SM Approval (and not) for Rank Advancement

[Bob White]

sctmom,

The Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual, answers most of your questions.

 

The Scoutmaster Conference is ideally done by the Scoutmaster. Its purpose is to review the scouts accomplishments and set goals for the future, not to test the scout.

 

The Scoutmaster Conference does not always need to take place last before the board of review it just needs to take place during each advancement period, and you can do more than one per scout.

 

The Board of Review does not take place only when scouts are advancing but also when they are not advancing.

 

The Boy Scout Handbook says that to meet the requirement of "Show Scout Spirit" a scout must demonstrate the ideals of the Oath and Law in every day life. I am not aware of anything that specifies it must be signed by the Scoutmaster. Whoever your troop (PLC) determines can approve advancement can sign this.

 

The Scouting program is set up with many of the same checks and balances as our government so that the scouts learn about, and live, the governmental process in scouting. One of those checks and balances is the Board of review. there are times when we as leaders develop personal predjudices against individual boys. maybe it's because of hair length, jewelry (pierced ears), maybe we don't get along with the parents. These feelings can taint our objectivity to the scout's spirit. If you feel that the scout doesn't meet the ideals you don't have to sign. But remember you should not refuse the Board of reciew an opportunity to meet with the scout.

 

The best thing to do is use the checks and balances in the system. Let 3 committee members, as a Board of Review, hear your opinion and talk to the scout. Let them be the jury to decide if the sciout advances. If three objective adults decide unanimously that the scout should advance... then he probably should.

 

If they decide he has not met the Scout Spirit requirement then by BSA policy they must give him specific (I would recommend written) criteria for completion. it must however be unanimous and it must be within the written requirements of the program.

 

The Scoutmaster is in charge of advancement but,not the final say in advancement within the troop, the Board of Review is.

 

The Scoutmaster being "in charge" means that it is his or her responsibility to see that there is a program that gives advancement the opportunity to take place.

 

I hope this helps,

Bob White

[WoodBadgeEagle]

Bob-

 

Thank you, I think I finally get it. But just in case, let me try to summarize (and let me know where I am wrong).

 

For SM Conferences, I am there to have a discussion with the Scout about their Scouting "career". To make recommendations, to draw out their input, to help them set goals and to make sure they understand the process. I can do this at any time.

 

I don't advance anyone.

 

When a Scout is ready to advance (their decision), they set up a Board of Review appointment. I should speak to the Board before the BoR about the Scout and provide them my input about how they are doing and any issues that may exist.

 

I understand that a BoR could happen whenever, not just for advancement, but I am speaking about the advancement process at this point.

 

The Board interviews the Scout and makes a decision to advance him or not. This advancement is entirely in their hands. If they decide not to, it must be unanimous, and they must provide specifics on what is required of the Scout to be advanced, as well as help the Scout setup a timeline goal for doing what is needed.

 

Again, I am not approving or declining the advancement. I am providing input to the Board on this matter, but it is solely their decision.

 

What I did wrong was deny the Scout an opportunity for a BoR. I did it out of ignorance, not out of spite, but it was still not my place to do so.

 

Finally, on the issue of "signing off" advancement requirements - I must not sign anything unless I am satisfied that the Scout has met the requirement (exactly like an MB requirement). Everyone who has the authority to sign off must use the same guidelines. The authority to sign off advancement requirements comes from the policy adopted by the PLC and approved by the Committee. I don't have to wait until everything is signed off to hold a SMC with a Scout.

 

If this is correct, I feel a LOT better, though I am embarrassed to have had it wrong all these years. From the other posts on this thread, it looks like I am not alone. I'll have to look into advancement training to make sure it is covered well enough (I don't recall ever being taught this, but the mind is the first thing to go...).

 

Please let me know if I have it right. We need to move forward with this young man as correctly and as quickly as possible.

 

Thanks.

[Rooster7]

The Board interviews the Scout and makes a decision to advance him or not. This advancement is entirely in their hands. If they decide not to, it must be unanimous, and they must provide specifics on what is required of the Scout to be advanced, as well as help the Scout setup a timeline goal for doing what is needed.

 

I'm not on committee or directly involved in the advancement process. What happens if it's not unanimous? Majority rule to advance?

 

Also, once the SM refuses to sign off on Scout Spirit, does anyone else have authority to do so? Can someone else come behind the SM and sign off a Scout for Scout Spirit? If so, wouldn't this circumvent the authority of the SM? Can the advancement committee "overrule" the SM and sign the boy off on a requirement? Just curious...

[Bob White]

It sounds to me like you've got it WoodBadgeEagle. The elements you describe are in keeping with the regulations and the teachings of the Handbooks. It shares responsibility with the SM the Troop leadership and the committee as well as the scout himself. It teaches the scouts reaponsibility and self management, and uses the workings of the troop to set an example of participating citizenship and government.

 

Don't worry about what was, you should be proud of the fact that you are still learning and still open to learning. other posters on this board have taught me a thing or two. When we stop learning we stop growing.

 

Best wishes,

Bob White

[Bob White]

Rooster,

I know you and I don't see many things eye to eye, so when I give references (or absense of references) it is so that it is clear these are not my interpretation of the program , but the written program.

 

You asked the following questions

 

1. What happens if it's not unanimous? Majority rule to advance?

 

Answer; The Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual pg. 19 right hand column bold letters The decision of the board of review is arrived at through discussion and must be unanimous."

 

1.Once the SM refuses to sign off on Scout Spirit, does anyone else have authority to do so?

 

Answer. Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual pg 16 "A scout can be tested on his rank requirements by his patrol leader, Scoutmaster, a troop committee memberor member of his troop. The Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates." Nowhere in the resourses of the BSA does it say only the SM can sign.

 

2.Can someone else come behind the SM and sign off a Scout for Scout Spirit?

 

Answer; see answer #1

 

3.If so, wouldn't this circumvent the authority of the SM?

 

Answer; I am not familiar with that term. The scoutmaster has several responsibilities in advancement, but I know of no reference to, or bestowment of, authority in any BSA literature or training regarding advancement (other than the authority of the National Advancement Committee).

 

4.Can the advancement committee "overrule" the SM and sign the boy off on a requirement?

 

Answer; The Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual pages 22 and 23 explains the appeals process. There are several layers that a scout can appeal to based on one of two actions. First if a unit leader or committee member does not recommend a Board of review and secondly if that Board of review does not advance the scout.

 

This information is written in the Eagle section but applies to all rank advancements.

 

If in the appeal process it is determined that the scout has not met the requirements, the scout will be given specific action to take to meet the requirement. If during the appeal it is determined that adults did not follow BSA advancement policy and procedure then the scout will be advanced.

 

Since the only "authority" in advancement is the National Advancement Committee and not the Scoutmaster, the it reasons that no one is "over-ruled".

 

Regards,

Bob White

 

[LongHaul]

Bob White,

Let me get a few things straight! Are you suggesting that;

1. A boy cannot fail a Scoutmaster conference? He should be signed off as having completed it regardless of his attitude?

2. It has always been my understanding that the SMC was intended to prepare the boy for the BOR. Are you suggesting this is not the case?

 

 

WoodBadgeEagle,

You should never have "invented" a leadership project for them. As others have already said these boys have been trained to expect being passed along with the least amount of effort.

[Bob White]

Longhaul,

When you read the description of the Scoutmaster conference in any BSA resource including the Boy Scout Handbook, The Scoutmaster Handbook, The Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual, or view the advancement video used for scoutmaster training, you will see there is nothing that can be passed or failed.

 

The SMC is a conversation between an adult (preferably the Scoutmaster) and the scout. The topic of discussion is the scouts successes and his next set of goals. You cannot retest the scout although you can certainly talk about his skills. "it is through this association that a young man grows and matures" (Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual)

 

Bob White

[WoodBadgeEagle]

LongHaul-

 

I'll field both of these (I think I have learned enough at this point to give it a whirl- Bob, please jump in if need be).

 

1) "Failing" an SMC is not technically a correct phrase. If I have an SMC with a Scout, and we accomplish what they are intended to provide (a discussion of the Scout's advancement, helping them set goals, making suggestions for improvements, listening to their feedback about Troop goings-on, etc.). It's hard for me to imagine a Scout failing at that, unless he never shows up. It's not a pass-fail thing, it's an event, an occurrence.

 

2) I always thought that the SMC was to help prepare them for the BoR, too, and I guess it still is my job to help them understand what they'll need to do to accomplish advancement through their BoR. It isn't the immediately preceeding step in advancement, however. I really like that change in my understanding of the SMC, because now I get to have SMC's whenever they (or I) want to have them, not all bunched up just prior to their BoR's, which are all bunched up just prior to a Court or Honor. I always felt that there was something wrong with that pressure.

 

As far as the "invented" comment was concerned, it was probably a poor choice of words.

 

These Scouts came to me (or rather, their parents did, but I asked the parents to have the Scouts approach me instead, which started an attitude with this particular Scout's mother, something I did not catch on to until last night). Anyway, they came to me and said that all of the positions of responsibility were taken, and what could they do to "carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the Troop", thereby fulfilling that requirement for Star.

 

We talked about what this requirement meant, and I asked them to talk among themselves and come up with a suggestion or two. I'd rather involve them in coming up with ideas than spoon-feed them (their parents have already been doing enough of that).

 

They came up with putting together a Troop Information Book that could be borrowed by new Scouts and their parents to help them understand how Boy Scouts and our Troop functioned. Through more discussions, we expanded it to include the use of this information in a presentation to be given at our Pack's Cross-Over ceremony.

 

I made it clear that, since this was an individual rank advancement, this "group" project must be divided up into distinct areas of responsibility that could be individually measured to assess their completion of this advancement requirement.

 

They met every requirement, though this particular Scout did the least of them all (by far). He also understood the principle of the leadership project the least. Like I said, he does the minimum, but enough to prevent me from saying he didn't do it. Overall, it was a fairly impressive booklet and presentation, though I am certain that their parents helped out more than any of them will admit.

 

I appreciate your comments. I hope this shed some additional light on the subject so you understand why I felt that the advancement requirement was fulfilled.

 

 

[Bob White]

WoodBadgeEagle,

Sorry you got in just a moment after me. You are right on the money about the Scoutmaster Conference.

 

Hey, I see you are from Oticeana Council. (did I spell that almost right?) A good friend of mine used to be there. I have great memories of staying in the big A-frame at Massawepee and cross-country skiing there. I got to see Camp Butler as it was deveolped, you have a wonderful area to be scouting in.

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[ScouterPaul]

Bob White

 

Rooster wrote

Also, once the SM refuses to sign off on Scout Spirit, does anyone else have authority to do so? Can someone else come behind the SM and sign off a Scout for Scout Spirit? If so, wouldn't this circumvent the authority of the SM?

 

Are we teaching the boys that it is okay to go behind the back of your leader, your boss, your parent ect. to get what you want. If you will not sign off I'll find someone who is not as informed as you to sign off. I need to give it more thought but is appears to be an unhealthy situation to me.

[WoodBadgeEagle]

Bob White-

 

Looks like we are online at the same times.

 

Funny, your mannerisms and phraseology remind me of my favorite mentor in Otetiana Council, also named Bob (though I think he is a Beaver).

 

Massawepie is still as great as ever- it's where our 40 boys are going this summer. Camp Cutler (I think you are referring to it) has become a premiere summer camp for Cubs, plus a great all-year camping facility. We do a lot of leader training there.

 

Check out www.otetiana.org. I'm on the web committee, soon we'll have Camping info up there (that's my current assignment).

 

WBE

[Bob White]

ScouterPaul,

 

Please read my respnse to rooster and read the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual regarding who signs advancement requirements. Nowhere in any scout resource that I am aware of is this solely the SM responsibility.

 

Then read the Boy Scout Handbook in the Second Class Scout section about this requirement where it says that no one is better qualified to determine if the scout lives by the scout Oath and Law than the scout himself.

 

You ask "Are we teaching the boys that it is okay to go behind the back of your leader, your boss, your parent ect. to get what you want."

 

Not in any troop I've ever served, and not in most troops I've visited, who followed the BSA program. I'm more worried about what scouts learn in troops that don't know and follow the scouting program.

 

Bob White

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LongHaul]

Bob,

When it comes to rules and regs your really good. When it comes to moulding boys into adults you repeatedly sound like a rubber stamp scouter. The boy progresses even when he didn't progress as long as he did his best according to what he feels his best should be. The SM Handbok says to discuss the boys activity in the troop and his understanding and practice of the ideals of Scouting. "Gee Scout, you never want to camp, you take no ledership responsibilities, show little respect for the troop and it's leaders." "I know but I'm doing my best to get by with as little work as possible so shut up and sign my book!" IMHO Give every boy an Eagle Badges when he fills out the application. Let the one that what to learn stay and the rest can take their prize and go home.

 

WoodBadgeEagle,

Definatly don't wait to do SMC. It's part of advancement yes but it's communication on a one to one level with the boys. I always ask them to tell me something that I'm doing wrong or not doing right. At first they all have trouble with this. Criticize an Adult? When they begin to see that the things they say get acted upon and that I don't think I'm above valuing their opinion they open up more.

[OldGreyEagle]

I having been watching this discussion with interest. First, I agree with Bob White as to the composition and direction of the SMC. But I also agree the Scoutmaster should be the one who judges Scout Spirit and a whole lot of other things.

 

I think at issue here is WHEN these things occur. I dont think the SMC is the time for a Scoutmaster to unload all the mistakes the scout has made, and what a lousy (!) scout the youth is. (OK, that may be an inflammatory statement, but I wanted to get your attention) The Scoutmaster should be communicating his thoughts to each scout as time goes along.

 

I see the SMC similar to the Annual Review most companies have for employees. The Annual Review is not the time to tell someone they are not the perfect employee, that communication should be occurring throughout the year. This is not to tell the employee how rotten he is.

 

One more example, A heretofore model scout becomes First Class, over the space of two months and a couple of events the scoutmaster notices a shift of attitude to the "dark side". Should the Scoutmaster wait until the Scout is ready for his Star SMC to tell him that he is not demonstrating Scout Spirit? Or does the Scoutmaster find a way to talk to the scout in an informal setting about the changes that have been observed and does the scout realize they have occured. Perhaps a personal problem is the root, illness in the family, etc. The Scoutmater is in charge of evaluating Scout spirit each and everytime he sees the scout, not just for advancement. And the opposite is true as well. If you catch a scout doing something good, be sure to tell him about it at the time. (somehow this isnt usually a problem) You usually dont store up your complements for the SMC, why store up constructive criticism?

 

In the perfect troop, the scout should know just about everything the scoutmaster is going to say because the two have a close relationship where each knows what is expected.

 

If a scout is a habitual problem, this shouldnt be the scoutmaster's sole problem. Perhaps another leader can be brought in to be sure the scoutmaster is correct in his assessment of the scout. The scout may repsond to another adult telling him the same thing in different words. If the disruptive behavior or poor attitude persists, it may become a committee matter. The key to me is that this occurs when the behavior or attitude is exhibited, not when advancement is at stake. The scout should never have to guess if his behavior is acceptable or not, because he has been told, frequently one way or the other.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Mike Long]

Bob at no point said we should just rubber stamp anything. What he did do was attempt to inform all of us who haven't read the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual on the correct BSA method of advancement.

 

So I'm reading this thread and up pops "The Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual". That was never mentioned in my training class. What is that? Do I have one? Where is it? Where can I get one?

 

So I do some calling around to our Committee Chair and past Scoutmasters and finally one tells me that the troop has one sitting around somewhere. So I do some more digging and lo and behold I discover Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual stuck in an old file.

 

So I'm reading the book and I'm very glad to have read this thread and to now know of this resource. In it this is all explained. Including scouts not passing boards of review and how to handle it.

 

I have a similar situation happening right now. Luckily we are dealing with it long before the scout is ready to advance. OGE is exactly right, it's a matter of timing. If you are waiting till the scout is ready to advance to tell him of his failings then there are now TWO people in the wrong. You and the Scout and Council will tell you this.

 

That being said those of you choose to attack Bob need to get a copy of Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures manual and read it. It's very enlightening.