Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[Beavah]

Yah, thanks for being clear there, bnelon44.

 

What yeh describe is where we fundamentally disagree. What yeh describe is subtracting from the requirements in my book, and I'd venture to say in the eyes of most boys and da majority of adults. The notion that a First Class Scout shouldn't be expected to handle and store food safely is just foolish.

 

It counts on substituting a very picky, legalistic, and artificially literal interpretation of a single word for the development of proficiency in a real, practical, useful skill. As a result, yeh have to turn to da other Methods exclusively in the hope that the boys will learn the skill, even though the Advancement Method is supposed to be an integral part of the program working with those other methods. Yeh have removed the Advancement leg from the stool.

 

Because it disconnects Advancement from the other methods, it results in boys havin' the badges for ranks where they don't actually have the skills for ranks. We make excuses like they "forgot" or didn't "retain" the skills, but da truth is we all know that if they had really become proficient that retention isn't a problem until they get old like us. When they have the badge but don't have the skills, then all of the other boys know it, eh? And they learn that Advancement is unrelated to working hard and developing skills. Or, if they don't know it, then yeh can have a boy or an adult rely on the skills he's been recognized for, but isn't able to perform. So an adult trusts a First Class Scout to be able to properly store and handle meat, but the boy doesn't really have the skill. Boys can get hurt that way.

 

Besides, it's just plain silly. "Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used" is the requirement. There are lots of ways to "demonstrate". Like doin' a powerpoint presentation instead of actually tying the knot. "Show how to transport a person from a smoke-filled room". Well, yeh can "show how" by drawing diagrams, not by actually doing it. "Tell the five most common signals of a heart attack". Well, those yeh can cram 3 minutes before the test. Yeh don't have to actually recognize 'em. Which means the lad's dad I was talkin' about earlier would be dead.

 

Again, it's this literalist interpretation stuff that is new to Scouting. What yeh describe would have been considered subtracting from the requirements for most of the life of the BSA. There was an understanding that the requirements were an outline to the skill that was tryin' to be developed. If yeh read the old books, they even say as much, eh? "The intention of this whole Requirement (consisting of four parts a, b, c, and d) is to make preparing a meal a complete process". Not little isolated one-and-done activities, but the real skill of properly preparing a meal from start to finish. That was the meaning of the requirement.

 

I would argue it still is, if yeh really understand the Advancement Method.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[bnelon44]

Yea Beavah,

 

We may have different definitions of what advancement means. But ever since I have been a Boy Scout leader (going on 19 years now I guess) you did what the requirement said. If it says demonstrate, you demonstrate, if it says explain, you explain, etc.

 

I remember the same standard as a boy in the program. Although I would be the first to admit my memory of details of those days is spotty. I haven't seen anything in the BSA literature though that would lead me to believe otherwise.

[moosetracker]

I guess I see Beavah "demonstrate" parts in other parts of this advancement Requirement.. So yeah I have heard explain means explain, demonstrate means demonstrate.. I would give a little wiggle room but not too much..

 

But.. on this topic itself.. Let the boy explain, because the demonstrate comes in with part b of that requirement ...secure the ingredients.. And part e of that requirement ...Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup..

 

This is where I would look for if they secured the perishables correctly, and if they washed hands followed the "safe food handling" that they explained in part d..

[bnelon44]

moosetracker

 

Actually 4e doesn't say he has to follow safe meat handling procedures (or anything else in 4d) in preparing the meal. He just has to follow what he did in 4a. To say otherwise is an interpretation that is not in the requirement. For example, if he doesn't wash his hands after handing the meat, technically, you cannot refuse to sign him off on 4e.

 

Bad writing of the requirements, maybe, but until they change, they are what they are.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah]

Actually 4e doesn't say he has to follow safe meat handling procedures (or anything else in 4d) in preparing the meal.

 

Yep, there it is.

 

Right there.

 

The notion that a First Class Scout cannot be expected to actually prepare a meal in a manner that doesn't risk sending his patrol to the hospital. It's "adding to the requirements."

 

That's why the approach is educationally and morally bankrupt.

 

Bad writing of the requirements, maybe, but until they change, they are what they are.

 

Yah, hmmmm...

 

Now if I were to pull some books from my shelf (how quaint in this modern era), I could find relatively simple 20-page laws on one topic, with 50-page regulations dealing with one requirement, and then additional regulator guidance, AG opinions, and case law. For food safety, da laws and regulations I reckon are about 100 times that.

 

BNelon44, it's just not possible to write requirements for a kids' program that are "good" if yeh are goin' to approach each and every one by readin' 'em in nitpicking, legalistic ways lookin' for loopholes. Not without hundreds of pages. That's well known. Sheesh, and yeh all tend to blame lawyers for this stuff. I've never seen any lawyer quite this bad.

 

That's why the Rules & Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America instruct us that in administering advancement we are required to interpret procedures and requirements in such a way that they "harmonize with the aims and purposes" of the BSA. In other words, we're expected to behave like the ol' legal "reasonable person", eh? To act like adults with brains and a commitment to the mission, not like a bunch of teenage sea-lawyers.

 

It helps to know that your adult scoutin' career has been relatively recent, durin' the period when this stuff went off the rails. When yeh grow up eatin' nuthin' but sugar cereal it's hard to imagine things could or should be any different. You'll just have to trust us old fogies that it really wasn't the norm in the past, and shouldn't be now.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Lisabob]

bnelon, now I hope you're just yanking Beavah's chain. What on earth would be the point in interpreting the requirement like that? Why would the BSA even have a requirement that allows for a boy to prepare a meal, but in an unhealthy and risky manner, right along side requirements that he know how to do it safely? That would be both contradictory and stupid of the BSA.

 

Were you also a fan of Pres. Clinton's now-infamous parsing of the word "is?"

[moosetracker]

bnelon !!! Shame, Shame.. So you don't think that in preparing the meals it needs to be done correctly? Burnt to a crisp is ok, raw chicken is ok.. as long as the scout prepared it and served it??

 

Do you expect someone to do the flag ceremony correctly? Or is raising the flag upside down while everyone laughs & jokes, and taking it down and wadding it into a ball and throwing it into a corner of the room OK? As long as it is done? Just as long as after this folly of a flag ceremony, they explain to you how to respect a flag..

 

Perhaps when they pick a site for their tent, they can put it under the large branch about to fall, in a water runoff area.. Doesn't matter if they do it right, as long as they explain to you the factors you should consider when choosing a patrol site and where to pitch a tent.

 

Wait a minute.. Explain does not say you have to explain correctly either!! Therefore, they get marked off for explain with any old explanation.. Doesn't need to be explained correctly either.. Make up something off the top of your head.. That's good enough.

 

bnelon - None of the requirements state you need to do it correctly, because it is assumed the adult leaders can figure it out for themselves that what the boy does needs to be done correctly in order to be signed off.

 

Beavah can get a little too off the beaten path with additions, but you also are off the beaten path with subtractions! Which is better? At least if I end up camping with Beavah's troop, I think I might come back alive..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[dkurtenbach]

Second Class Requirement 3f: "In an approved place and at an approved time, demonstrate how to build a fire and set up a lightweight stove. Note: Lighting the fire is not required."

 

BSA says it here clearly and explicitly: Lighting the fire is not required. How can a Scout know that he built the fire correctly if he doesn't have to light it?

 

If you think bnelon44's interpretation of the Advancement requirements is crazy, explain 3f. Looking at 3f, it makes perfect sense that the other rank requirements as written say nothing about proficiency or retention of skills or actually _doing_ whatever skill is being "explained." The vast majority of Scouts, leaders, and parents have never heard of BSA rules and regulations or the Guide to Advancement and will NOT use them as the basis for interpreting advancement requirements. They will use the literal language of the requirements, and they will be legalistic about it, because that's how our society is.

 

Advancement HAS been split off from competency in Scout skills and knowledge, and now serves different purposes.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

 

[bnelon44]

Lisabob

 

I don't know what was in the team's mind who put together the requirement. All I know is what it says.

 

moosetracker,

 

Personally, I know about 10 different Scoutmasters who would interpret "correctly" differently in this case (not counting those on this list.)

 

Your tent example is a good one. He needs to sleep in a tent he pitched. So if he pitches it under a tree with a dead branch, would fail him? Where does it say that in the requirement? What about if he pitches it too close to a stream? What about if he pitches it too close to the adults (aka 300' rule), etc., etc., etc.

 

Again, I don't know how the requirements were put together, but I sure can imagine gatekeepers keeping scouts from earning any advancement.

 

Another aside: Who would fail Baden-Powell based upon this self portrate? Can you identify how many improper camping techniques are here based upon the GTSS and LNT camping:

http://usscouts.org/history/bpoutlook02.gif(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[moosetracker]

Well maybe if with prepare 3 meals for your patrol it stated next to it.. "Note - food does not have to be prepared well or safely".. I will except that..

 

The fire is an additional Note, due to places that have long fire-bans in place.. I would imagine if able to, the scout will not quibble over having to start the fire. Boys and fire are inseperable. But, the note is there because it is a strange thing not to expect. Someone who knows proper fire building will simply need to examine the fire he set up and decide if it is well built or not.

 

[bnelon44]

moosetracker

 

If you look at the current and previous Scout Handbooks you will find that firebuilding is becoming less and less of a taught skill. Scouts are being taught more and more about different stoves. Probably because of fire restrictions.

 

Another aside: At a roundtable ask the Scoutmasters which fire lay is the better one for cooking. Name a few and include teepee and log cabin. Chances are the majority of them will say teepee (when the correct answer is log cabin.) Most don't even know what a log cabin fire lay is.

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[dkurtenbach]

The "Note" to Second Class requirement 3f doesn't say anything about fire bans. It doesn't say that lighting the fire is not necessary _if there is a fire ban._ In fact, 3f goes out of its way to say "an approved place" and "an approved time," which seem to mean that the firebuilding should take place only when it is okay to build fires, because presumably many of those fires _will_ be lit. So the Note does not make sense as simply a response to fire bans, because the other wording in the requirement deals with that issue.

 

But 3f is perfectly consistent with "tell," "explain," and "describe" requirements. It is perfectly consistent with the fact that an Eagle Scout need never have hiked a single mile on his own feet, even though he has to "explain" the rules of safe hiking. It is perfectly consistent with an Advancement scheme that does NOT demand competency in order to complete a requirement.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[moosetracker]

Second class 3b.

 

On one of these campouts, select your patrol site and sleep in a tent that you pitched. Explain what factors you should consider when choosing a patrol site and where to pitch a tent.

 

 

Normal factors are look up to make sure that there is nothing of danger above, look down for poision ivy, water run off areas, animal pathway of moose, bear etc.. make sure you aren't building it on an active Railroad track etc.. (It is all in the BS Handbook what they should look for).

 

 

Now what is the purpose to explain to you the correct way to do it and then set their tent up on the RR track??..

 

Why should they need to explain to you the correct procedure? Neither the do or explain parts of this requirement state that you need to explain it correctly.. So why should anything be done correctly.

 

If you are unsure about the correct method to use in preparing and safe handling of in order to guide your scouts, I would advise you to read the BS handbook.. In there it mentions the correct method they would like the boys to learn and use. Or is the rest of the book just emergancy toliet paper, as long as the pages with the Rank requirements are looked at..

 

Just like the MB book, the requirements go hand in hand with what is explained in detail in the book..

 

 

[bnelon44]

Second class 3b.

 

Yes it does ask you to explain where to put the patrol. Good point.

 

The rest about micro interpreting the requirement (doing it correctly vs not doing it correctly) I don't agree with though. The requirement is pretty clear as written and I think if you ask a room full of Scoutmasters your likely to get a pretty clear consenses on what it means.

 

A lawyer might be able to pick it appart, but I don't think many Scoutmasters or Scouts would.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[moosetracker]

Well second class 1b will either make him take a 5 mile hike or 10 mile bike trip.. Still could get out of it with the bike trip.. Either could be done on city streets. But, there is something besides the explain.

 

This also may change with 2013 Advancements which are suppose to push more physical fitness.

 

So if all there is is explain, then explain it is.. But with the food safety issue when there is an Explain & do situation to not expect the do is going to be done correctly following everything they needed to learn to explain is totally ridiculous.. This isnt even an explain in tenderfoot and a do in 2nd class.. This is a 4a 4e..