Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[dkurtenbach]

JMHawkins wrote: "[First Class First Year emphasis] 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."

 

When I was SM, one of the things I used to emphasize to visiting parents was that in our troop, a Scout advanced at his own pace, and it was up to him to find someone to sign off requirements. We weren't going to be leading them by the nose through advancement, and we weren't going to be checking their books regularly and telling them what to do next.

 

I'd get looks like I was from another planet.

 

Then the enthusiastic new parents would come in and start leading Scouts by the nose through advancement, checking their books regularly, and telling them what to do next.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[dkurtenbach]

In response to my comment on requirements being written as largely "one and done," bnelon44 wrote: "Except for some exceptions (e.g., camp gaget using lashings), haven't Boy Scout requirements have always been that way?"

 

In my experience, without researching the issue, yes -- they have always been that way. So, if the requirements have always been written that way, where did the notion come from that a rank represents what a Scout is capable of doing, that is, that a rank indicates that a Scout has continuing competency in the skills learned to earn that rank? Was that ever actually true? Or has it always been the case that a large percentage of Scouts quickly forget skills and knowledge for which they received sign offs?

 

If it was true at one time that rank represented continuing skill competency even though the requirements were written as "one and done," perhaps something else changed. Perhaps the environment in which Scouts were trained in those skills has changed. Perhaps in past times Scouts did not rush through requirements, but had many opportunities to practice something and really learn it before they asked for a signoff. Perhaps in past times the expectation was that you had to really know something before you got signed off. The hazy memories of my youth suggest that getting my card signed off on some requirement was a big deal and not approached lightly.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

[bnelon44]

dkurtenbach,

 

It all depends on what the Scout did after making 1st class. I don't think that is any different today than it was in 1911.

 

When I was a Scout we had canvas 1/2 tents (remember those?) So knowing how to tie a taught line hitch and two half hitches got me though my 200 miles of hiking I did as a Scout. I never mastered the bowline nor lashes until I became a Scoutmaster because our Scouting experiences consisted of a lot of back packs. We didn't build stuff with rope and logs.

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Twocubdad]

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

 

Yes, generally the actual requirements are the same, the difference is we now have a national advancement team and advancement policy redefining common English words to make those requirements meaningless. The requirement to serve actively in a leadership position is basically the same now as it was when I earned Eagle 40 years ago (main difference being they were called "troop warrant officers" instead of positions of responsibility.) I can hear my Scoutmaster's bellowing guffaw now, had I suggested to him that I should get credit for other "Scoutlike" activities, or that I could assemble six months tenure over three years of spotty activity.

 

...Scouts think Star is a nothing rank...

 

Now you're talking. Star IS a nothing rank, not just for the wimpy PORs, but because we allow boys to earn any merit badge any time. Therefore by the time they complete First Class most boys have two or three of the required MBs and have long-since blown through the two electives. Tack on one of the Citizenship badges and you're done.

 

If one of the assumed new directions is to beef-up the outdoor program, that's a perfect place for my previously-described plan of creating a "optionally-required" list of outdoor oriented MBs (cooking, orienteering, hiking, backpacking, pioneering, wilderness survival, canoeing, whitewater, nature, bird study, etc.) So make the requirement for Star be to earn Camping MB, two other Eagle-required MBs and three of the outdoor badges from the list. That pushes the outdoor program at the Star level and in some ways creates a "masters program" of outdoor skills.

 

As far as emphasizing testing goes, the issue is not that the skills aren't being spit back at a fixed point in time, but there is no long-term retention, i.e., one and done I'm no expert, but it seems to me one quality of mastering a skill is committing it to long-term memory. People never forget how to ride a bike because it has become ingrained.

 

LisaBob and dkurt have the answer to that, which is to change the philosophy from "no retesting" to Green Bar Bill's approach that advancement is earned not for what a Scout has done, but what he can do. Make requirements cumulative -- Scouts at every level should know first aid. If an Eagle candidate ought to be able to rattle off the rules for safe hiking, describe how to orient a map, and explain the basics of the safe swim defense. I, personally, don't think a Scout should have to repeat every requirement from the beginning (but if a given troo wants to do that, it should be the troop's choice), but I believe Scouts should be responsible for the the cumulative material and subject to retesting as their unit sees fit.

 

Making that change in advancement will force a change in programs. If Scouts and troops know knot tying may come up during a Life Scoutmaster conference or Board of Review, there will be a different approach to both teaching and learning the skills AND a different mindset among the boys as to the need to stay current. If the only time I need to know how to tie a taut-line hitch is when I get the Tenderfoot requirement signed-off, what incentive do I have to really learn it?

 

Who knows, bnelon, maybe with that mindset you would have really learned that bowline?

[Beavah]

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.

 

Interestin'. I've heard tell of one "rogue" troop that doesn't sign off for any individual requirements. Instead, once a quarter they have a special challenge campout run by da PLC where individual boys have to demonstrate all the requirements for the rank in normal use during the campout.

 

If yeh demonstrate 'em all well, then yeh have your BOR at the end of the campout and get the rank. If yeh don't demonstrate 'em all successfully, then yeh have a BOR at the end of the campout, and the board members are joined by PLC members to let yeh know what yeh did well and what still needs work for next time. Still no signoffs. To be recommended and approved for rank, yeh have to be able to demonstrate real-live proficiency in everything.

 

Beavah

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Perhaps more Scout skills should be like Tote 'Chip.

 

 

You need to be prepared to use and teach skills upon demand. If you can't a corner of your skills card is cut off. If all four corners go missing, you need to re qualify.

[bnelon44]

Here is an article written by Green Bar Bill on 1st Class emphasis dated 1953

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=scvQk3L2_r0C&lpg=PA23&dq=green%20bar%20bill%20board%20of%20review&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Here is an article by Green Bar Bill to Patrol Leaders telling them how important advancement is and 1st Class emphasis for every Scout in their patrol. Dated 1933

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zbtu_glJDyAC&lpg=PA42&dq=green%20bar%20bill%20board%20of%20review&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q=green%20bar%20bill%20board%20of%20review&f=false

 

 

[bnelon44]

SeattlePioneer

 

You don't need your Totin' Chip card to be able to use a knife in Scouting. Tearing a corner off may be a troop custom, but it isn't BSA policy. You won't find it in any of the BSA literature. Not sure if it ever was in any BSA literature.

 

see Scouting Urban Legions at USScouts: http://usscouts.org/factfiction/safety.asp

 

Retesting a Scout once they have been tested on a skill isn't done in Scouting.

 

I would like to know if anyone has any old official literature showing BSA Board of Review policy allowing retesting. It may have happened in the past, I am courious when and when it stopped happening.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[bnelon44]

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.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[bnelon44]

Talking about 1st Class emphasis, I found this in the 1928 Handbook for Patrol Leaders written by Green Bar Bill:

 

"One of the most important functions of a Patrol Leader is to help his boys to advance in Scoutcraft.

 

It isn't Scoutlike to stand still. Scouting is "Forward." If a goal has been reached, immediately another is beckoning in the distance.

 

The real Patrol Leader will have his boys go through the Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class stages as fast as is consistent with thoroughness. He will have them move along all the time. That natually means that he himself must advance too.

 

And as you set out on the quest you will find that the requirements are not something separate from Scouting. On the contrary, Scouting is the Requirements. When yoiu go hiking and camping the subjects contained in the requirements crop up all the time. With plenty of Scouting work before them your boys simply cannot help advancing...."

 

Note the 1928 Handbook for Patrol Leaders is the first BSA publication describing the Patrol Method.

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[JMHawkins]

The real Patrol Leader will have his boys go through the Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class stages as fast as is consistent with thoroughness. He will have them move along all the time. That natually means that he himself must advance too.

 

Indeed.

 

You may notice a few difference from today. For instance, that ancient advice did not specify a timeframe, but rather "...as fast as is consistent with thoroughness." Contrast that with "First Class, First Year" where the emphasis is on hitting a specific time frame as thoroughly as possible, rather than being thorough as quickly as possible. Ah, quite an interesting difference.

 

Also, that old advice from GBB was to the Patrol Leader, who was responsible for keeping his guys moving along the advancement trail. Today the G2A states that the adult Committee Advancement Chair has the responsibility to 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.

[moosetracker]

I am not one for looking through old historical bSA books for a smidgen of info, but I do know Kudu has time and again brought up some old time rule that stated that when they went for each rank they had to show efficiency in not only that rank, but any rank before it.. Don't know though if it was at the BOR, or to their Patrol leader of SM before the BOR..

 

Don't know about the retesting stuff, I do think some of that can easily become a unfairly grueling test.. Like if in school, you were asked to take a History final in Senior year HS, but not only was the final going to ask you what you learned this year in history, but could ask you the names & dates of anything you learned in history since first grade up.. If your teacher want to be a real jerk, they could ask you some very small insignificant fact.. Like what color was the shirt Francis Scott Key wore when he wrote the Star Spangle banner? Besides the test probably taking 12 to 24 hours to complete.

 

I just know there needs to be a challenge, that challange does not need to be at the time of rank advancement.. Like, I like the special troop awards idea, the special T-shirt for going through some challenge, or maybe a creation of some special troop patch that can be given if you show proficiency by the troops defination, but you need to remove it if you don't keep up your skills until you relearn the skills again.

 

I think you are right, if a troop does this, the boys will take more pride in this T-shirt or troop patch then any of the rank advancement due to the challenge involved to earn it and be able to continue to wear it.

 

But, if the boys care about the troop award over the rank patches it does say something about how hallow the ranks have become, thanks to National Advancement's meddling.. At least with the ranks the FCFY should be pulled and they should return to emphasizing as fast as is consistent with thoroughness... They should emphasis efficiency not hint around that one & done is acceptable as long as the scout receives lots of bling in their first year.

[bnelon44]

JMHawkins,

 

"The real Patrol Leader will have his boys go through the Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class stages as fast as is consistent with thoroughness. He will have them move along all the time. That natually means that he himself must advance too. "

 

I'm not sure how many 13 year old boys would read that and say "well, I have over a year to complete this task. My guess is none. Instead they would probably set a goal of a few months or weeks to get it accomplished.

 

A year is a lifetime to a 13 year old boy.

 

" Today the G2A states that the adult Committee Advancement Chair has the responsibility to 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... "

 

You make a good point here.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Twocubdad]

The real Patrol Leader will have his boys go through the Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class stages as fast as is consistent with thoroughness. He will have them move along all the time. That natually means that he himself must advance too.

 

So troop leaders were being given bad advice/policy from National in 1928, too.

 

Or perhaps in 1928 PLs and their adult mentors had different ideas of thoroughness.

 

Or troops in 1928 didn't have a pushy, helicopter parents over their shoulder pushing boys to "finish" Scouts so the can focus on lacrosse, band or robotics (more likely, lacrosse, band AND robotics).

 

Or maybe that 1928 PL had that Rockwellian Scoutmaster standing in front of the row of sleeping Scouts to help extablish what the standards needed to be, helping the Scouts get the most out of the program, not to get out as quickly as possible.

 

And perhaps that Scoutmaster didn't have to contend with a lot of silly rules from national telling him that active means breathing or approving something only means to chat about it.

 

Or maybe Scoutmasters in 1928 knew what good Scoutmasters in 2012 know -- that to run a good program and help your Scouts get the best from it, sometimes you have to ignore the silly pronouncements from the folks in national who are more interested in their organizational goals than they are those boys sleeping in the tents.

[JMHawkins]

Something else about the current G2A's requirement about First Class First Year, Star the next year: What sort of thinking has Star taking as along as the entire T-2-1 batch of material? Unless we adopted a policy of no MBs until First Class, I don't see how a scout who is active and interested enough to really earn FC in one year is going to take an entire extra year to get to Star. Seems this wasn't really thought out.