Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[Eagle92]

Bnelon,

 

Good review and interesting history lesson. One thing to remember is that BSA did diverge a lot from BP's vision. And as I mentioned, BP was in favor of the boys doing all the the work.

 

 

In regards to advancement requirements, one thing to remember, the BSHB stated that the scouts were expected to "master the skills" when describing how a scout advances. That was the standard, mastery of the skill.

 

[Beavah]

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.

 

Yah, again, I think da folks who run to this quote every time advancement comes up are the ones who tend to flub the Advancement Method. It's not about "da requirements", eh? It's about each boy's growing skills and confidence in really being prepared. "Da requirements" aren't the end we're workin' toward, and this quote mostly turns 'em into the end.

 

Now in the 1936 Handbook, for Boards of Review, you'll see it sounds pretty similar to what we have now. Except yeh won't find "no adding to the requirements". Instead yeh can tease out:

 

"Each boy is called in singly before the Board and asked enough questions to assure the members that he deserves the rank he seeks... Answers to Where? When? and How? and so on will soon reveal whether the Scout has learned and demonstrated his skills under real-life conditions"

 

So the point of the old-school BOR was not to retest, but to make sure that no advancement was approved for once-and-done parlor testing. The expectation of "the requirements" was that the skills had to be well-learned and always be demonstrated in real-life conditions. Exactly what jblake is complainin' about no longer being the case.

 

Now it is true that adult community and committee members served on BORs. But yeh have to remember when yeh read the old books is that Scout Spirit and Participation were approved by the Troop Leader's Council (modern PLC). So the lad was expected to appear before his peers where his Patrol Leader and any other youth (or adult) leader who had worked with him could discuss his Scout Spirit. Then generally the PLC voted on whether the lad had met the Scout Spirit requirement. The same was true for the Active Participation requirement.

 

Of course, USA requirements were always a bit corporate / school like / wimpy compared with those in scouting in the rest of the world.

 

All da historical stuff is interestin' and all, and we can learn stuff especially from da periods when it seemed we were more successful than we are now. But unlike some others, I'm personally not wedded to the "old school". Some stuff was good, some not so much. What's important is what works to get boys outside, to give 'em real mastery of skills, and thereby to teach 'em preparedness, fitness, and character.

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44]

The problem with the term "master the skills" is that it is so subjective.

[bnelon44]

Eagle92

 

Do you have some recent BSA literature that you can point to that discusses that to pass a requirement a Scout has to "master a skill"?

[Venividi]

The benefit of the term "master the skills" is that it is subjective. Just like determining scout spirit.

 

Trust SM's of the right sort to make choices that are consistent with the aims of scouting and the goals of their CO.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I agree with VeniVidi, eh?

 

It's interestin' if yeh look at some of "da requirements" in other Scout Associations, they mostly avoid spelling out long lists of micro-requirements the way we do in the U.S., in our goofy quest for "objectivity."

 

Instead they tend to be comfortable with subjectivity and local interpretation. So if yeh look at some of the Scouts Canada requirements, they say things like "demonstrate that you're familiar with the proper use of your patrol's camping gear and procedures" (whatever they might be). They don't feel the need to have nation-wide standardization on a blow-by-blow basis.

 

I've said it repeatedly, but will again. Da notion that nation-wide standardization is even possible in the BSA, let alone desired, is utter nonsense. Yeh can't point to a single educational program in the U.S. which is truly objectively standardized across the country. Da closest, AP tests / curricula, are for shorter periods of time in more closely controlled classrooms with paid professional staff and vastly more resources than da BSA. Most that try just "dumb down" the curriculum to achieve least-common-denominator standardization, like we do in the BSA.

 

Pursuin' such an approach is just nonsense. We have wonderful leaders across the country who know their kids, their families, and their community. Train 'em, Trust 'em, and let 'em Lead.

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44]

So Scouts Canada uses the term "master the skills" in their rank requirements?

 

Can you give us some examples?

[Beavah]

Nah, the implication was that Scouts Canada is comfortable with subjective interpretation of the requirements. I don't know what their actual language is in Scouts Canada, but I'm sure yeh can look it up.

 

The point was that it shouldn't bother us that "master the skills" is subjective.

 

[bnelon44]

A number of the BSA requriements are also subjective. However there seems to be some preconcieve notions of what "master the skills" means that go way beyond what is intended in the requirements. That is what I am personally having difficulty with.

 

 

[Venividi]

bnelon44,

 

I like your enthusiasm and commitment to youth, and to your boys in your unit. If you find that your preconceived notion of what is meant by "mastering the skills" is getting in the way of boys having fun, of boys safety in the wilderness, causing a lot of boys in the unit dropping out, etc., I trust that you will make appropriate adjustments for the benefit of the boys in your unit; either on your own, or in consultation with other leaders, unit commissioners, etc. I do believe you are one of those leaders of the right sort.

 

Other unit leaders are entrusted in the same way. If they can't be entrusted with this, then perhaps they are not the leaders of the right sort.

 

 

(note: I think that "mastering the skills" can be interpreted too strictly or too lieniently, and that neither extreme is of benefit for the boys)(This message has been edited by venividi)

[Beavah]

However there seems to be some preconcieve notions of what "master the skills" means that go way beyond what is intended in the requirements.

 

Yah, hmmm...

 

It perhaps would help if yeh gave us an example of what yeh mean.

 

I think that probably any adult or youth leader with experience in an area has a conceived notion of what "master the skills" means. I as a boating enthusiast definitely have a notion of what it means to master the skills of boating at a youth level. It means being able to boat well and safely in ordinary conditions, and have enough judgment to recognize when da conditions are no longer ordinary. . That's what I want to give to youth, eh? The ability to be confident, competent, and safe on the water.

 

I thing "the requirements" allow me to do that with most MBs, so long as I don't interpret 'em in some foolish, strained way that effectively subtracts from their intent, like believing that the kayaking MB can be achieved with less than 100 yards of actually paddling a kayak. But if da real intent of the requirements is that boys literally, as written, should only paddle 100 yards, then da problem is the requirements themselves are completely idiotic. I don't think the intent of the requirements is to be idiotic. I believe yeh must interpret da requirements to align with the goals, eh? Which means that yeh expect lots more than what is literally written, because it takes lots more than 100 yards to master the skills of basic kayaking.

 

Beavah

[dkurtenbach]

It is pretty much irrelevant what the Guide to Advancement has to say about proficiency or mastery of skills or retention of knowledge or that a badge represents what a Scout is able to do.

 

Irrelevant because those concepts do not appear in the rank requirements. That is significant for two reasons:

 

One, while pretty much everyone (Scouts, unit leaders, and parents) has the rank requirements in front of them and can refer to them at any time, very few of these people -- the ones for whom rank advancement really matters -- will know that the Guide to Advancement even exists. It doesn't matter how authoritative the Guide to Advancement is if no one knows about it.

 

Two, in keeping with our literalist, legalistic culture, the rank requirements are specific and objective, and we cannot add to them or subtract from them or re-test them once completed.

 

"Mastery of skills" is an interesting and worthwhile concept, but it is neither required nor measurable as part of the _Advancement_ system. The unit cannot rely on the Advancement requirements to develop competency in outdoor or preparedness skills. It is painful for many of us that a boy can become an Eagle Scout even though he has never hiked a single mile (he can take a 10-mile bike ride for Second Class, he can take Cycling or Swimming instead of Hiking MB, and he can complete Camping MB by tubing down a lazy river and rappelling 30 feet), but that is the direction BSA has chosen to go with its Advancement requirements.

 

Where "mastery of skills" is a relevant concept is in _program_. A troop that wants Scouts to be expert outdoorsmen or competent first aid providers has to achieve those goals through its own program choices and unit practices that encourage repetition and use of skills. Unfortunately, we don't have a specific set of requirements for operating a program that encourages repetition and use of particular skills so that Boy Scouts actually become competent in the skills that we expect Boy Scouts to have. Some units figure it out, and run active outdoor programs in which those skills matter. Many units don't have "mastery of skills" as a program goal, and so only do as much skill work as the rank requirments call for. That's fine for accomplishing _Advancement_, but not so fine in turning out what we think of as "real" Boy Scouts.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

 

[bnelon44]

Beavah,

 

I think it is a matter of degree. For example. 1st Class requirement 8a: Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used.

 

One could argue that to master this skill, a Scout should be able to perform it in a number of different situations. Say when two hands are available or when only one hand is available (like when you are stuck on a ledge and someone throws you a rope. Others may say, that is well and good, but he should also be able to do it in the dark since he may need rescuing in the dark and to truely master the skill, he should be able to do it in adverse conditions.

 

Others could argue that the Scout needs to be able to retain the knowledge for 2 months at least before it can be determined that he has mastered the skill (in other words they have added the requirement of retention to enable mastery of the skill)

 

etc.

 

 

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Can National apply "Train 'em, trust 'em, let 'em lead" to adults, too?

 

I don't really give a rats rear about all this historical stuff. Fun reading and a great program resource. Doesn't really matter to our day-to-day troop program. But still, I have a difficult time imagining GBB sitting down with a calendar and calculator to figure out if a Scout can cobble together 6 months of leadership over three years of spotty service.

 

Question for you -- when was the first advancement guide published? When did national start publishing semi-monthly updates "clarifying" advancement rules? I honestly don't know and really don't care. But I'm guessing that for most of the history of BSA we made do with the material in the BS and SM handbooks then trusted local units to implement the program. The problem with advancement is the snowballing bureaucracy which has developed to micro-manage advancement within units. The underlying policies, guidelines and redefinitions have made the black-letter requrirements in the handbook meaningless. (Sorta the same thing that happened to the Constitution, eh?).

 

Why does anyone care if the program is absolutely level across every unit in the country? How does that advance the mission of the organization? So what if one troop looks like a Marine recruiting poster and the one across town the Bad News Bears? Seems like I was trained that diversity is a good thing. If the Marine troop is proud that their Scouts are "real" Eagles and the Bad News Bears happy to have earned Eagle quickly and moved on to other activities, whose leg is broken? Whose pocket is picked?

 

And of course "mastery" is subjective as are any number of the requirements. Teaching young people to make ethical decisions is a pretty subjective endevor. The only way to wring the subjectivity out of the process is to reduce everything to the lowest possible level so everyone can comply (a bunch of Bad News Bear programs) or to create a huge bureaucracy to micromanage the process. BSA seems to be attacking the issue on both fronts.

[Beavah]

Bnelon44, does it really matter if different folks interpret tying a bowline differently? Why shouldn't mastery be defined in da context in which it is used? If yeh live in an area with lots of open water lakes, I'd expect a Canoeing MB counselor to expect da skills to be solid on open water. If yeh live in an area where there aren't many lakes and canoeing occurs on rivers, I'd expect a Canoeing Mb counselor to expect the skills to be sound for paddling on rivers, eh?

 

Same with tying a bowline. Trust the leaders. If they live in the north and yeh have to tie a bowline in the dark in order to set up camp on Friday night, then the lads should be able to tie a bowline in the dark. Perfectly OK.

 

But personally, I think you're dead wrong on da notion that fulfilling the requirements by achieving proficiency or mastering the skill does not imply that you can still perform the skill 2 months later. That to my mind is an idiotic interpretation of the requirements. It suggests that our intent when teaching first aid is that we're just fine if the lad can't perform first aid when he needs to two months from now.

 

A boy who has really learned to tie his shoes can tie them properly even a few years later, even if he's only had velcro shoes in the interim. I probably haven't tied a bowline in over a year but I can tie one right now, because I mastered the skill. Believing a boy has learned how to tie a bowline, or put on a splint, or learned how to swim if he can't do it 2 months later is poppycock. It is the perfect example of subtracting from the requirements. It's exactly what dkurtenbach describes, which renders the Advancement Method destructive to our aims and goals.

 

The whole point of Advancment Method is to give the boys a road map to how to be successful and competent and confident and recognized by their peers for their ability. It's meant to be a lesson in hard work and character and real learning. If yeh award the badges for less than that, for doin' things like only paddling 100 yards in a kayak, or only being able to tie a bowline from short term memory once, then Advancment is destructive to youth. Yeh have subtracted all the meaning and value out of da requirements.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)