2015 Guide To Advancement

[John-in-KC]

The Guide to Advancement is updated every two years to reflect changes to programs, requirements and policies. Changes come from a team of national-level professionals and volunteers. Many of the new sections are the result of frequently asked questions that the Advancement team is answering through new policies.

Remember when we were all bothered about the meaning of the term "active"?

 

Be careful of what you ask National for.  You might just get it, and you might not like the answer you get...

[Gone]

Mozart, it sounds like your local district/council/lodge is in need of a some changes...  

 

No chance. The leadership there has been in place for years and they are not going anywhere soon. They've even groomed their replacements -- like-thinking good old boys who don't want to change a thing. That's why my unit focuses on our program and our members. We have a vibrant, growing unit. We have none of the issues plaguing other units in our area because we don't play the district's games or waste our time there. Our money and time goes in to a quality program for our boys. We don't have it? We hire folks from outside (and file the appropriate paperwork and training) to provide the training.

 

We adhere to the GTA. I am sure we interpret a few things that are unclear, but our attrition rate is so low it is almost non-existent. Exit interviews show the reasons being other activities (usually sports, arts or academics). High correlation between those who leave and absentee parents.

[robert12]

From :http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/04/23/2015-guide-to-advancement-out-now-here-are-13-of-the-biggest-changes/

 

5. Sea Scouts aren’t Venturers*

*Updated: This change is pending a vote in May.

[Eagle94-A1]

I remember sitting on BORs as aScout way back in the day. We didn't the word about the no youth on BORs until about 1992, three years after the switch.

 

Fred,

 

Don't know why national changed the policy. In my troop PLs and membes of the Leadership Corps sat on them up to First Class. After that adults only. I personally thinkit was a good idea because as a PL, I got ideas to improve and what not to do. As an LC member, I got to here where the problems were, and get ideas from the Scouts to improve.

 

Stosh,

 

Me personally I disagree with the PL sitting in, or even the SM, sitting on BORs. But I'm use to other PLs and/or LC members being the chairman of the BORs. Just as it can sometimes be an issue to criticise the SM with him in the room, it can be uncomfortable with the PL inthe room.

 

Then again, I knowof one Eagle who told off his SM at the SM Conference, then told his EBOR how the SM is causing the troop to implode with the SM in the room.  Wish the BOR would have listened.

[robert12]

Does anyone else think there is a bit of a double standard between 4.2.3.5 that prohibits video conferences for Scoutmasters Conference and 8.0.1.6 that allows it for Boards of Review.

 

I do undersand the YPT aspect of video conferencing a Scoutmasters Conference, but I see many ways around it.

[Sentinel947]

Excerpt from 2015 Guide to Advancement: â€œDue to concerns about merit badge counselor privacy, and since Scouts should receive the names and contact information from the Scoutmaster, unit counselor lists should not be made available to Scouts online.â€

7. Merit badge instruction should be small in scale

Section: 7.0.3.0

What’s new: Rather than large merit badge classes reminiscent of a boy’s time in high school, the BSA encourages smaller-scale instruction.


Can I get an amen?!?!

[perdidochas]

I've never done a remote or video SM conference, but I can see the circumstances where that might be the least bad option. Especially since video BORs are now permitted. That seems contradictory to me.

 

On contemplation, I figured it out. It's a YP and privacy issue.  WIth a BOR, no YP issue. With a SMC, the Scout would lose privacy or it would be a YP issue. 

[Gone]

On contemplation, I figured it out. It's a YP and privacy issue.  WIth a BOR, no YP issue. With a SMC, the Scout would lose privacy or it would be a YP issue. 

 

Who does SMCs one-on-one? Our SMCs are two-deep. If we did use remote SMCs we'd do it two-deep.

[Stosh]

I remember sitting on BORs as aScout way back in the day. We didn't the word about the no youth on BORs until about 1992, three years after the switch.

 

Fred,

 

Don't know why national changed the policy. In my troop PLs and membes of the Leadership Corps sat on them up to First Class. After that adults only. I personally thinkit was a good idea because as a PL, I got ideas to improve and what not to do. As an LC member, I got to here where the problems were, and get ideas from the Scouts to improve.

 

Stosh,

 

Me personally I disagree with the PL sitting in, or even the SM, sitting on BORs. But I'm use to other PLs and/or LC members being the chairman of the BORs. Just as it can sometimes be an issue to criticise the SM with him in the room, it can be uncomfortable with the PL inthe room.

 

Then again, I knowof one Eagle who told off his SM at the SM Conference, then told his EBOR how the SM is causing the troop to implode with the SM in the room.  Wish the BOR would have listened.

 

It is not mandatory that the PL sit in on the BOR, only if the scout wishes him to.  That's the same for the EBOR.  If the Eagle candidate doesn't want the SM in the room.  Fine, not a problem.

 

We do find that the younger scouts like another scout they can trust (i.e. their PL)  to help critique their BOR for future improvement.  As SM I've never sat in on a BOR, but when invited do sit in on EBOR's.

[fred johnson]

Does anyone else think there is a bit of a double standard between 4.2.3.5 that prohibits video conferences for Scoutmasters Conference and 8.0.1.6 that allows it for Boards of Review.

 

I do undersand the YPT aspect of video conferencing a Scoutmasters Conference, but I see many ways around it.

 

It's not a prohibition.  It's a "should".  BSA states in GTA that should is the preferred way.  Only Must and Shall are mandatory.   So if special circumstances dictate, you can do an online SMC.

 

See the GTA page just before the table of contents.  It has a bubble call out about "must", "shall", "should", "may" and "can".  BSA advancement committee choose the GTA verbs carefully.

Edited April 24, 2015 by fred johnson

[LeCastor]

Who does SMCs one-on-one? Our SMCs are two-deep. If we did use remote SMCs we'd do it two-deep.

 

I sit with a Scout one-on-one within eye and earshot of others.  That's still within the boundaries of YPT.

[DuctTape]

Excerpt from 2015 Guide to Advancement: â€œDue to concerns about merit badge counselor privacy, and since Scouts should receive the names and contact information from the Scoutmaster, unit counselor lists should not be made available to Scouts online.â€

7. Merit badge instruction should be small in scale

Section: 7.0.3.0

What’s new: Rather than large merit badge classes reminiscent of a boy’s time in high school, the BSA encourages smaller-scale instruction.

Can I get an amen?!?!

We can only hope the next step is a full prohibition of the larger and also holding Districts/Councils accointable for their blatant disregard of the requirements by promoting these mb mills.

[NJCubScouter]

NJ, I had the same thought and then figured it was my responsibility as Roundtable Commissioner to make this part of our next meeting.  Each council/district advancement chair should make sure this gets down to everyone, and if the unit commissioners are doing their job(s) this should get communicated to each unit.  (That's the textbook answer, right?  )

 

LeCastor, I appreciate the work of persons such as yourself who serve as Roundtable Commissioners, but if the BSA has new rules (including "clarified" rules) that they expect unit Scouters to know about and follow, roundtables are not an adequate method of communication.  Nor is relying on a "unit commissioner", a position that in my district exists mostly in theory.  It's not a question of UC's doing their jobs; mostly they don't even exist. 

[LeCastor]

LeCastor, I appreciate the work of persons such as yourself who serve as Roundtable Commissioners, but if the BSA has new rules (including "clarified" rules) that they expect unit Scouters to know about and follow, roundtables are not an adequate method of communication.  Nor is relying on a "unit commissioner", a position that in my district exists mostly in theory.  It's not a question of UC's doing their jobs; mostly they don't even exist. 

 

Thanks, NJ! 

 

Do you have suggestions on how the BSA can communicate this information effectively?  Shouldn't Roundtables be a place for training and learning about program updates?  I know our Cub Scout RT Commissioners are using RT to roll out the new Cub Scout program, for example.  

 

How did updates get passed around in the past?  I know the "improved Scouting" was heavily talked about Scouting Magazine and Boys' Life in 1972.  (I know because I looked online and read the articles.)

 

As for Unit Commissioners, I know they are kind of a laughing matter around the country.  It still remains unclear to me why, though.  My RT Commissioner training included UC training and I definitely see the need/importance for the role in our districts.

[Gone]

It's not a prohibition.  It's a "should".  BSA states in GTA that should is the preferred way.  Only Must and Shall are mandatory.   So if special circumstances dictate, you can do an online SMC.

 

See the GTA page just before the table of contents.  It has a bubble call out about "must", "shall", "should", "may" and "can".  BSA advancement committee choose the GTA verbs carefully.

 

Are these definitions of "must" and "shall" stated somewhere? Or are these what we think they mean?

 

In law school they teach you "shall" means "is required to", but in other walks of life shall can connote something less direct. Just wondering if these are documented anywhere by the BSA.