A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)

[Beavah]

Yah, so da long thread on Advancement degenerated as usual into people throwin quotes at each other claimin that their quote was da more authoritative. It seems to me that it might be helpful to talk about kids and programs instead, eh? So I offer yeh a tale of two troops using Advancement Method. Im tryin not to create a false hypothetical here, so I actually have two real troops in mind, and am describin each of their approaches, though I occasionally borrow a program element from a different real troop to help illustrate the point. Perhaps by seeing approaches we can talk more meaningfully about kids instead of redefining proficiency. ☺

 

Troop One

T-2-1 instruction is done by the Troop Guide for the New Scout Patrol. Because theres one TG for 7 or so boys and because thats how he learned, da TG holds classes on various topics at meetings and on campouts, roughly followin EDGE and focusing on the T-2-1 requirements. He sorta follows a curriculum for the year that the adults put together to get through FCFY, with some guidance from da ASM for the new scout patrol.

 

So what happens is somethin like this. When the time comes up to teach a topic, the TG puts together a presentation for the group, like on meal planning and prep for First Class. The TG gives a mini-lecture on da Food Pyramid and shows an example menu with food list and costs. The ASM does a similar mini-lecture on food safety and hands out one of those consumer food safety rules cards yeh can download off the internet.

 

Each boy then picks a buddy and is assigned an upcoming outing to do a menu plan for. The two buddies work on the plan together at the meeting. Most just start with da example plan the TG passed out, and then make small changes, or they select recipes and quantities out of a book the ASM brought. When finished with da plan, the TG looks em over and offers a hint or suggestion of somethin to fix. When they make the changes, the boys show the ASM and he signs off on the requirements 4abc. When he does, he asks the boys about safe food handling and storage for that meal. The first two boys dont pass that, so they go back and tell the other boys to read the food safety card and be ready. All the other boys bring the food safety card with them and get signed off for da food safety requirement (4d) as well, and the first two boys finish up after the meeting.

 

Over da next outing or three, the buddies get the ingredients from mom and take turns being cooks. The boys dont attend 100% of course, so sometimes a boys food-planning buddy isnt on the outing, so they just switch out and a different boy joins in on that plan. When theyve cooked that once for their patrol, the TG has the PL sign off on the last part of da requirement.

 

When all of da requirements have signatures, a Board of review is set up durin a meeting in a side room, consisting only of committee members. The board asks what he planned for his meals, and he tells them, but hes a bit vague and cant remember some bits because his buddy did that part. A new parent who hasnt been trained asks about how he kept the chicken safe in the summer heat and guarded against cross-contamination and hes not sure. The new parent is informed thats retesting and not allowed. Another parent asks how he learned CPR, and he says Mr. ASM-NSP taught him at a meeting. He likes Mr. ASM-NSP because he makes it easy. They talk about his time in the troop and he says its been pretty fun, but he doesnt like all the bugs. After about 12 minutes or so the board congratulates him on earnin First Class, and he receives his patch three meetings later (da Advancement Chair couldnt get to the Scout Shop 60 miles away that week, and the boy missed the next meeting).

 

Troop Two

Troop 2 uses mixed-age patrols led by an older scout PL and APL with scouts of all ages mixed in there are 2-3 new scouts in the patrol. T-2-1 instruction is never done by classes, because that doesnt make sense for only 2-3 boys. Instead older boys of all ages just watch out for and help the younger fellows, occasionally giving tips and pointers. They have heard of EDGE but they think more in terms of recognizin and respondin. Recognize where a scouts ability is at and respond with da next step or challenge.

 

The first year scouts mostly get assigned to help with da meals planned by older boys during much of their first year. They get to watch different cooking techniques and assist, then as they get comfortable they get to try em out themselves. They burn some batches, make mistakes, and get better. Along the way, they learn about food safety mostly by osmosis, by just pickin it up from other boys. When an individual boys cooking skills have gotten pretty good, his Patrol Leader gets him involved in planning meals, takin him shopping, showin him the ropes. He plans and executes some meals for the patrol, learns how to look up recipes on-line. As the boy becomes confident, the PL assigns him to do meals for da patrol for a few different weekends. The first couple of times the patrol gives the boy comments and suggestions. After hes done a few and clearly has meal planning, prep, and safety down, his PL signs off on the whole requirement 4. There were never any separate signoffs for sub-parts of one requirement.

 

Troop 2 does Boards of Review on a regular schedule, tryin to make sure that every boy gets a BOR every 4-6 months. Often they do em in the field, and grab a few adult committee members, maybe an ASM and usually a youth leader like the SPL or ASPL. Because BORs are conducted regularly, its normal for a BOR to conclude with a scout not earning a rank. In fact, a boy probably had a couple BORs along the way before he earned rank and left each one feelin good about what hes accomplished so far and having an idea of what to do next. There is no sense that not makin' rank at a BOR is a "failure." Sometimes during a BOR when a boy is close, the ASM or SPL will call the PL over to consult and even do a quick test with the PLs permission durin the BOR. It all feels very easy-going. Nobody is carryin around pre-printed BOR questions or a copy of G2A.

 

For our Second Class scout workin toward First Class, a board member might ask how he would store and prepare chicken safely, and because the boy has done it a whole bunch of times and has it down, he just rattles off a near-perfect explanation. No big deal. Bein able to answer a totally simple question like that gives the boy more confidence in talkin to the adults on the board. When asked about CPR, though, the lad might be tentative and not as confident. It might come out that he got signed off for CPR by camp staff at summer camp, and he really doesnt have it down. So the board will give him lots of praise for how hes learning, and suggest that the next thing he needs to work on for First Class is CPR and first aid. The SPL knows the boys patrol had a really challenging hike in the rain the previous month and asks about that. Having a boy he knows and a topic he knows on the BOR opens the boy up, and he talks quite a bit about the campout. Along the way he makes suggestions like how it would be really good to do a better job of checking out rain gear before trips in the spring. That leads to a few other brief discussions about being prepared and the Oath and Law in rainstorms, which give the board real insight about how the boy views da Oath and Law in his actual life. The board wraps up just shy of half an hour.

 

The SPL apologizes to the boy afterward for not catching that summer camp staff were signing off when they shouldnt, and works with da PL to set up some CPR practice. The PL takes that to the PLC and they decide to add CPR practice to the meeting schedule, with a few surprise CPR emergencies on the next few outings. Da committee member lets the SM know that there might be some bad signoffs from summer camp so the SM can think about how to prevent that or give feedback to the camp.

 

A couple months later at another BOR that is also just another conversation around a campfire, the boy is congratulated on earning First Class. The Advancement Chair keeps a stash of badges, and the followin morning at closing ceremonies for the campout the boy is presented his badge. By the time of the weekly meeting he has it sewn on proudly (if slightly crookedly).

 

Summary

As I mentioned, both are real troops and I actually sat in on each of da BORs. Both have good, well-intentioned adults tryin to offer the best Scouting they can. They each have happy kids and families, though objectively as an outsider what boys come away with from each program is different.

 

Now before I add any additional commentary, well see what da group thinks.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Oak Tree]

I like them both.

[bnelon44]

Beavah

 

There are problems in both cases, and you probably know I would say that, and you probably know what they are.

 

You don't rush Scouts through the requirements to make some kind of artificial dead line. There is nothing in the GTA that advocates that.

 

You don't flunk a Scout at a BOR for forgetting a skill

 

I can go on and on, but as I said, you already know what the issues are in both cases.

 

I believe they are real troops, no troop is perfect. We muddle through as best we can and try to give a quality program. All of us are interested in the boys.

 

I appreciate the discussion on FC1Y, BORs and once and done. It has given me some perspective as to what Scouters feel is lacking in the GTA which prepares me for teaching the guide in soon to be given classes.

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[lrsap]

A minor detail, but in my council it would not be possible to have a "stash of rank badges" to award immediately, at least not for a new troop like ours. Gotta have a signed Advancement form to buy a badge in these parts.

[fred8033]

Beavah ... Your example does reflect different troop styles though it's strongly biased toward troop two. I'm sure most scouters can re-write this instead to bias favor toward troop one. And yes, I do strongly prefer the style of troop one. Mainly because I see patrols as a group of scouts that enjoy each others company and that want to get out and do things.

 

But, you raise a large set of topics.

 

- Following the rules

- Patrols - New scout patrols or mixed age patrols

- Mentoring - by troop guide or patrol leader

- Awards - How to get them from the scout shop

- FCFY - "Curriculumn" or natural result of troop program

- Testing - When, where and how?

- ... or ... Authorized - What does that really mean?

- BOR - How do they work? Who can sit on them? What are their goals?

 

 

============================

Following the rules

 

At least someone was polite enough in the other thread to just admit that he didn't care if he was violating some policy. His troop was going to do what they thought was best. Troop two reflects this. Youth and ASMs on BORs. Retesting at BORs. etc. This discussion has been rehashed over and over again. The only thing I can say any further is that we are BSA leaders committed to the BSA program. That program is pretty well documented with many specifics.

 

Read page four "Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices" for a bit more explicitity. (real word?) http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf'>http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf

 

 

============================

 

Patrols - New scout patrols or mixed age patrols

There is no strict rule I've found for this. But I have a strong preference based on what I've seen. I strongly prefer scouts joining together, staying together, and, if THEY WANT, letting them switch patrols as they choose.

 

This gets down to what is the primary purpose of a patrol? Is it learning? Or is it doing? Scouts are in the troop for at most seven years and they should learn their basic outdoor and leadership skills in the first year. The rest of the time is doing things. And they should be doing things with their patrol.

 

Risks Mixed age patrols also have risk

- Abuse. Scouts should tent with scouts in the same patrol. So with mixed age patrols, I could easily see needing to have 17 year old scouts share a tent with a 10 or 11 year old more often. I am just not comfortable with that period. Though it's not against any "rule", I like to have scouts within a year or two of age sharing a tent.

- No buddy system. Scouts should have a buddy with them and do things with their patrols. But if the patrol is mixed age, everyone is breaking off to go out on their own. It's easy to get a scout stuck by himself. One of my favorite things to see at summer camp is when I see an entire patrol march off to go do the same activity together. That's how it's supposed to work.

- Ditching. Even the scouts with a strong sense of responsibility will want to spend their time with their friends. So patrol members regularly disappear to go find their friends. Distracting to other patrols. Not being there for their own patrol.

 

Here's a few good articles on this.

- Page 20, http://digital.scouting.org/scoutingmagazine/mayjun2012/resources/index.htm

- http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/PatrolLeader.aspx

 

 

I'd really like to see some current BSA or other professional credible articles supporting mixed age patrols.

 

 

============================

 

Mentoring - by troop guide or patrol leader

I guess this gets back to the primary purpose of a patrol. Learning or doing. From the scoutmaster handbook....

 

- Patrol leader - "He takes responsibility for the patrols activities and represents the patrol as a member of the patrol leaders council"

 

- Troop guide - "The troop guide is both a leader and a mentor to the members of a newScout patrol"

 

As for advancement, the explicit role is to "encourage" (from scoutmaster handbook). Nothing describes the patrol leader as coordinating or teaching other patrol member skills.

 

Here's the explicit BSA stated patrol leader roles.

- http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/PatrolLeader/s7.aspx

 

 

============================

 

Awards - How to get them from the scout shop

 

Yeah. I've wanted to hand out the patches immediately. I think it's a great idea. BUT ... that won't work in my council. You can't purchase them without an advancement form. I'd love to have an advancement kit with spare awards ready to be handed out. It's a great way to run things whether you are in troop one or two. Now I've only tried it at the scout shop. I should see if I can go to ScoutStuff.org and purchase them without an advancement form. Hmmm....

 

 

============================

 

FCFY - "Curriculum" or natural result of troop program

 

You indicated troop one had a FCFY curriculum. I'd like to learn more about that. We've never viewed it as that. We've viewed it as doing enough activities, being there for the scout and encouraging the scout. It should be such that if the scout wants to advance, with the existing troop program, the scout should be able to make FCFY with a reasonable level of challenge. If you need a curriculum, open the Boy Scout Handbook. If you need learning materials, open the Boy Scout Handbook. It has about 50 pages on first aid and 30 pages on cooking including details on food safety.

 

Read page four of this BSA advancement team commentary. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf

 

 

============================

Testing - When, where and how? Partial or full.

... or ... Authorized - What does that really mean?

 

This is the heart of the issue. So a scout wants to advance, you need to test him. That's part of the process and needs to happen. And you need to make the testing meaningful.

 

I'm okay with either how troop one does it (ASM based testing) or troop two (patrol leader observing the skill). But if you "authorize" the patrol leader to sign off, you better trust him! Boy led, eh.

 

The only other option I see it is if your troop re-defines the patrol leader check-mark as just indicating that the learning was done. THEN, reserve all testing for part of the BOR. Then, you need to walk through each and every rank requirement to test it as it's never been tested.

 

What I don't see as okay is the troop two example. You don't really trust the authorized signer as having really tested the scout. So you do hit-and-miss testing at the BOR. You have some-done-some-not-checked at the BOR. That's just sloppy.

 

 

============================

BOR - How do they work? Who can sit on them? What are their goals?

 

And all that testing questions lead directly to the re-hashed discussion of the BOR purposes. Who can sit on them? What is the purpose? I can re-hash it. You can re-hash it. I like to refer to how BSA documents it.

 

- Official source, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf, see section eight.

- Great BSA commentary,

- Great BSA FAQ, http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/RankAdvanceFAQ.aspx

 

 

============================

 

What is scouting? How is scouting supposed to work?

 

It all comes down to you want something different. And sometimes people want something different just to be different. Troop one (as written) isn't perfect.

 

But troop two is a troop gone rogue. Taking what they want from the BSA program and then do their own thing. And... they'll be probably the first to complain when they get overridden.

[NJCubScouter]

Reminds me of a law school exam question... Person A steals a car, in which Car Owner had left the keys in the ignition, then goes to Murphy's Bar in which witnesses say he appeared slightly intoxicated when he started to drink but definitely impaired when he left three hours later, then drives away and hits and injures Person B. (And usually there went on to be persons C, D, E, etc.) Who can sue who for what? (But please don't answer, I am not going to grade the bluebooks. I guess that's all done on computer now. We had real blue booklets.)

[Eagle92]

May I suggest a way to get a "war chest" of badges, especially for the Cub Scout Folks as in my expereince, National Supply, and hence almost all the shops, run short of CS rank from about Jan-Apr.

 

What you need to do is use two advancement reports. One advancement report is the actual one with everything listed, signatures, etc.

 

The second Advancement Report only has one or two, and I stress ONE OR TWO ranks, on it that are on the original report and mark "REPLACEMENTS" (Cap and bold are emphasis). Some scouts do have multiple shirts, especially those doing NYLT or Jambo, and they need extra rank.

 

When I worked for national supply, to get rank with signatures on an advancement report, you had to show proof of it being earned,i.e book, shirt with badge, pocket cert, etc, fill out an AR, and mark "replacement" on the report.

 

In regards to GTA, I disagree. In 3.0.0.3 Unit Advancement Responsibilities, the GTA does state the following:

 

7. Establish practices that will (emphasis mine) bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining, and then to Star rank the following year.

 

Also a lot of other BSA literature pushes the FCFY mentaltity that scouts must get FC in a year. IOLS syllabus is a good example of that IMHO>

[Beavah]

Yep, Oak Tree, I like 'em both too, eh? Scouting is just fun when it comes down to it. And yep, bnelon44 and fred8033, when yeh look at it in terms of procedural accuracy instead of kids, yeh can find "problems" or fault with both units. Or, more properly, some would find problems with both units, but I deliberately selected things that were all justifiable under "da rules". There are no clear violations here on any troop's part, just differences in interpretation. Besides, we're talkin' about a children's program, eh? I'm not even sure what "violation" or "rogue" means in that context.

 

And yep, fred8033, I lean a bit toward Troop 2, because in terms of what I personally care about they have better outcomes for kids. They hold on to their boys as truly active durin' high school, their boys show more skills, confidence and independence, and more long-term loyalty to scoutin'. That's not to say I think poorly of the Troop 1 boys, eh? They are also fine fellows. But if yeh were to put Eagle projects and BORs over da years side by side, the difference would show interocular significance, eh? It would hit yeh between the eyes. That's just me, though, and the stuff I care about, eh? It really is a bias. Other folks care about different things.

 

Now the way I see it, despite my own biases and folks' desires to have procedural conformity on a pedestal, our role as da BSA is to support both units and help 'em achieve their vision and mission, not substitute our own. So the only question with any meaning is not whether they are doin' it right (meaning following da procedures of the day), and not whether they are achievin' the ends that Beavah likes best, it's whether we as the BSA and fellow scouters are doin' right by them. The burden and challenge of service is on us.

 

So to my mind, da proper questions we should be askin' ourselves is whether the materials and advice we give to different units in different circumstances are helpful to 'em.

 

This is where I think we as fellow scouters and especially district and council scouters fail when we try to insist on McDonaldsified uniformity that the BSA itself doesn't insist on. Time and again particularly in the districts yeh see council scouters who like to play "authority" with da materials and truly give damaging advice, often because they are really novices at helpin' units to succeed.

 

If we were to get on our high horse and start yammering at Troop 2 about this, that, or the other procedural "violation", we'd only generate resistance. That would be the best outcome, actually. Da worst outcome would be if they actually went along with us. Troops are complex interactin' social systems, eh? Yeh can't make changes in one area without affectin' others. Take youth observers off a BOR and yeh would lose important aspects of how youth leadership and feedback worked in their unit. Take program quality review and insistence on proficiency away from da BOR and you would compromise safety on their outings, where they rely on youth having the skills associated with rank.

 

The same applies to Troop 1 of course. Here, though, I think Troop 1 was poorly served by our materials. They're not as experienced a group of adult leaders, and they relied more heavily on da guidance given in the 00's in terms of advancement. I think it's handicapped their program a fair bit, not in terms of what I care about, but in terms of what they and their boys care about.

 

BNelon44 claims to have spoken with some of da G2A editors and indicates that they put some things in in an effort to deter adults who they feel went off the deep end in terms of grilling kids. I can believe that, eh? I've seen it on many occasions from yellow-tabbers. Yeh see RichardB fallin' into that trap on da forums sometimes, though at least that's related to safety.

 

The problem is that particularly for general program, that's fundamentally poor policy making and materials development. Yeh don't set the general policy to deal with specific problems. That generates unintended consequences, and the unintended consequence in this case is that a significant number of scouting programs have been substantially weakened, because the adults believe that what da BSA cares about is the stuff fred8033 talks about - procedural compliance and not kids, learning, and proficiency. They take away messages from IOLS and G2A like what Eagle92 describes, even though that was never the original intent when these programs were introduced. In fact, various well-intentioned district folks perhaps like fred8033 and bnelon44 have convinced 'em at round tables and trainings and such to give that impression.

 

Da saddest thing is that along the way they didn't solve da "grilling" problem either, because yeh can't solve that one with policy, yeh solve it with coaching and better examples.

 

The result of all of this yellin' at folks like TwoCubDad or Troop 2 has hurt scouting. It's given newer adult leaders the wrong ideas about da program, and it's alienated many folks who run truly wonderful Scouting programs. It's set up dynamics in units which increase the conflict between helicopter parents and our more dedicated leaders, and I've seen that lead directly to loss of leaders, loss of units, and loss of membership.

 

So as an interpretation or a program approach, I think it's failed us. It's an example of national folks bein' out of touch with da units. The proper approach is to bring the guidance materials back to the common core values of character and proficiency, and stop tryin' to turn 'em into policies to address outlier cases. Along the way, to recognize that there are lots of different ways to handle procedural issues, not one "right" way, but yeh should be thoughtful about matching procedure and style to what yeh are trying to achieve for boys.

 

We should be happy there are Troop 2s out there, servin' lots of lads well. We shouldn't be afraid of suggestin' their approach to other troops that are lookin' for outcomes with kids similar to the ones that Troop 2 achieves. And the same with Troop 1.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[boomerscout]

Troop One keeps their newbies in a NSP until they reach FC? Horrors!

We turn them loose to a regular patrol after they earn Tfoot and have gone on the NSP hike & cook a meal. Each one teach one works better than sitting in a class

[JMHawkins]

So, the way I see it, Troop 2 produces far superior results, but it requires significantly more experienced and talented adults to pull off.

[Beavah]

So, the way I see it, Troop 2 produces far superior results, but it requires significantly more experienced and talented adults to pull off.

 

Yah, hmmm... Yep, that might be da case, JMHawkins. I've always agreed with B-P and others who believe that successful scoutin' depends on people more than on things, eh? Relyin' on program materials is a chimera; what's most important is carefully selectin' the right sort of people. Selecting for talent in particular, eh?

 

Thinkin' about these two troops and others, yep, there's also a correlation with experience, but that one I'm less sure about. It might just be there because less experienced folks have had weaker materials in recent years to learn from, and some have been taught really odd ways of thinkin' about those materials. So it's not so much experience but poor guidance and support on our side, eh? That's what I'm worried about.

 

Even when yeh have talented folks, it takes a fair bit of time to learn Scouting. To really understand youth leadership and the patrol method is pretty counter-cultural. Usin' advancement well is also tough, eh? People either get stuck in thinkin' like school with classes and tests, or they get caught up in procedural paperwork and da era of everyone gets a trophy for "exposure" or "trying". That's where our materials have gotten particularly weak at helpin' folks. As Kudu points out, the official BSA materials barely mention patrol method anymore; certainly not with any sense of vision, and youth leadership is a gloss where people get stuck a fair bit. Fellows like BNelon44 and Kudu try to create supplementary materials online to help, but that stuff only makes it to the really dedicated folks. Advancement is similar.

 

I think what's been happenin' is that the official BSA materials development has been too committified, so there just isn't any vision anymore the way there was when Bill was writin' things. Lots of folks servin' on those committees honestly just aren't all that savvy themselves, eh? Besides, as Feynman said on occasion, it's a fallacy to believe yeh get a better result by averaging the input of dozens of engineers rather than carefully hiring the best engineer. Add that to some poor staff input and editing for other reasons, and yeh end up with materials that allow folks to interpret "proficiency" to mean the most absurd, nonsensically literal interpretation of individual requirements, without any thought for what we're tryin' to achieve with boys. Worse, some tom-fool scouter will look at da materials and tell everyone that a successful unit full of caring adults has "gone rogue" or some nonsense.

 

I reckon our approach has to change within da next decade or BSA Scoutin' is goin' to be come irrelevant. Kids like Lisabob's son are telling, eh? If he hadn't switched troops, he would have gone into adulthood thinkin' Eagle and BSA advancement weren't worth anything, and probably would not have been a Scouting advocate or supporter. At least da coach of the travel soccer team really pushes his boys to become proficient accordin' to the normal English meaning of the word, eh? Boys find that cool and satisfyin'. Families find it worthwhile. And that's just kickin' a silly ball around a field.

 

I just don't think that appealin' to the quick and easy credential crowd is a winning strategy for the long run.

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44]

Eagle92 said: "Establish practices that will (emphasis mine) bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining, and then to Star rank the following year."

 

I think that is the key. The boy may or may not make it, but if your program is setup that way he will have the opportunities, many of them outdoors, and the fun. And he will feel like he is progressing. Boys don't want to sit through boring troop meetings week in and week out for years.

 

Personally, I don't advocate a stash of badges. It leads to the temptation of giving them out before the paperwork is filed. Or never filing the paperwork (we have run into that problem in my council only to find the Eagle candidate who is 17+ years old hasn't been registered for the last 2 years .

 

 

[Brewmeister]

beavah: I reckon our approach has to change within da next decade or BSA Scoutin' is goin' to be come irrelevant...At least da coach of the travel soccer team really pushes his boys to become proficient accordin' to the normal English meaning of the word, eh? Boys find that cool and satisfyin'. Families find it worthwhile. And that's just kickin' a silly ball around a field.

I just don't think that appealin' to the quick and easy credential crowd is a winning strategy for the long run.

 

Everybody who plays, coaches, or watches soccer understands the purpose, and sees how all the work players do is directly connected to building proficiency for that purpose.

 

The purpose of scouting is??? "...the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others..." and so on. Do all the participants in the game of scouting understand that purpose?

 

And how do the "spectators" assess the achievement of and proficiency in that purpose when there is no scoreboard?

 

It's little wonder that people look to advancement ("credentials") as the measurement of achievement of purpose. And, advancement is founded on completion of tasks, which implies there is no more to do once those tasks have been completed.

 

Just some random thoughts...it gets back to my "journey versus the destination" topic.(This message has been edited by brewmeister)

[Beavah]

Yah, brewmeister, I think yeh hit da nail on da head exactly.

 

Boys learn lots from all the methods of Scouting, but the Advancement Method is da visible scorecard that helps boys and parents focus. So it communicates what we care about. What da current materials do is muddle up what we care about. On the one hand, we say that Eagle is a fantastic and rare accomplishment. On the other hand we say that Eagle tickin' off a few boxes interpreted in the most strained way possible. On the one hand we say that proficiency in skills is the standard, "what a boy is able to do". On da other hand, we say once-and-done, only da paperwork matters, no caring adult can contradict da paperwork.

 

At best yeh would say that is a muddled up and unprofessional job of communicatin'. At worst, yeh would say it's dishonest and lying to families, a sort of bait-and-switch.

 

I think it happens just because da folks on district and council and national committees lose touch, eh? So we start to believe that filing paperwork is more important than getting a lad the badge to recognize his achievement and wear with pride. That happens just because we folks who serve at da grey or gold-tab levels spend more of our time dealin' with paperwork, eh? So we start to think of it as important for its own sake instead of thinkin' of it as being a service to boys and units.

 

Same with writin' muddled-up guidance on advancement, and focusin' on the words or requirements instead of helpin' the boys and units. Folks at councils and national deal with more outlier cases and personalities, and only second-hand. So they start to write things for those outlier cases, instead of presentin' the best general guidance.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Brewmeister]

Even if advancement is the most visible thing, I think the purpose of scouting could be explained to parents (and participants) in terms of advancement requrirements.

 

"The purpose of scouting is for boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues.

 

So what does that mean?

 

It means that by about the end of his first year in scouting, he will be able to plan and organize the meals for an outing of his patrol. He will be able to navigate a 5-mile hike. He will be able to do XYZ...

 

And along the way we will recognize his proficiency in these skills with progressive badges of rank."

 

Or something like that.