't think fred8033 is right when he says that everyone agrees on holdin' high standards.

 

Most of da troops I know that do FCFY tend to also be "done with scouting by high school" troops. The majority of the boys fade out, reduce activity, go do other things. Yeh see that reflected in comments here at Scouter.com as well. They really are not the most successful troops in my experience.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Twocubdad]

That's great news, B! I was going by this:

 

3.0.0.3 Unit Advancement Responsibilities

 

Unit advancement coordinators (or chairs) and those who assist them have the basic responsibility to support the unit leaders advancement program, to maximize rank achievement, and otherwise facilitate a smooth implementation of the process. Specific responsibilities are outlined in the leader literature for each program. The following responsibilities are not all-inclusive, but typical.

 

1....

 

7. Establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining, and then to Star rank the following year.

 

 

(Ya beat me to it, Beav!)

[bnelon44]

Beavah

 

Naw Beavah that is not what it says, it says: "Establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining,

and then to Star rank the following year."

 

So create the practices = good program. That is what people are trying to say here I think.

 

If you guys are honest with what you are saying you already have a program in place (I think Beavah for you that would be the past tense since you are no longer active in a unit) that would lead a boy to learn how to camp in 1 year. 1st Class is basic camping and outdoor skills after all. Your not trying to tell us you don't teach your boys to camp in 12 months are you?

 

You guys are too hung up on the fact that people are telling you that your boys need to be 1st class after 12 months of Scouting (in other words have basic camping skills) If you guys are really taking longer than 12 months to get your guys to that level, then, maybe, just maybe, you should reexamine your program. Just an idea....

 

But it is an initiative, no one is going to take away your charter for not doing it.

 

Anyway, that it is saying is to establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining.

 

Star is 5 merit badges, some leadership and some service. In a good program a Scout can earn the Star badges in 24 months. (probably a lot earlier than that)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Twocubdad]

So despite my not believing in or supporting FY/FC; that I don't think FY/FC is beneficial to either the troop or the individual Scouts, and that I actively counsel my Scouts to slow down and take longer than a year to earn First Class, you're saying because we have the programs in place which could allow a Scout to earn First Class in a year despite all these objections that we have met our responsibilities under the Advancement Guidelines and can check that box?

 

Cool. At least you're consistent!

[Beavah]

Yah, fred8033, thanks for all of the descriptions. It helps to understand where youre comin' from.

 

Here's how Im reading it though. Yeh went to the rules and regulations and found the bit about proficiency. Then yeh said, well, they could mean proficiency, or they could mean that the intent is to redefine proficiency to mean that a boy who is profiicient in cooking really has only cooked once and doesnt know how to handle meat and egg products safely.

 

And then yeh ignored all the bits about education and that advancement mus be administered so as to harmonize with the aims, which would tell yeh that only your first definition of proficiency is acceptable.

 

That to my mind fits your "creative avoidance" description to a "T". What you're doin' is creative avoidance.

 

Now, everyone comes with their own professional perspectives, and yours are from da ISO 9000 stuff. Much like the "Scouting is like McDonalds franchises" thing of CalicoPenn's, viewing Scouting through an ISO 9000 lens shows a novice understanding of scouting. A volunteer youth work organization just doesn't fit da ISO 9000 model. And that's the only point I'm making about being a novice. Yeh aren't showing an understanding of how this youth outdoor stuff really works.

 

So I pulled something from one of da expert organizations in outdoor education. Did yeh read it? The part I found particularly apropos was this:

 

Students also need to not learn dogma. When we teach dogmatically, we are providing simple rules that only work in identical situations. This doesn't set students up to make wise decisions later. More importantly, it doesn't train students to think for themselves. Jasper Hunt confronts dogma ethically. Jasper writes "There is something very strange and incongruent about an educational movement that espouses the values of personal responsibility, initiative, and freedom and then turns around and does everything they can to minimize the presence of these very values in the means by which they teach (by making rules.)

 

Beavah

 

 

[Eagle92]

TwoCub, Ladies and Gentlemen

 

I want to apologize for my comment to Twocub as I realized when I reread the post just now, it sounded as if I was criticizing him and his troop. That was not my intent. I was trying to make a joke, and I forgot to include a smiley face to show that the comment was meant in a lighthearted manner. Especially since I though my comments prior to that showed support for his position. I know that is can be a challenged getting a new troop started as I will explain below.

 

Again my intent was to try was to support how he is doing things by referring to the old time limits for the T-2-1 ranks. As I stated elsewhere, the removal of time limits for T-2-1 happened in 1989, and was a direct result of "Operation First Class" which is now called FCFY. And you know my thoughts on that.

 

I also wanted to add how I think the Skill Award program helped focus new scouts attention. And I was referencing a problem that I am seeing with my CO's troop since the old SM stepped down, folks,in this case parent/committee members focusing on immediate awards like MBs over the scouts learnign and practicing basic skills at meetings, as well as the scouts running things.

 

The new SM isn't doign his job, and the committee is taking over. And since they have not taken boy scout leader training and are former CS leaders, in the past 6 months since they crossed over, they have worked on 4 MBs. Basically it's turning into Webelos III, and that is what I am hearing from some of the older members of the troop.

 

This greatly concern me b/c the troop is relatively new, 5 years old, and they have encountered a lot of leader challenges (they move to venturing or move ou the area), have has scouts who were on the cusp of taking over and doing things the patrol method, only to move away, get into sports, or have serious health issues and need to quit. They had JUST gotten to the point where the Scouts were running things completely, and the old SM felt comfortable stepping down, when it starts turning into Webelos III.

 

Again I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking twocub as that was not my intent and I hope he is very successful in getting the troop up and running.

 

 

[fred8033]

Beavah - Twist as you want and wrongly attribute low expectations. It's the screams of justifying a bad position.

 

I guess every one wants to claim to be in the good guy group. But repeated comments from this discussion quickly show who's trying to work within the system and who's trying to constantly point out problems to justify going rogue.

 

Creative compliance

- Trying to understand the rules (general and specific) and working within them to then deliver a high quality program.

- Working within the program to help the scouts develop skills and confidence.

 

Creative avoidance

- Slighting the value of FCFY

- Mocking the experience of the BSA team as disconnected.

- Bully others by attributing silly results to them such as not teaching their scouts how properly handle meat and eggs

- Pulling in ethereal quotes that just don't have squat to do with the discussion.

- Using general statements to avoid complying with specific statements.

- Focusing on the good times from way back in their past only to the remember that those times were being slighted too. (i.e. pre-1989 requirements reference is funny because it's the same people criticizing the 1970s scouting urbanization that according to them did such damage. It's pretty much the same requirements. Sounds more like there's no way to please this group. Same thing with youth on BORs. Added in the 1970s but the 1970s screwed up the program. huh.)

 

....

 

As for your last dogma quote ... It's really good but doesn't have anything to do with our discussion. No one's talking about teaching dogma. We are talking about when scouts earn advancement. If anything, your dogma quote directly applies to what I've seen in our local school district. To participate in celebrate graduation, every graduate had to empty all pockets, shoes, etc. It was capped with the school's football coach accusing my son of having gang symbols on him. Luckily the vice principal recognized the eagle scout crest on my son's wallet.

 

....

 

twocubdad - "and that I actively counsel my Scouts to slow down"

 

Wow. We really do come different positions. I've promised myself that I'll avoid giving that advice if I can. It stifles dreams and is nothing but de-motivating. How about instead encouraging the scout and challenging them to meet their goals and live their dreams!

 

And no, you don't need to skate by on quality or proficiency to support the scout meeting his dreams.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Twocubdad]

I suppose it all depends on what your dreams are, Fred. If your dream is to be a Eagle Scout in middle school so you can quit Scouts and move on to another resume builder, yeah, I'll own wanting to guide that Scout to rethink his dreams.

 

I guess it's a good thing you're not in our troop nor me in yours. And I think it's great our scouts get to make that choice, too.