Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[RememberSchiff]

Inconsistent from one section to the next.

 

Is advancement the responsibility of the scout(s) or everyone else?

 

Does the SM have an advancement vision or does the SM help the scout form an advancement vision?

 

Does the scout request/sign-up for a SM conference and BOR or is that an adult responsibility?

 

Advancement is a journey or it is a destination (ranks) that needs to be "maximized" and tallied?

 

Is advancement at the scout's pace, the group's pace, or a set pace, i.e., "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" (p13, item 7)? What crap, I thought we convinced National that FCFY was wrong! So what happens, National comes back with FCFYSSY.

 

Active participation (p21). I do not know of any unit that will advance a scout if he is seriously behind (more than a month) in dues (his responsibility) or did not participate in the unit fundraiser, but this seems a no-no. Low attendance seems okay if a reason is provided, but it does not address attendance and a POR. This needs more thought and clarity.

 

Correct and streamline Unit Advancement Responsibilities. "Build unit programming around advancement"???? Scouts plan the COH. Drop 7. "invite scouts to BOR"??? Drop 12. Some of these are for scouts to do.

 

As for scouts with disabilities, units can discreetly handle requirement accommodations themselves thank you. No need to repeatedly send medical and private personal information to Council for each rank advancement.

 

IMO, KISMIF. Trust the unit leaders to do the right thing, but give the scout (and his parents) a documented simple appeal process to review and fix any misunderstandings or problems be it the scout, the scoutmaster, the advancement chairman, troop program.

 

Oh, and go back to working on ranks in sequence.

 

My $0.01,

 

[Eagle92]

I just wish the statement, paraphrasing here, "the badge represents what the Scout is capable of doing, not a reward for what he has done" would be used a heck of a lot more throughout the document AND the BSA handbook.

 

better still bring back the wording from previous BSHBs that scouts "master the skills." and have it repeatedly used throughout all BSA literature.

[GKlose]

Honestly -- I view the present Guide To Advancement as an overwrought policy document. I know this is an arguable position, but if I were in charge of it, I would look at splitting it up into parts (Cubs, Boy Scouts, Eagle, Special Needs), editing and simplifying it, and releasing it as separate pamphlets. There's a rash of "all things to all people" going on lately.

 

Who is the audience? As a troop advancement coordinator, I need to look at one subset of the Guide. A Cubmaster, or a Den Leader, needs to look at a different subset. A Troop or District Eagle Coordinator needs to look at another, as does the District Advancement Committee. I'd bet that the average Cub Scout Pack can't get a Den Leader to read through the present Guide, just to figure out what Cub advancement is all about. What about a merit badge counselor?

 

All that said, I think the present document is much improved over the prior version.

 

Guy

[bnelon44]

The audience for the Guide to Advancement are unit, district and council adults responsible for advancement.

 

RememberSchiff, nice list of items.

By the way, it is the unit's responsibility to schedule BORs and invite Scouts to them. Always has been. Not sure where the idea that Scouts had to go begging for them came from. Maybe from the idea "don't do anything for a Scout that he can do for himself." But that doesn't mean make him do the work of the committee.

 

Eagle92, didn't we have a thread on what "master the skills" meant awhile back and for some it was pretty strict.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Lisabob]

Kill the bit about troops providing a program that pushes for FCFY and Star the year after.

 

Frankly, good troops are already providing a program that hits the activity/skill requirements involved in FC. Weak troops already *aren't* doing that, and no policy document will change that.

 

So the policy does nothing to actually improve troop program. Instead, it sets up expectations among novice adult leaders that result in many troops herding practically every boy through the skill requirements, even if those boys aren't actually very capable and don't really "own" those skills. It then boots youngsters (age 12) into the "leadership" requirements of S-L-E far earlier than many are ready to take on those roles. Many 12 & 13 year olds would probably find much more satisfaction in earning - truly mastering - the skills for FC, than in lumping along in quasi-leadership mumbo jumbo of Star, Life, and Eagle. Let them save those for when they're a little more mature, and encourage troops and boys to savor the journey, instead. (This isn't to say that the occasional hair-on-fire-about-advancement boy couldn't blow through requirements faster, but let's not set these expectations in policy documents.)

 

Now as has been discussed before, the FCFY notion is probably based on a misguided reading of that data, which apparently has shown that boys who attain FC in about a year are more likely to remain in scouting, than those who do not. But the problem is that this is an example of correlation, not causation. Boys who really master the skills for FC in about a year are probably pretty gung ho about scouting in general, and are also probably getting a lot out of a robust program (in terms of skill growth, self confidence, and fun). So it isn't the FC rank - but rather, the high quality program and maybe the boy's personal interest - that were the causal factors behind that data result. And you can't mandate those with a policy document.

 

 

[bnelon44]

I don't know exactly the rationale for FCFY, I remember back when it was introduced (or pushed) a few years ago that the reason was because the Scouts stayed in longer if they made FC in 1 year or less.

 

However, I think it is a good idea because Scouting is camping and you learn how to camp when you go through the T2F requirements. I want our Scouts to be good in the outdoors as quickly as possible so we can do stuff with them. So the T2F requirements are a good tool for me to utilize and it gives the Scouts a set program to use with rewards to accomplish my goal of getting them to know a bit about camping, hiking, first aid, swimming etc. so we can go out and do stuff.

[Lisabob]

I would alter this segment from the GTA (re: purpose of BORs)

 

"Though one reason for a board of review is to ensure

the Scout did what he was supposed to do to meet

the requirements, it shall become neither a retest or

examination, nor a challenge of his knowledge.

In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of

accomplishment. 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."

 

This is the happy-huggy-feely crap that makes so many of us shudder. Boys see through "fake" and "shallow" and "hoop jumping" so quickly, and they lose respect for both the people and the process after that.

 

BORs certainly don't need to be an explicit re-test (tosses rope to startled boy - "here, tie my 5 different knots in 2 minutes - go!"). But seriously, they can't in any way "challenge [a boy's] knowledge?" That could be interpreted, in the extreme, to mean that anything a boy asserts, is set in stone, true or not, well-founded, or not. Blech. Gimme a break. Better still, give some credence to the judgment of adult volunteer leaders who serve the BSA, and stop trying to regulate out to the nth degree.

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

bnelon, we cross-posted. My point is not that troops should not offer the skills/activities that are part of T-2-1. My point is that the misguided emphasis on "earn FCFY" and then "star the year after" do a disservice to the point of the ranks and the interest of many typical boys, and also leads well-intended adults to inadvertently water down the program.

 

Let me try again, this time with #'d concerns for ease of discussion and clarification.

 

1. Good troops are already active and provide regular opportunities to practice the skills - FCFY philosophy and GTA policy are not the reason why good troops do this.

 

2. Weak troops are typically not that active and don't provide regular opportunities to practice the skills - FCFY philosophy and GTA policy do not miraculously cause weak troops to become strong troops.

 

3. The research on FCFY did show that boys who made FC in about a year tended to stick with scouting - but not WHY. You (and others) seem to mistake correlation for causation. It is probably not the act of being awarded FC rank that results in greater longevity - it is more likely to be solid programming in a strong troop and maybe the boy's personal interest, that cause a boy to do both (earn FC fairly quickly AND stick with scouting). Confusing correlation with causation overlooks the very important reason WHY the research shows what it does, and therefore results in well-meaning but incorrect conclusions and emphases.

 

4. 11-12-13 year olds are concrete, hands-on creatures. Many boys would probably take greater pride in earning FC than in earning Star. You have to DO a lot of things for FC, overtly demonstrating hard-earned tangible skills. In contrast, Star seems "easy" and there's much less tangible "doing" involved. Few 12 year olds get excited about serving in a POR for 4 months. They're much more likely to be excited about being able to use an axe, light a fire, build a pioneering project, cook their own food, etc..

 

So I would venture to guess we lose a lot of boys who blow through FCFY and hit Star about a year later, because the fun/challenging "doing" part of the program that appeals so to pre-teens and early teens is "over with" (or at least, no longer rewarded) by then in a troop that pushes FCFY and then Star a year later.

 

 

[moosetracker]

To echo some of what Lisabob stated.. My sons first troop was a grilling retest of everything.. We left the troop and had to be retaught this was not what BOR is about. Once deprogrammed, I thought the new way for a BOR may have been too easy, but saw the flaws in the grilling retest.. (Basically I retrospect, they had boys that it was a simple test and some where it was very difficult.. How hard the test was started with the troops Advancement Coordinators pre-conceived notion of the worthiness of the scout.. If worthy, and easy test.. If not a difficult test to find reason to flunk him.)

 

OK, so I should be all for the new BOR process Right?.. Wrong.. Reason is as Lisabob states, boys see right through it and don't like it.. (there needs to be a happy medium) My son about a month ago stated to me, he prefered the BOR of his first troop over the BOR's of his other troops.. Why? Because he was challenged.. He was not what was considered a worthy scout, so he got grilled.. We knew he would get grilled, so would spend the week before the BOR having him practice to pass.. But, for him regardless is was a challenge and he felt the thrill of success when he would be triumphant in passing through their fires of hell and coming out victorious..

 

Again, not saying that type of grilling should be there especially if unfairly administered.. But, the kids need to feel they passed some type of challenge and it is not a rubber stamp.

 

My son's last troop was a good troop while he was in it (If not we would have looked for a 4th troop).. After he got Eagle, but before he turned 18 a new SM has totally destroyed the program that was their.. It is now a weak troop..

 

They still to FCFY.. By having one night camping outside the church and signing off All the new scouts on their camp cooking.. One night and yet 4, 5, or 6 scouts get all their camp cooking signed off on one dinner..

 

For weak troops FCFY, does nothing to improve their program.

 

[RememberSchiff]

bnelon44,

I agree the Advancement Chairman/Committee schedule BOR's but there is no "invite" involved, at least not in my experience. The scout signs up for a scheduled BOR or waits for the next BOR. The AC does not chase after scouts who forgot either. As you point out, the scout learns to take responsibility.

 

Another $0.01,

[bnelon44]

How about instituting an organized testing session?

 

The Scouts learn how to tie the basic knots, in a week or so the PLC tests them individually. If they pass they get signed off, if not, they don't.

 

Troops signing off on cooking when the Scout doesn't cook isn't following the BSA process, so it is hard to blaim the GTA for them doing that. The BOR however, if they find out it happened can hold a scout back from advancement. The process is the Scout is tested, if that didn't occur then the requirement isn't completed.

 

One of the reasons I have found that Scouts think Star is a nothing rank is that they earned the merit badges during their T2F time and the POR is a nothing job. Make the POR a real job and something they can be proud of and they take ownership in the troop. It is in the Start to Eagle time frame they should be taking ownership in their troop.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[JMHawkins]

The research on FCFY did show that boys who made FC in about a year tended to stick with scouting - but not WHY. ...It is probably not the act of being awarded FC rank that results in greater longevity - it is more likely to be solid programming in a strong troop and maybe the boy's personal interest, that cause a boy to do both (earn FC...

 

Absolutely. Recognizing the mistaken assumptions behind FCFY is a critical step in salvaging the Advancement Method. Plus, another bit of weakening the FCFY emphasis does in troops that take it to heart is it removes the opportunity from the Scout to learn about setting and managing his own goals. If they adults are force-marking hims through the ranks, he never learns how to prioritize and manage his own advancement. Frankly the biggest hurdle to T-2-1 advancement in our Troop is the Scout remembering to bring his book and get something signed off. We had one scout get a couple of things signed off after his first campout, then didn't bring his book for nearly a year. Finally decided he wanted to earn some ranks, brought his book, and because he'd been on so many campouts and hikes, by the end of the meeting he was 90% signed off all the way to First Class and just had a handful of things left to do.

 

11-12-13 year olds are concrete, hands-on creatures. Many boys would probably take greater pride in earning FC than in earning Star.

 

I'm pretty sure our guys are more proud of the special color troop activity shirts they earned for 30 nights camping in a year then they are of any formal rank advancement. They started wearing those shirts immediately, but we often have to remind them to sew a patch on when they've earned it.

 

A local SM in our council says based on the records he's been keeping (apparently has a spreadsheet tracking nearly everything about scout activity in his troop going back years), the biggest factor in retention is a 50-miler hike. He claims that if a scout completes a 50-miler, odds are he's going to age out as an active scout. If he doesn't, he'll drop out at some point.

 

Accomplishment is what keeps them in, and it seems like the more adventuresome the accomplishment, the better.

[GKlose]

Bill -- I think you missed my point with my question on "who is the audience?" I know who the audience is -- I was just wrapping that up in my point that I view the guide as an "all things to all people" overwrought policy document.

 

The Guide is far more complex than it needs to be, when it mixes the advancement of a Tiger Cub all the way up to an Eagle Scout, with Palms, in a full spectrum.

 

The basic policies of Cub advancement are completely different than what a District Advancement committee needs for Eagle project plan approval and a Board of Review.

 

That's my critique -- I think the audience(s) would be better served with simpler, more clear documents that are better focused on the end customer. A Den Leader has a different view than a troop advancement coordinator, who has a different view than a District Advancement Chair or Committee, who has a different view than a merit badge counselor.

 

Want a good working example? A new Scout enters our troop -- his mom is a middle school science teacher, who desperately wants to help out. We suggested that she could offer a lot as a merit badge counselor. That's fine, but do I hand her the Guide to Advancement to learn the role?NO, of course not. It's not written for her, even though one fundamental aspect of Boy Scout advancement is the merit badge program.

 

Guy

[dkurtenbach]

I would suggest that it is not the Guide to Advancement that needs to be changed. Most adult leaders in units will never have heard of the Guide to Advancement, much less have read it.

 

What really matters is how the actual advancement requirements are written. The requirements are what the Scouts see and act on, what the leaders see and act on, and what the parents see (and demand action on).

 

This is particularly significant in regard to the issue of skill proficiency versus "one-and-done." If "the badge represents what the Scout is capable of doing, not a reward for what he has done" appeared in bold letters on every page of the Guide to Advancement AND every page of every youth handbook, it would still be irrelevant, because the actual requirements call for a skill or bit of knowledge or some experience to be demonstrated only once or just a small number of times, and then that item is never called for again in the requirements.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

[bnelon44]

dkurtenbach,

 

Except for some exceptions (e.g., camp gaget using lashings), haven't Boy Scout requirements have always been that way?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)