Should the Scoutmaster be a gate keeper to the BOR

[Eagledad]

>>Scout Spirit requirements, Scoutmaster Conferences, and Boards of Review are designed to keep a Boy Scout Troop adult-run. They are a flat rejection of Baden-Powell.

[Stosh]

Let's look at it this way:

 

The boy appoaches the SM for a Conference. The SM refuses for whatever reason. All he says is "No."

 

Doesn't this 2 second discussion count as a SM Conference? The SM just limited it to 2 seconds and accomplished the conference.

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

Yah, Eagledad, there were so many things yeh said this thread wasn't about that should be taken elsewhere, I'm not sure what the topic is, eh?

 

I really don't have any problem with gettin' da SM's approval for advancement, or for OA, or whatever. Just a normal part of mentorin' and feedback to my mind. Only becomes an issue in those units that get their shorts all in a ball about advancement minutia because they're so dysfunctionally focused on that one method.

 

Sometimes lads need feedback from their peers, and I'd like to see that reintroduced. Sometimes lads need feedback from adults. Workin' 'em both together seems like it's the best way to help a lad learn and grow.

 

B

 

[eisely]

One thing that is not mentioned is fulfillment of leadership responsibilities. These are rank requirements that are not skill related. The BOR is forced to rely on the SM or somebody else to confirm that these requirements really were met in a manner consistent with the expectations of the troop. This is one area where the SM is a gate keeper. I have seen too many boys thinking that all they have to do is get their ticket punched and then they move on without having really done anything in a POR, not even showing up. The BOR is essentially forced to rely on the SM as the final "quality check" that all the requirements really have been met.

[emb021]

Thing is, the SM is the one who signs off on Scout Spirit, Scoutmaster Conference, and (as applicable) POR. These are all done before the boy goes to the BOR. So for good or bad, the SM can use these to hold a boy back. In most cases, if the boy doesn't get these signed, he's not going to the BOR (as, without them, he's not going to get the rank, so why bother?)

 

I believe the BSA has started putting out training on how do the Scoutmaster Conference & BOR, because so many people misuse it.

[Lisabob]

Having a system in place where a SM is NOT the gate keeper would require that all of the BOR members fully understand the advancement requirements (how many of you know committee members who are clueless - after all, they're "just" committee members who show up from time to time, don't camp and barely even know the boys, so why should they need to know the rank requirements in any depth?). It would also require a **very** healthy relationship between committee and SM, where committee members felt ok with saying "not yet" in cases where a boy really had not demonstrated his readiness. (Many SMs currently seem to take this as a personal affront from what I've seen, and many committee members are therefore unwilling to do this except in extreme cases). And maybe it would require allowing the committee to probe more deeply into the scout's skill/ability level/satisfactory fulfillment of POR, so as to ensure that unit sign offs were high quality, without being accused of the dreaded "retesting."

 

 

[gwd-scouter]

I do Scoutmaster conferences all the time, not necessarily for rank advancement. Thing is, the boys just don't know they're having a Scoutmaster conference - at least not as it is described in their handbook as the last requirement before a BOR for rank.

 

I have a talk with a Scout who has behaved badly. I have a talk with a Scout that seems frustrated. I have a talk with a Scout who needs help in understanding how to be an effective leader. A guy just seems off his game for a few weeks - let's have a chat. Starts missing meetings and outings - what's going on? All sorts of things lead to Scoutmaster Conferences.

 

By the time a fella is ready to advance to the next rank, we have a brief chat to go over what he's done in his current rank, see if there are any areas he feels he needs to work harder on for the next, and his plans to get there.

 

In a way I would say, yes, the Scoutmaster is the gatekeeper to the BOR in that he/she should be engaged with the boys in the Troop and talk to them. I've never had a time when a Scout came to me and asked for a SM Conference for advancement when I thought that he was not ready. A Scoutmaster should have known long before that point that the Scout had some areas in which to improve.

 

Yes, I know Scoutmasters whose only real interaction with a Scout is when it's time for a SM conference for advancement. That's too bad - for both the Scoutmaster and the Scout.

 

In our case, perhaps it is because we are a small troop that I know the boys so well. Then again, I have such wonderful junior and adult leaders that I can spend my time watching and listening.

[evmori]

I think it all comes down to training or lack of. The BSA doesn't require training for the adult leadership and I think it should. Granted training doesn't take on all people but expecting volunteers to follow the many BSA rules & regs & guidelines without requiring they be trained for the position signed up for is a recipe for disaster.

 

Good questions Stosh. I don't know if that would qualify for a SM conference!

[Stosh]

Like gwd-scouter, I do SM conferences all the time. With a boy-led program, it frees me up to float around from patrol to patrol, boy to boy throughout the evening/event and "chat" with everyone and "how's it going" kinda thingys. I'm thinking that pretty much all my boys have "passed" that requirement well before they get to the BOR whether they know it or not. My PL's check off on all requirements for advancement for the boys, SPL does it for PL's and because I do float around, I'm never worried about whether or not that SM Conference box is checked or not, I've already "checked" it with what I do as SM. When the boy finishes rank, he get's the "Hey, I hear you're done with _____ rank, congrats! Say, how did it go for you?" chat. :^D

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

>>A Scoutmaster should have known long before that point that the Scout had some areas in which to improve.

[Stosh]

Okay, a couple of things here to hit upon.

 

Last meeting I had a boy ask for a SM conference. Ok, not a problem, they can have one any time they wish. He had completed his First Class requirements and was doing the SMC "officially". We sat down, chatted a bit about what he has done, etc. Then (sorry LisaBob!) I had him tie a bowline, taunt, etc. He got the bowline and square, but none of the others. Retest? Yes, but with a purpose. The discussion then went on to the fact that he was taking over the patrol as PL. How was he going to be able to take care of his new boys if he couldn't even tie the knots the new boys would be learning. Then we talked about how he thought the boys would like him if he couldn't help them all get first class in a year. Then we talked about what a PL was expected to do for his boys. The discussion never talked about going back and having to do anything over on his part, but we had an excellent discussion on how much easier being a PL would have been had he learned his requirements the first time. Now he has to do double duty to get ready for instruction while being PL. HE concluded (not me) that he's behind the curve and is going to have to relearn on his own so he can teach the new boys coming into his patrol. Did I retest? You bet I did, it's an excellent teaching tool for the boys. It had nothing to do with whether or not he would have to do the requirement again for getting his FC badge, the boy concluded that on his own regardless of what the patch on his pocket said. The patch on the sleeve all of a sudden became more important than the one on the pocket.

 

BOR's can't retest, a SM can. I do it all the time over and over again with my boys. My only duty as SM is to assist the boys and that means doing it by whatever resources I can muster, including training, testing, retraining, retesting, etc. until the boy masters the skills well enough to teach others.

 

Stosh

[Twocubdad]

It's a matter of semantics, Stosh, but I'd say you did not retest the Scout. You used the knots as a tool to make a point and get the Scout thinking. If you don't have a chance of failing, it ain't a test. I tend to spend a good bit of time in conferences talking about the big focus for the rank. We always spend time reviewing first aid, as that's something we've ID'd as a weakness within the whole troop. My rouse is that I want to help the boys prepare for their BoR so we're going to review the main things we think the BoR will ask. I suppose at some point the boys will figure out that the BoR doesn't do retests either.

 

Like the rest of you I enjoy informally talking with boys about what they're up to, if not, what are you doing here? THE Scoutmaster Conference required for an advancement is a formal thing. It's usually about an hour, which sounds long, but it's a conversation not a grilling. I like to meet at a local coffee shop and talk over a cup of coffee and a soft drink. I probably spend more talking than I should, but I feel like this is my chance to coach and counsel a Scout on a one-on-one basis. Of course I ask plenty of questions to get them to open up, too.

 

But how to conduct a Scoutmaster Conference wasn't Barry's question.

 

As to the gatekeeper function, the short answer is yes. The real answer is much more nuianced.

 

At SM conferences I have, from time to time, told Scouts that I would not recommend them for advancement. Sometimes it is for obvious reasons, like they have incomplete requirements. If it's something subjective -- PoR performance problems, behavior problems -- it won't be the first time they've heard from me. I know that my "recommendation" isn't really needed for a Scout to ask for a BoR, but with most Scouts aren't going to press the issue. And if my recommendation is negative, the advancement chairman knows about it before the Scout does.

 

I take a team approach and work closely with my advancement chair, committee chairman and other leaders. It's important everyone is on the same page. I spent 30-45 minutes this on the phone this morning talking with our advancement chairman about a Board of Reveiw from last night. Anytime there is an issue with a Scout, we talk about it and try to approach the situation with a consistent message. If a Scout is ever denied an advancement, either at a SMC or a BoR, everyone on the leadership team knows it going in. Unless he's in total denial, which happens, the Scout knows it too.

 

 

[emb021]

FWIW, the BSA has supplemental training on these topics:

 

Scoutmaster Conferences: http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/trainingmodules/scoutmaster%20conference%20training.aspx

 

Board of Reviews: http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/trainingmodules/board%20of%20review%20training.aspx

 

All these trainings are at this page: http://www.scouting.org/BoyScouts/TrainingModules.aspx

[Beavah]

I agree with everything Twocubdad said, eh? So I don't want him to think I'm pickin' on him by choosin' a phrase from his message. It just struck me, is all:

 

If you don't have a chance of failing, it ain't a test.

 

Maybe I'm just quirky, eh? Dat's what Mrs. Beavah says, anyway, though she uses different words. I don't much care for the obsession with failing that seems to be part of da adult culture of advancement in many units. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with school-style testing, where yeh get a passing or failing grade and then the teacher just moves on. Troops that talk about "failing" are most often troops that offer "classes", eh? That's just not scoutin' in my mind.

 

A scout learns, and a scout is tested, and a scout is reviewed, and a scout is recognized are all just part of da same mentoring process, eh? I don't think the word "fail" is ever used in any of the BSA materials. It's about growth and development, not passing and failing. A scout never fails, eh? All that happens after a test is that he learns what he knows well and what he needs to practice some more. That's not failure, that's just feedback. Yeh set up a tent in a drainage ditch, it gets wet or your PL explains why that wasn't a great choice. No failure. Just learnin'. And since the lad's still learnin', we're just not to review or recognition yet.

 

Can't say I'm a strict adherent to any of da religious views over how that mentoring should be done in a unit. Some units it's the PL's deal, some units it's the SM's gig, some it's a team approach with the committee on reviews, some it's a team approach with the PL's. I reckon it should be a team approach with everybody, except I've found that usually it takes one or two adults who are "keepers of the vision", so to speak, and the rest tend to follow their lead. Otherwise it sorta runs downhill and yeh get awards for settin' up the tent in the drainage ditch. Plus a lot depends on the age and experience of da youth leaders and all that, which varies between units.

 

Beavah

 

[fleetfootedfox]

Maybe I am missing something, but where does it say the Scoutmaster is the only one that can sign off on Scout Spirit or POR? Maybe some troops have set this policy for themselves, but I mean where does it say it in official BSA literature?

 

Also, I agree that some of these problems show that people don't understand that a troop is supposed to be boy-led.