Scoutmaster Conference - Is this the right way?

[MattR]

Brewmeister, not when it comes to first aid. Scouts shouldn't have to look up what's a hurry case or symptoms of a heart attack. I had an opportunity to use my CPR skills last summer. The guy died but I did my best until the ambulance showed up. At least his organs were used. I also have to get retested every other year in order to take my scotus camping, but they get tested once and call themselves Eagle scouts.

 

I asked some scouts yesterday about unlinking the skill check. There response was they'd rather keep it the way it is. They know that the check can be uncomfortable but they also said they need to know the skills and they wouldn't learn it any other way. My guess is the problem isn't the testing, it's the way it's done. Is the attitude let's weed out the week or is it let's do this together?

[TAHAWK]

On my Honor, I will do my best . . . to help other people at all times.

 

Seems to me that we have an obligation, on our honor, to stay current on life-saving skills.

 

[fred johnson]

Seems to me that we have an obligation' date=' on our honor, to stay current on life-saving skills.[/quote']

 

Then, work with your scouts and develop a great program. You don't need to compromise your honesty or loyalty to teach your scouts skills. BSA advancement is a promise. Scout leaders should keep that promise.

 

[TAHAWK]

 

Then, work with your scouts and develop a great program. You don't need to compromise your honesty or loyalty to teach your scouts skills. BSA advancement is a promise. Scout leaders should keep that promise.

 

I strenuously agree.

 

 

 

Generally, I sure wish people, including me, didn't forget things once learned, but we do. So if a Scout remains, for example, familiar with his knots, that is usually because the unit program causes him to keep using those knots. So Knot Clubs, knot contests, and removing those slider gadgets from tent ropes, not retesting under the guise of Scoutmaster Conference.

 

I meant that to apply to Scout Skills beyond kniots - like first aid. Anything can be made into a game or contest and, thereby, encourage retention of learning.

 

[MattR]

 

Then, work with your scouts and develop a great program. You don't need to compromise your honesty or loyalty to teach your scouts skills. BSA advancement is a promise. Scout leaders should keep that promise.

 

 

But the boys pick the program. And maybe they aren't interested in first aid nearly as much as rock climbing. They got signed off. Why should they know it anymore? If the adults say the scouts need more first aid competitions then who is running the troop?

 

The only options are testing of some form, having the adults control the calendar, or dropping the requirement.

[JoeBob]

Advancement is a promise.

 

Disagree.

Advancement is a record.

 

Badges of rank are NOT participation trophies.

 

Is expecting an Eagle scout candidate to know 6 basic knots (that he should have been using for a few years) and rudimentary first aid an impossible hurdle? Really?

 

If your program is out-processing boys who are only required to have a few ink squiggles in the correct boxes, and not required to KNOW anything....

[fred johnson]

 

Disagree.

Advancement is a record.

 

Badges of rank are NOT participation trophies.

 

Is expecting an Eagle scout candidate to know 6 basic knots (that he should have been using for a few years) and rudimentary first aid an impossible hurdle? Really?

 

If your program is out-processing boys who are only required to have a few ink squiggles in the correct boxes, and not required to KNOW anything....

 

JoeBob ... You are ranting without following the details. Record versus promise? I'm not really sure what "record" means.

 

As a comparison though, scout rank is more like a high school diploma than a Red Cross certification. High school says complete these credits and these classes and you graduate. Red Cross certification says take a class and pass a test and receive a certification that EXPIRES after a few years. There is nothing in BSA advancement about expiring rank or re-testing capabilities. As with high school, you always have your scout rank independent of what you know.

 

BSA advancement is a promise because BSA publishes the checklist the boy needs to complete and every Boy Scout uses it. Each rank requirement sits in the back of his handbook for him to use to track his advancement. The book and policy guides also clearly explain what a SMC and BOR are and how they work. That Boy Scout Handbook is our promise to him as his leaders on how he can advance. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

 

 

Is expecting an Eagle scout candidate to know 6 basic knots (that he should have been using for a few years) and rudimentary first aid an impossible hurdle? Really?

 

If your program is out-processing boys who are only required to have a few ink squiggles in the correct boxes, and not required to KNOW anything....

 

I fully buy on when you say "program". Your program should teach and keep teaching the skills. But if you are saying you want to re-write BSA's advancement promise and the Boy Scout promise to correct for your program failures, then I disagree.

 

[Stosh]

I don't expect my boys to fulfill, learn, retain, or become experts in any of the advancement requirements. However, I make it known to the boys that once taught they are expected to retain that information for future use. If not, then my participation in challenging activities will be restricted if not absent. If they want to find someone else willing to take them, fine, it's boy-led, they can make that decision, but if they want me, they're going to have to carry their own weight. It's their choice.

 

It's not a matter of retesting, it's a matter of whether or not I want the hassle down the road.

 

Stosh

[JoeBob]

Okay fred; what is an Eagle Scout in your program required to know?

[Eagledad]

The only options are testing of some form, having the adults control the calendar, or dropping the requirement.

 

Yep I agree. I find these advancement/skills/Eagles threads "very" interesting. Leaders here blather on and on to how a boy run program should work. But once they get into the details of advancements and skills, there sure is a lot of adult directing. And what is so amazing is they don't see it.

 

This includes myself, but I learned while working at the district level that once we start judging other programs, we automatically become hypocrites.

 

Barry

 

[TAHAWK]

 

 

But the boys pick the program. And maybe they aren't interested in first aid nearly as much as rock climbing. They got signed off. Why should they know it anymore? If the adults say the scouts need more first aid competitions then who is running the troop?

 

The only options are testing of some form, having the adults control the calendar, or dropping the requirement.

 

 

I think there are other choices.

 

Although I prefer "leader" to refer to Scouts, that is not to say that a Scotuer is not a leader.

 

One definition of leadership is the ability to convince the group that they want to do the job. I have found many Scouters who are able to influence the leaders in their troop.

 

Are the Scouts interested in Wilderness Survival? First Aid.

Are they interested in any of the outdoor Merit Bdages? First Aid.

And, since you mention it, are they interested in climbing? First Aid.

Are you a Scout teaching First Aid? Powerful invcentive.

What event will your troop run at the Camporee or Klondike? Realy realistic First Aid? Spurting blood. Broken bones. Moans and screams.

 

If you convince yourself that there are only bad choices, . . . .

[Sentinel947]

The BSA gives us a program to deliver to our Scouts. It's a promise (as Fred says) part of the promise is letting our boys have individual growth and leadership. The advancement program is also a promise. The skills are important, but when we start making up rules and procedures contrary to the program, we start making other amendments to the program like not using the patrol method. (Which happens to be where my Troop is at.)

 

There is no procedure in the guide to advancement to retesting on Scoutmaster's conferences, period. That being said (hypocrite moment ahead!!!) My unit retests during Scoutmaster's conferences for rank advancement. It's been doing it since I joined the Troop as an 11 year old 10 years ago. I do not agree, but I'm not the Scoutmaster, so I can't make that change in my unit. I don't do SMC's unless I absolutely have to because I do not agree with retesting Scouts.

 

I can't speak for all units, but my unit feel's pressure to retest because the Adults haven't trained the Scout's to put together a program that challenges the Scouts to keep up on their Scouting skills. The Adults in my troop do not trust the Scouts to test each other for their sign offs.

 

I reject pass/fail retesting because it doesn't actually maintain proficiency. The Scout will simply brush up on the skill before a SMC and promptly forget the skill afterwards. Might as well not retest them. It's the same end result. If your troop retests Scouts and they actually retain the skills beyond the sign off and the SMC, you must be doing something in the program that keeps them up to date with their skills.

 

As Eagledad said, judging other's programs is a dangerous and slippery slope.

 

I do my best to assume that other Scouters are doing their best and mean well until given a reason otherwise. Even when I don't agree with them about various topics.

 

Sentinel947.

[Stosh]

One of the things one figures out early is that every leaders' style is unique to that leader. How they perceive the program, how they implement it, how they measure success all varies from one person to the next. What one person success is another person's standard expectation. Heck, at my age, getting out of bed is a major success on some days.

 

There are those who find one person's style as "different" because it's not the way they have experienced it or gotten positive results out of. And what that other person is doing, because of his style, is successful at it whereas another person because of their style will not be successful attempting the very same thing. So toss in a dose of judgmentalism and one has the basis for a lot multiple pages on a forum such as this.

 

What one often fails to take into consideration is that the program remains pretty constant, but how each of us approach it is quite different. What always befuddles me is that when someone proposes how they approach a situation is sometimes challenged. Scouter A is having a problem. Scouter B explains how he/she is doing it and not having the same results. Scouter C, on the other hand, says that what Scouter B is doing won't work. Why? Maybe it won't work for Scouter A, but it is working for Scouter B. So why would Scouter C offer up discouragement. Why can't Scouter A give it a try, if it doesn't work, he/she isn't out anything and Scouter C might have been better off suggesting a second alternative instead of discouraging Scouter B's comments.

 

I have success with age-based patrols, others don't, but they have success with mixed-patrols. So which is better? It doesn't make any difference which is better. But if a newbie to scouting wants to know which is better, he/she's going to have to try them both because one or the other will most likely work better for their leadership style. Does that mean that one is better than the other? No, it just means that when one gets out into the trenches they need to be prepared to try a variety of different options until they figure out which one works best for their boys, their situation and their leadership style.

 

UC's especially need to be aware of this when they assist with their assigned units.

 

There are those units out there that are Eagle Mills that turn out Paper Eagles all over the place. To some that's a successful program. There are Eagle Mills that turn out fantastic Eagle Scouts on a fairly regular basis. To some that's a successful program.

There are troops that do a ton of high adventure, but turn out very few Eagles, some paper, some not. To some that's a successful program.

There are troops that struggle and just hang on, but each year, they get better and more boys sign on. To some that's a successful program.

 

So who's to judge what is successful for everyone? If someone ever figures it out, let the rest of us know.

 

Stosh

[charmoc]

I think it behooves us to refrain from referring to Eagle Scouts as coming from “Eagle Mills†or being “Paper Eagles†or whatever other derogatory title we put on them regardless of if we agree on the program they came from or not.

Call ourselves names, yes, but please refrain from calling these outstanding young men anything other than Eagle Scouts.

 

[JoeBob]

Some young men are more outstanding than others. (Probably from standing outside more often?)

 

For the purpose of discussing this widely recognized phenomenon, what term of endearment would you prefer?