Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[Eagle92]

Getting into the conversation late so bear with me.

 

In reference to mastery of scouting skills and the badge representing what a scout is capable of doing, that goes all the way back to BP in 1907. I think up until the current BSHB, the phrase "mastering scout skills," or something very similar, was in each book. That is no more. And I think that is a terrible loss.

 

And while the requirements may have been written as "one and done," if you look at the literature, you will see that the youth are the ones TEACHING (emphasis) those skills to the younger scouts. Whether it's T-2-1 First Aid, Totin chip, etc. One of the things I liked about mixed age patrols.

 

Heck I remember being taught Canoeing MB skills by older scouts, and teaching those skills in turn. Especially when I was prepping for a 64 mile canoe trip in the Canadian wilderness.

 

As for 12 and 13 year old not taking the sign off responsibility seriously, HOGWASH! The key them taking responsibility is the example example of the older scouts and adults. I vididly remember being assigned to teach the First Aid Skill Award, and given the admonition, "Make sure he knows the stuff and can do, 'cause someone's life may be on the line." As i have found out, when the general public hears "Boy Scout" and there is a First Aid emergency, they go to the Scout, even if he's a brand new, just crossed over Scout who hadn't earned his First Aid Skill Award yet.

 

As to the other skills, again I like how mixed age patrols allows older scouts to partner up and train the younger ones. And when the PL signs off, he KNOWS that the scout knows his stuff.

 

BP said it best, The more responsibility the Scoutmaster gives his patrol leaders, the more they will respond.

 

And I HATE (emphasis) that national no longer allows Scouts to sit on BORs, as they did from 1972-1989. Probably the best idea of the entire urban Scouting failure, and they decide to stop it.

 

As to the rationale behind FCFY, yep national did the research but didn't take into account of program. An active program, not one forced down the throats of scouts liek some have done, will get a scout to FC in a year or so.

 

 

 

 

[bnelon44]

You are correct, most of the rank skills now only require that the Scouts demonstrate or show. They do not require mastery. I stand corrected.

 

Since the BOR is not an examination board nor a retest nor a board to sit in judgement of other Scouts, why have the Scouts sit on boards of review?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Eagle92]

bnelon44,

 

While the "mastering the skills" comment is no longer in the BSHB, similar wording is in the GtA. GTA says the badge represents what the scout is capable of doing, not recognition for what he has done. For me that means that if I ask a Star, Life, or Eagle to do a T-2-1 skill, they should be able to do it, hence mastery. So the expectation of mastering scout skills is given to adults, not the ones who need to know this: the youth of the unit.

 

As to why having a youth on the T-2-1 BORs? Why for a variety of reasons.

 

1) The youth tend to know who is doing the work and who isn't. While the BOR is not a retest, their job is to see that the scout has done the work. And a Scout sometimes knows more than the adults about what is going on. So a PLC member ( FYI, I'm also including the older scouts in troop level PORs in my definition of a "PLC member") is in a better position than a committee member.

 

2)Who is in a better position to make sure that the scout is having a good time, a member of the PLC or an adult committee member? Obviously the PLC member since they have worked with the scout and/or member s of his patrol.

 

3) Who is in a better position to encourage a T-2-1 scout to continue in the program, a PLC member that he may look up to, or an adult committee member? Is still remember passing my FC BOR, and encouragement that my SPL gave me when he congratulated me and told me he expects to see me in 4 months for Star.

 

4) Who has a greater impact on a unit's program, the PLC or the committee? So it stands to reason that having a member of the PLC on the BOR helps fulfill the BORs other goal of making sure that the unit's program is in fact meeting the needs of the youth.

 

5) Who has a better opportunity to see and understand the scout's attitudes, accomplishments and acceptance of Scouting's ideals, the PLC member of a committee member.

 

6)The BSA keeps saying we want the scouts to be leaders, so why not put them on BORs and let them assume more responsibility? Paraphrasing BP here, why let an adult do something that a Scout is capable of doing?

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[bnelon44]

My guess as to why Scouts no longer sit on BORs is that they took advantage of their position to bully the other Scouts and prevent some Scouts from advancing and others to advance without accomplishing all the requirements.

 

In a perfect world, Jr. High School boys don't do these things, especially in Scouting. In the real world, it happens. A Scout who is bullied need a mechanism to express dissatisfaction with the program to the committee even if he doesn't voluntarily step forward. The BOR is such a mechanism, at least it allows the committee to ask how the Scout is doing and if he likes the program, and if not, why not. Having his SM or SPL on the board could prevent free discussion of these matters.

 

Anyway, my guess is that there were so many compaints that having Scouts sit on BORs was dropped.

 

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

[Beavah]

My guess as to why Scouts no longer sit on BORs is that they took advantage of their position to bully the other Scouts and prevent some Scouts from advancing and others to advance without accomplishing all the requirements

 

Yah, hmmmm...

 

Yeh know, if our real feeling is that boys will take advantage of their position to bully other boys, then da problem isn't with Boards of Review.

 

It's with Patrol Leaders.

 

What yeh have described, bnelon44, would be an indictment of all youth leadership and patrol method, eh?

 

Now personally, while I recognize that Patrol Leaders or older scouts can be bullies, that's somethin' that is part of the role of the adults and other youth in a troop to address. That's not a reason to prohibit youth leadership.

 

No different for Boards of Review.

 

Anybody who has ever worked with kids or seen 'em on BORs knows that kids have a very strong sense of fairness, eh? If anything, they tend to take us at our word that the Oath and Law and "requirements" have real meaning, and set high expectations for each other.

 

Havin' high expectations is somethin' that offends the "everybody deserves a trophy" adult community, and as far as I remember, that was da reason for the shift.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle92]

Gotta agree with Beavah on this. If an adult believes that PLC members would act like this, then why do they get involved in Scouting at all? The patrol method is the FOUNDATION of scouting. if an adult takes away responsibility, or even hints at the Scouts not being capable of doing something, then that adult is a problem, not the youth. Green Bar Bill said it best, "Train them, trust them, let them lead." If an adult cannot trust their scouts, then that is a major problem.

 

If anything, I bet the problem was that the Scouts on the BOR were keeping higher standards than the adults on the BOR were. I've seen that a time or two in my career where the scouts wouldn't sign off on requirements that an adult would.

 

I know on the BORs I went through at the T-2-1 level, and later that I sat on, the youth on the BOR was the chair, as well as the ones my peers sat on, the youth led the discussion among the BOR members, the youth was the one that influenced the others, and the youth was the one to announce the decision and congratulate the scout.

 

I take that back I know of 1 BOR where the youth sat back with a 'deer in the headlights" look, and didn't really know what to do. And that was me the first time I was a BOR member.

[bnelon44]

Did Green Bar Bill ever advocate that Scouts sit on BORs?

 

Personally, I see it as defeating one of the major jobs of the BOR which is to gather information on how well the Scout is doing and the program is doing in an objective and non-confrontational environment.

 

We don't live in a perfect world.

[Eagle92]

Don't know, KUDU may know. But here's my assumption and rationale behind it.

 

I bet he would be 100% for it, as well as BP. If you look at BP's Scouting for Boys, World Brotherhood edition, there is no mention of 'boards of review" but there are "courts of honor" which roughly correspond to our modern, Patrol Leader's Council. In it BP talks about how establishing a "court of honor" to run things is vital to a troop existence, and is what kept some troops alive when their leaders went off to serve in WWI.

 

And I see having youth serve on the BOR as the best way to meet the goals of a BOR.

 

But as you said we don't live in a perfect world. I see folks being treated, and acting like, children until the mid to late 20s. Heck I friends from HS who are in their 30s still acting like frat boys. I see and talk to parents of high school students almost weekly now who are trying to set up stuff for their children in order to graduate from HS. I know I had a much harder requirement, 100 hours of actual community service and not just 5-20 hours of "job shadowing" that I and my peers were responsible for arranging and doing.

[bnelon44]

I did some research

 

Early History of Rank Advancement Examinations and Boards of Review

 

At the Beginning

 

When the BSA started, there were three class of Scouts: Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class. The "joining rank," in the early days of Scouting was Tenderfoot (there was no 'Scout Badge') and the Scout really wasn't considered a Scout until he learned the Tenderfoot requirements and was satisfactorily tested. Originally he was taught by the Scoutmaster or a Scout and then when the Scoutmaster felt he was ready went before a Council Board of Review to be examined. This board was comprised of men appointed by the local council. This was a true examination. The Scout had to show that he mastered the Tenderfoot skills. This examination was held at the location the troop normally met at. The Scout was tested and if he passed, he was awarded the Tenderfoot rank by the Scoutmaster or one of the board members at the next troop meeting in an Investiture Ceremony. From that point forward, he could consider himself a Scout. (Handbook for Scoutmasters 1913, pg 108)

 

For the ranks of 2nd Class and above; a Scout would be taught by his unit (preferably by his Patrol Leader or an older Scout) and then when the Scoutmaster felt he was ready, he would go before a 'Court of Honor' to be examined before the board of three adults selected by the local council. The board would test and pass him and he would then usually be awarded the rank by the same board shortly after in a formal ceremony.

 

After 1st Class, the Scout earned merit badges and was awarded certain grades. He became a Life Scout, Star Scout and finally an Eagle Scout. If he earned a certain 5 merit badges he would be presented with the Life Scout grade patch. When he earned an additional five for a total of 10 badges, given the Star Scout grade and when he earned 21 badges the Eagle Scout. (note at the time Life came before Star.)

 

Merit badges could only be earned by 1st Class Scouts or above. The Scout worked on the badge and when he and his Scoutmaster felt he was ready he went to the Council Court of Honor to be examined. This could also be held at the place where the troop meets. If he passed he would be awarded the badge shortly after by the same body. (Handbook for Scoutmasters 1913, pg 53)

 

The 1913 Handbook for Scoutmasters also emphasizes council wide inter-patrol competitions heavy on Scoutcraft skills. Scouts are graded in the competitions and if they fail, their advancement examination would be held up. (Handbook for Scoutmasters 1913, pg 57)

 

 

What Hillcourt Changed

 

When Hillcourt had control of the program, and by the time of the 3rd edition of the Handbook for Scoutmasters (1936); Hillcourt had replaced the previous system with something very similar to what we have today.

 

For Tenderfoot, a Scout was taught the skills and how to pass the requirements by his Patrol Leader and was tested by someone in the troop with the rank of Jr. Assistant Scoutmaster or above. There was no Board of Review for Tenderfoot. So once examined he was invested into the Troop by his Scoutmaster and was from that point forward, a real Scout.

 

For 2nd and 1st Class ranks Hillcourt had pushed the examination down to the troop level as well. A Patrol Leader was to get his boys ready for the examination and when he felt they were ready for 2nd or 1st Class they would be then presented to a troop leader with the rank of Jr. Asst. Scoutmaster or above; who would examine them (see pg 977 of the Handbook for SM; 1936.)

 

After they were examined and passed they then would go before a Board of Review

The board did not test the Scouts, and Hillcourt warned they were a REVIEW board and that the examination already occurred so they should not retest the Scout. This is where we received our concept of a Board of Review is a review body, not an examination board. The Board of Review was made up of adult committee members or adults selected by the local council. It was normally held during the Troop Meetings. (Handbook for SM, 1936 edition; pg 979)

 

After the Board of Review, the Scout is awarded his rank at a troop Court of Honor. (ibid. pg 980)

 

Merit Badges could be worked on once a 1st class Scout and were done between a Scout and a Merit Badge Counselor who would test and sign the Scout off on the requirements. Once completed the District or Council Board of Review would review the work (it was not a reexamination) and present the badge at a District or Council Court of Honor.

 

For Star (5 badges), Life (10 badges) and Eagle (21 badges) applications were prepared and signed by the Scoutmaster. The switch of the Star and Life badges occurred in 1927. There was no formal examination. The Scout would appear before the District or Council Board of Review to be reviewed and presented with the award at a District or Council Court of Honor.

 

A handy chart that was in Hillcourt's 1936 Handbook for Scoutmasters is here:

bsatroop14.com/history/Hillcourt1936Boards.pdf

 

Ref:

Handbook for Scoutmasters (1913)

Handbook for Patrol Leaders (1928)

Handbook for Scoutmasters (1936)

Handbook for Scoutmasters (1947)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[bnelon44]

A correction in the 1st paragraph above. Originally the board of men examining the Scout was called the Court of Honor not Board of Review. The term Board of Review (to emphasise that they were only reviewing what has already happened) was introduced around 1936 by William Hillcourt.

[Beavah]

Personally, I see it as defeating one of the major jobs of the BOR which is to gather information on how well the Scout is doing and the program is doing in an objective and non-confrontational environment.

 

Then yeh have never seen it in action.

 

I can't quite tell what it is yeh want, bnelon44. If yeh feel that the "major job" of the BOR is to gather information for program improvement and yeh only allow committee members on the BOR, then isn't that just an invitation to the committee to start "mucking around" in program? Wasn't that exactly what yeh didn't want?

 

That's the problem as I see it. Da structure doesn't work for what its purpose is.

 

If da purpose is to encourage the lad to greater efforts, then that is best done by his peers. His peers and fellow scouts are goin' to have much more influence on the boy than a group of adults he doesn't know very well.

 

If da purpose is to see how well the boy is doing so that the program can do a better job for him, then the people who need to see that are da folks who are running the program, eh? The fellow who instructed him on menu planning needs to get feedback on how well he retained that and how he thought it went. And that's goin' to be his Patrol Leader or one of the youth instructors. Having a youth actually hear directly how he's done from a fellow youth is a far more powerful lever for program and leadership improvement then havin' some committee member report what he thought he heard to a SM who reports what he thought he heard to the patrol leader who takes away what he thought he heard.

 

None of it makes any sense, unless yeh don't trust youth to teach and lead, and have some cockamamie notion that the adults have to "protect" him from his Patrol Leader by makin' sure no youth leaders are present.

 

It doesn't even make sense to committee members, who are always scramblin' around lookin' for canned questions to ask or who go off the reservation in terms of things like demanding an allegiance to a Christian God and all the rest that the other poster mentioned in da other thread. That's why folks and even Bill pushed to make it a rubber stamp, eh? Because a rubber stamp is better than the weird stuff that happens sometimes. But both happen only because nobody can figure out what to do with a BOR in da current structure. It's the wrong group of people for da task.

 

That's why in traditional Scouting across da world, all of this was the realm of the Court of Honor composed of youth leaders. The corporate BSA in da U.S. was an anomaly in the beginning with its notions of adult-run testing. Green Bar Bill was able to pull 'em back toward where they should be over time, but he was never able to fully move the adults out of da process, even though they don't belong. We adults in da U.S. are too into committees.

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44]

Well, Beavah, then blame Green Bar Bill, he was the one who replaced the Court of Honor with the Board of Review.

 

Anyway, one of the functions of a BOR is to interview the Scout to see how the program is doing in his eyes and feed that information back to the committee and the Scoutmaster.

 

If a younger Scout thinks the older Scouts are creating program that only they like and not listening to the younger Scouts, the BOR is an opportunity for the younger Scout to be honest about it (of course that is really only true if an older Scout isn't sitting in judgement of him on the BOR.)

 

I'll try to see if I can get together some of Hillcourt's thoughts on the purpose of the BOR

 

I do think BOR training could be improved, even the way we do it could be improved.

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[fred8033]

bnelon44: - Thanks for the great write ups. I've stayed silent for a few days as I'm trying to find the specifics. I was looking for either a physical or PDF version of the 1936 and/or 1947 scoutmaster handbooks.

 

I agree with what your saying. In my job, you never have those doing the work also doing the quality control evaluation of the work.

 

Anyway, it is always interesting to hear what Hillcourt really said as people often attribute differently to people who are not there to speak for themselves.

[Stosh]

As a woodsman with 55+ years experience in camping, hiking, etc. I find it rather interesting how the requirements for a certain skill only have to be demonstrated that the scout knows about it. Kinda like book learnin' the skills and retaining it for the semester test.

 

I can tie a square knot, but do I know when to use it? I can start a fire, but do I know when and how to use the fire once it's started?

 

The major problem I see with many of the advancements is the boy does the book learnin' but never develops the skills to use them later on. And as a secondary concern, simply learning them once does not mean that skill will be available later on after the passage of time unless that skill is reinforced through practice.

 

BE PREPARED might be the BSA motto, but are these boys really prepared? More often than not, I see boys having to be bailed out by adults because they lack the skills to function in an outdoor environment. High Adventure outdoor environments require these skills even more and the boys are even less prepared.

 

After 25+ years of running boys through the rapids of many rivers, to this day, I am the only adult who has always carried block and tackle, super sharp hand axe and belt knife. I have never had to cut a hole in an over turned canoe jammed in the rocks of a rapids, but I always carried the equipment and know-how to do so.

 

I have had the occasion to "rescue" a kayaker who overturned in the middle of a large lake. Another kayak was attempting to get the first kayaker back into his boat. However the boy in the water and the kayaker in his tippy kayak could not pull the waterlogged kayak up far enough and then when they got half the water out, the boy couldn't get back in. I told him to get into the swamped kayak, handed him the pump off the front of my kayak and told him I'd be back in 15 minutes for the pump.

 

Did I rescue this boy? Heck no, I just gave him a 2 minute lesson in being prepared the next time he goes out.

 

Not many of the modern scouts I have today, have the were-with-all to put the book learning into practical application. There are a few that do, but not many.

 

They got the rank badge, may have a bit of the knowledge, but without the skill, there is no such thing as BE PREPARED.

 

Stosh

 

 

[bnelon44]

jblake47,

 

The requirements are specific (always have been.) They use words like "demonstrate", "show", "Since joining, have participated in", "Tell", "On one campout, serve", etc.

 

If the Scout does what the requirement says he must do, no more, no less, he has passed the requirement as far as the rank requirement is concerned. If you want to add something else, that is fine, you just can't make it a requirement for achieving rank.

 

That has been the way it has been since the beginning. No one can add or subtract from the requirements.

 

It gives everyone an even playing field. Whether they are part of an inner city troop, or a tiny troop in the farm country in the mid-west.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)