First Class First Year & Retaining Important Skills

[Beavah]

Yah, so it seems like some on da Scout Missing thread wanted to talk about FCFY, eh? Figured it'd be better as a new topic where perhaps some rationality and courtesy could generate more light than heat.

 

So, what are your personal experiences with FCFY, particularly as they relate to what scouts learn & retain in terms of Scoutcraft - those things like land navigation and "what to do when lost" and buddy system that apply in very real ways to what good Scout programs do all the time - take kids into the woods. Do you find in your programs that you really get kids to a level of understanding at Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, and First Class, so that they might reliably avoid or survive situations like young Michael's (or the Utah Fire lads, or...)? How do yeh know, or evaluate that?

 

Should we even be takin' kids into some areas until they can reliable demonstrate some of those skills on demand? We require paddlin' skills checks in Safety Afloat, swim checks in Safe Swim Defense - and we even require retesting swim checks every year. Young Michael's dad expected that Scouting had taught his son what was what, so that his boy could understand and act correctly. How well do we live up to that expectation, if we're honest with ourselves?

 

Please, as a courtesy for this thread, share your own personal experience with your troop's setup, it's pluses and minuses, and how successful it is at kids learning and retaining important outdoor safety skills (and how you know/evaluate that). Only after that, your thoughts about "theory and principle".

 

[SR540Beaver]

Last year we had 24 new scouts. This year we are currently at 12 with 5 to cross over at month end, possibly 8. We have additional boys who have implied intent to crossover between now and May. We utilize NSP's and FCFY. We have 5 ASM's for new scouts of which I am the lead ASM. We also have 4 Troop Guides are 14 to 15 and are Star or Life.

 

NSP's and FCFY led by TG's and supervised by ASM's allows us ensure the quantity and quality of the skill instruction and experience the new scouts obtain. They are still part of the troop and get to know and interact with the older boys in the standing multi-age patrols they will cross into in less than a year. They are at the same meetings, campouts, campfires, service projects and COH's. We supplement the training they recieve from the TG's with additional older boys in the troop.

 

We could integrate them into regular patrols at the outset and hope that they are taught what we expect by their patrol members. But we have found that having them in NSP's and having an organized FCFY program keeps them engaged, gives them a comfort level with their peers while getting to know the older boys, lets us take their pulse better and keep them in scouting on a longer term. Last year we had every new scout attend summer camp and that will be our goal this year. It is my belief that boys who cross over around the February timeframe, go to summer camp and get close to First Class by their first year are more apt to stay in scouting longer than those who do not.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. The skills a boy learns to survive in the outdoors is as dependent on him as it is those teaching him. As long as they are able to demonstrate a requirement to the satisfaction of their leader, they can get signed off for advancment. FCFY makes no difference in that aspect of what a boy retains.

[OldGreyEagle]

In the troop I serve we have a New Scout patrol or two or three depending how may scouts bridge. We follow the suggested set up so I wont bore you with those details. Kids who come to meetings and go on outings and learn their skills and retain them advance, those who dont, dont.

 

I do not see how having a first class first year program versus not having a First class first year program has anything to do with the retaining of important skill. Either the troop teaches the skills and then makes those skills an inherent part of the program so they are used and not lost or forgotten, or it doesnt. Having a First Class First Year program means that a scout "can" reach first class in a year if he attends the troops activities. If he doesnt show up, he doesnt complete activties/requirements so he doesnt advance. First Class First Year is about giving the scout an opportunity to advance to First Class in a year, it doesnt say the scout must make first class in a year only that the scout has the opportunity. Retaining skills is about how often they are used, its not how they were learned in the first place

[bs1964]

In my troop, approximately 40 scouts, we have typically used NSP and a loose FCFY program. The FCFY is more of a goal where we provide the opportunity to accomplish this. Not all scouts are that motivated and some take their time. My thoughts are that a rigid FCFY program where all new scouts advance in lock-step together is really more like cub scouts than boy scouts.

 

This year we will have 12-15 new scouts and will likely integrate the new scouts into 2-3 existing patrols while provided the FCFY "break out" activities in addition to the troop's normal outdoor program.

 

In my experience, retention can be an issue even without the FCFY program. Skills that aren't regularly used tend to be lost. We just re-teach and reinfore through JLT, etc.

 

[LongHaul]

One of the most important things I learned in school was to define terms before you begin a discussion or debate. Just what do you think FCFY means? Does it mean that all scouts advance in lock step? A demonstration is held the boys are then tested the same night and requirements are signed off? Does FCFY means that every new scout is exposed to the training necessary and provided with an outdoor program that provides the opportunity to advance to First Class within one year? I guess the real questions are how tough are we when it comes to skill competency, and does your program provide the opportunity for the scout to advance to First Class in the first year.

LongHaul

[Oak Tree]

My experience is that the boys retain only very general things about the scoutcraft that they have signed off. I'll occasionally spot-check them, and unless they've had reason to use the skill in question repeatedly, it's a good chance that they will not remember. We do use the FCFY program, and they do learn the skills once, but the boys retaining the skills just doesn't happen much.

 

Oak Tree

[Beavah]

Yah, LongHaul, I agree. That's why I think it's helpful for people to share what they actually do, so we all get a sense of what they mean by FCFY. Even with the "suggested setup" there are a lot of ways to do things that aren't always clear.

 

Two troops I work with do NSP/FCFY. One is very much like SR540's more heavily "adult influenced" program, one is more like bs1964's more fluid program.

 

I'll talk about the first program, which very much pushes FCFY. Kids move through TF by May, 2C by summer camp, 1C by late fall. Some boys fall a bit behind that because of attendance, but it would be very unusual for a boy not to be First Class by the end of their first year in March. The instruction is often done by adults, or "heavily coached" TG's, very group-oriented, even "classroomish." It's pretty well done, actually. Kids like it OK.

 

But I'm not sure the kids have enough opportunity to do it themselves to really learn, eh? Yah, it's not the quality of the instruction that counts, but the quality of the learning. I'm pretty sure that come May of their second year, or earlier if they were put in a real-life instead of classroom-test use of a skill, that these boys wouldn't succeed. Especially for skills like First Aid or What to do When Lost where there really aren't that many opportunities for "live" practice or repetition, and where the real world is confusin'. In fact, I doubt that the TG's if put in young Michael's place would successfully reason their way out of the hills.

 

The troop thinks things are great, though. Everybody makes First Class on time, just like they should. Parents are happy. Adult leaders brag about how successful they are at "the program." That makes it hard for an old flat-tailed UC to nudge things more toward "learnin'" than "advancin'". And just "advancing" has gotten pretty common in a lot of troops, eh?

 

I guess what I'm seein' in this unit in particular, and some others, and in things like summer camp merit badges, is "credit for instruction" rather than "credit for learning/ability." We taught it to them, so our job is done... their job too, eh? FCFY often adds to that attitude, which is pretty contrary to the institutional goals of the BSA.

 

And it doesn't do too much for the safety of the kids (or for the mental wellbeing of the adults who take 'em into the woods where they get lost).

 

 

[OneHour]

We have a semi-formal Trails to First Class where the requirements are laid out for the entire year by an ASM after the troop's annual planning. The plan then is given to the PLC to work in their monthly schedule as well as line up the appropriate instructors. We use NSP ... so if the whole patrol attend all meetings and campouts, they would advance pretty much together. The skills would be taught (by the older boys ... with an ASM acts as QA). The skills would be tested the next week or at a campout. This would at least force the scouts to review and practice at home for at least one week. The skills are tested by an ASM. We found that the older boys tend to sign off eventhough the skill is not mastered. If the SM asks me to do scoutmaster conference, a sampling of the skills for the rank would be demonstrated to me again. Maybe that's why they fear getting a scoutmaster conference with me. Our SM is easier. By the way, I don't add any more requirements than what is expected of the rank to know. Once upon a time (about 4 years ago), our older scouts know little or nothing of the skills that they learned in TFC. Nowadays, our instructors are fairly good at the skills.

 

1Hour.

[SR540Beaver]

"One is very much like SR540's more heavily "adult influenced" program, one is more like bs1964's more fluid program."

 

Pardon me Beavah, but I don't know how you got "adult heavily influenced" out of my comments of, "NSP's and FCFY led by TG's and supervised by ASM's allows us ensure the quantity and quality of the skill instruction and experience the new scouts obtain. They are still part of the troop and get to know and interact with the older boys in the standing multi-age patrols they will cross into in less than a year. They are at the same meetings, campouts, campfires, service projects and COH's. We supplement the training they recieve from the TG's with additional older boys in the troop."

 

Every unit program whether or not it is boy-led is "supervised" by adults. As I said, our TG's lead and train the NSP's and are supplemented by additional older boys in the troop. Because of the large number of new boys we get, we function "somewhat" as a troop within a troop. The TG's do separate skill instruction during meetings because a new boy needs to know how to set up a stove and a tent where the older scouts have been doing that for years. We go on the same campout, but we may have a totally seperate program from the older boys so we can work on skills, advancement requirements and skill and age appropriate activities.

 

A for instance is Camporee a couple of weeks ago. We had 11 of our 12 new scouts go. The majority of these boys had only attended the troop meeting prior to the campout. Two boys actually brought their registration forms to the church parking lot before we left for the campout. I guess I heavily adult influenced what we did, because the new boys were not permitted to participate in the patrol competitions. It seemed to make sense since they had learned zero skills so far as Boy Scouts. Instead, they spent the day in camp learning how to set up tents, lanterns and stoves. They learded what was in the patrol box and how to pack it for travel. They learned how to raise, lower and display the American flag. They also got in the axe yard and began learning and earning their Totin' Chit and also began work on the Firem'n Chit. We adults watched the TG's do all of this skill instruction from halfway across camp in our lawn chairs. They had a lot thrown at them, so they spent the afternoon taking a 1.5 hour hike down to the falls on the creek that runs thru camp. They came back and demonstrated their knowledge for the ASM's.

 

I guess you could say they did this in lockstep together....although we will probably get another 10 or 12 new scouts in the next 6 to 8 weeks and have to do it all over again while continuing to move forward with the boys who are already here. I will say, if the boy can't demonstrate his knowledge or skill, he won't be signed off. Sitting thru a skill instruction and demonstrating a skill are two different things.

 

Back to the troop within a troop comment. Much like a PLC, our TG's are tasked with determining what will be taught and which one will teach it or finding someone who can teach. They don't come to meetings and fly by the seat of their pants. They are charged with leadership and having a plan.

 

And yes, they do it under the "supervision" of the ASM's for NSP's. The one constant whether it be a whole troop or NSP's using a FCFY program is the adults. The TG's will spend a term being a TG. Hopefully they will enjoy the job and want to stay. More likely they will want to be an ASPL, SPL or go back to being a PL. My ongoing responsibility along with my other ASM's is to make sure that the new set of TG's are prepared to lead the next year's crop of new scouts. Just like an SM with new senior leadership.

 

The adults in our troop never do a job that can be done by a boy.

[Eagledad]

Depending on the numbers, we may or may not have NSPs, but all our new scouts are assigned a TG responsible for making sure they get a good start. Usually on their first meeting night, the new scouts are going through the exercises to pass the Scout Badge. We do that mostly to teach them our policies for filling out the hand books, asking the SM for a SM Conference and then asking for a BOR. All these responsibilities are up to the scouts, so we show them how to do it right off the bat.

 

Then the new scouts spend the next few weeks learning the basic camping skills getting them ready for their first campout. After that, we will initiate them into tenderfoot skills, but basically from there they are slowly let go to do skills on their own. We provide and offer enough training that if they wanted, they could be First Class in 8 to 10 months.

 

Our program tries to use scout skills through the yearly program no matter what the theme. We typically do first aid every Spring to re-teach those skills. I think we do OK, but we could do better.

 

Now for my Philosophy I used when I was SM. When I was a boy scout, I dont remember Eagle being the top emphasis. I was in a very active Troop of 80 scouts and we didnt have our first Eagle for eight years. First Class was the big hurdle and the rank that everyone celebrated reaching because that is the mark where a boy supposedly could be left out in the wilderness on his own. That was how I tried to run our First Class program. Not sure how well I did, but I have always been offended by todays approach that First Class is just one stepping stone to getting the Eagle.

 

There are a lot of discussions about scouts who dont get past TF for a couple years, and I agree with the idea that it is their choice. But when I was a scout, there was a lot more pressure to being first class mostly because it was important for the boys safety and survival in the woods. Of course I can also remember that First Class had tougher outdoor requirements. There is no doubt in my mind that if we would celebrate and respect the First Class rank like we do the Eagle today, we would have less discussions about scouts who dont really aspire to the Eagle rank, and we would higher numbers of older scouts. I think the quality of programs would climb because there would be more focus on skills and less on advancement.

 

National developed the FCFY program because they found that scouts who earned FC in the First year tended to stay in the program at least another two years. This was also about the time that National wanted to raise the number of Eagles. I think the flaw in Nationals approach was that the units they polled who had quality first year programs werent focused on numbers, they were focused on quality of skills. But that isnt highlighted in todays Scoutmaster Handbook.

 

My wife and I talked a little about the lost Scout last night and she asked where the other scout was? Now she never camped with our troop, but she was talking about that the first rule a scout learns in our Troop while camping is the buddy system. Im sure its the case for most troops, but since this is discussion about FYFC, Im curious to where that rule should fit. Should we add it to the advancement part of the program so it is taken more seriously? In each case of lost scouts that have become National news the last few years, the buddy system either wasnt used or fell a part. I can't recall a single story about the two scouts who got lost.

 

Barry

 

[John-in-KC]

In my youth, Hillcourt's advancement requirements had more rigor, imo. I have to wonder if the current suite of requirements for the outdoor program (TF-Eagle) has enough rigor??? I'll spin off a thread from this.

 

As to FCFY, we were a new troop, one year old. The SM had not recruited any older Scouts to assist him. It was boy run from the trenches. Frankly, 12 year old Scouts, no matter how much they think they know, don't have fundamental mastery of the topographic map, compasswork, and finding their way. They do First Aid teaching by rote, not with an understanding of WHY they do WHAT they do.

 

I'm perfectly OK with a young man taking his own time to grow and develop. FCFY to me seems to be a member retention tool, not a skills training and retention tool.

 

YIS.

 

 

[funscout]

My troop gives the new boys a goal of First Class in One Year, but it certainly is not expected that all boys will meet it. My older son took more than 2 years to get his First Class rank, even though most of the other boys in his patrol made it in about a year.

[OldGreyEagle]

so the myth that if you do First Class First year you can't possibly do a good job is busted?

[Beavah]

so the myth that if you do First Class First year you can't possibly do a good job is busted?

 

Not about that, eh? It's about sharin' ideas and information so that each of us can do a better job for the people we serve.

 

I have a question for the couple o' scouters who described situations where a whole NSP received instruction (from TGs or ASMs), and then the whole group received checkouts (seemed like that was mostly ASMs) on the same campout or within a week or two.

 

Do you really find that a boy learnin' something for the first time achieves competence/mastery of a skill on the same day he's first taught it? Or do yeh really think one week delay is adequate retention?

 

Both seem very unlikely to me. Yah, sure, a boy who is shown a patch of poison ivy can go back to that patch and point it out again. But can he really go to a different campground two months later and distinguish poison ivy from a plain old nonpoisonous vine - on his own, while doin' something else? Isn't the second one the one the boy needs to be safe and successful? Isn't that what a boy should be given an award for in public?

 

[OneHour]

"then the whole group received checkouts (seemed like that was mostly ASMs) on the same campout or within a week or two."

 

Whole group receives checkouts on the same campout is highly unlikely. Each scout has to demsonstrate his skills individually at the next troop meeting or campout or thereafter. The key is for an ASM or senior scout to never sign off on active memory! It seems to work for us.

 

Traditional prescribed way is difficult for a troop of 70+ boys.

 

We may be doing it incorrectly the way that it ought to be, but one thing is for sure, our boys retain a lot of the skills by the time they are Stars!