Board of Review - re-write the books

[Compass]

First, let me quote from the Committee Guidebook:

 

----begin quote----

"The review has three purposes:

 

1. To make sure that the work has been learned and completed.

 

2. To find what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop.

 

3. to encourage the Scout to progress further.

 

The board of review is not a time to retest the Scout, but to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting ideals."

----end quote----

 

"...not a time to retest the Scout,..." is in bold, indicating (to me, anyway) that the boy is not to be retested. Yet, item one sounds contradictory when it says that the review is "To make sure that the work has been learned and completed."

 

Now, I am not against asking some rank-related questions. However, it would seem that, looking at the sample questions, one of the big reasons for the BOR is to evaluate how the program is being run in the troop.

 

I had a very vigorous discussion with another person (an auditor in real life) about this issue. He maintains that item one must be the focus, and he doesn't understand (and ignores) the words prohibiting retesting the Scout.

 

I guess that, whichever way is the intent, why isn't it stated better in the books? It's written essentially the same way in the Advancement Policies and Procedures book.

 

Your thoughts and opinions, please...

[evmori]

While I agree the Scouts are not to be re-tested I realize the contradictory nature of what you read.

 

In my opinion, the BOR is to determine if the Scout is ready to advance to the next rank and to get some better insight to the Scout's preception of his Scouting experience. To determine if the Scout is ready to advance to the next rank questions need to be asked. What I think the book is saying is the Scout doesn't need to be asked ONLY question regarding his advancement requirements.

 

Bob White, this sounds like it is right up your alley!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[k9gold-scout]

I think the reason for not retesting is that scoutmaster and jr leaders have the job to teach the skills and to see that the scout show that he has retained the knowledge. Boards of Review should be made up of troop comm. members not usually working with the scouts as leaders. Now this is an ideal suitation and many troops have fewer leaders and they must make due. If the scout is not ready to advanec the scoutmaster should tell the board and they should tell the scout what things he needs to do inorder to receive his next rank.

[ASM7]

"To make sure that the work has been learned and completed" can be done by just talking to the Scout and the experiences he has had. If you go down the list and have him answer, you are retesting and that is not allowed. Talk to him about Scouting. Put the requirements in front of him and ask what was the hardest one for him. What was the easiest? What was the most fun? These kinds of questions reveal lots on the matter of his skills.

He has already learned, and been tested by people who are supposed to have more skills and training than you as a committee person. They are on the campouts and at the meetings and know the boy better than anyone on the committee. Retesting makes the scout nervous. They may seem not to know something when they actually do. I've seen young scouts who could not remember their name because of nervousness. The members of the BOR should put the Scout at ease, so he can talk freely about his experiences. This is how to find out if the program works, and thats the responsibility of the Scoutmaster.

[acco40]

"He has already learned, and been tested by people who are supposed to have more skills and training than you as a committee person."

 

Where in the heck did this statement come from? It is baloney. I have experienced troop committees who have members that are Wood Badge trained, former Eagle scouts, former US Army Quartermasters, trained up the proverbial ying-yang, etc. To believe that SMs, SAs, youth leaders are SUPPOSED to have more skills and training than a committee person is ludicrous. They may or they may not.

 

Getting back to the original question, look at the four steps to advancement:

 

1) A Scout Learns

2) A Scout is tested

3) A Scout is reviewed

4) A Scout is recognized

 

Step #2 - a scout demonstrates to his leader (SM, SA, patrol leaders, troop guides, or other junior leaders provided that the boy leader has already earned the rank the Scout is aiming for) that he has fully mastered a skill at the level expected.

 

Step #3 - After completion of all requirements, progress is reviewed by Scoutmaster conference and Board of Review. A Scout (not the SM) will be able to determine if he is ready to go before a BOR. NO TESTING IS DONE. The purpose of the BOR is NOT TO RETEST a Scout, but rather to ensure that he has completed all of the requirements, to determine the quality of his troop experience, and to encourage him to advance toward the next rank. I interpret "ensure that he has completed all of the requirements" similar to the job of a registrar at a college. Before I obtained my degree, someone checked to see if had the minimum GPA, took the right classes, had enough hours, etc. Nobody made me retake a calculus exam to see if I really understood partial differential equations! Similarly, the BOR checks the paperwork and makes sures all of the requirements are done (completed). For example, is everything signed off properly.

[ASM7]

acco40

I was referring to the minimum position training for the BSA to consider a leader trained. I know there are committee members who are trained to the gills. We need more of them. The training, however, is voluntary. I wish the training was listed in the duties of individual leader positions.

I believe we are on the same page on everything else.

Doug

[acco40]

Your are correct, a minimally trained committee member has less training in outdoor skills than a minimally trained SM or SA.

 

Sorry, I do come on too strong sometimes.

[Compass]

ASM7: "He has already learned, and been tested by people who are supposed to have more skills and training than you as a committee person. "

 

Actually, I am not a committee person, nor have I ever been.

 

My difficulty was that the committee person over the BOR was auditing the boys. He appears to place himself as the ultimate and final authority as regarding Scouting, focusing almost entirely on the boy's technical knowledge of Scouting rather than the implementation of the program. He appears to use the BOR as a club over the boys and the adult leaders.

 

I like acco40's comparison to a college registrar, though I don't object to the BOR asking some technical questions because that, too, can be revealing about the program implementation.

 

By the way, the individual involved, like me, has been to training, and, like me, has completed his Wood Badge ticket.

[Bob White]

When all else fails have him read the advancement reference "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures".

[Compass]

Bob White: "When all else fails have him read the advancement reference "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures". "

 

Actually, I did. As I mentioned earlier, we had this discussion about this issue, and we referenced the "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures" book (sorry, I had the title wrong in my original post).

 

Since item one says, "To make sure that the work has been learned and completed", he insists that item one must be the focus, and he doesn't understand (and ignores) the words prohibiting retesting the Scout.

 

I guess I wish that item one in the ACP&P book was re-worded somewhat, "to ensure the work has been signed-off" or whatever, if that is the real intent. Not that it would stop this person from being willfully ignorant.

[Bob White]

I think ASM7 covered it very well.

Bob

[Lippoeowl]

The Board of Review is an excellent opportunity for the Scout to develop and practice those skills needed for an interview. Walking into a room with three to five adults can be very intimidating to anyone, much less a young Scout. The ability to walk into the room and communicate a positive and confident impression is a skill, which will help the Scout throughout life. Serving on a troop's Board of Review can be very satisfying as you watch Scouts develop from very nervous Tenderfoot Scouts to self-assured and confident Star or Life Scouts.

 

It very important to train your Board of Review members. We use a Board of Review Guidebook and teach a short course in "Conducting a Board of Review" to all interested committee members who plan on serving. They need to understand the purpose and goals of your troop's Board of Review. In my troop we use an evaluation form to check off how a Scout did with things such as:mood when he entered the room, appearance, first impression of the Scout, did he make good eye contact, posture, how did he answer questions, handshake style, and did he identify any problems in the troop. Each board member fills in one of these evaluation forms and returns them to the Scoutmaster who can then work on helping the Scout improve those things he needs to work on.

 

The Board of Review is NOT a retest; the Scout has already been tested on the skills and activities required for the rank. The Chair of the Board should ensure that all the reequirements have been "signed off" in the Scout's handbook and that leadership and merit badge records are consistant with the requirements for the rank. It's very important that the Scout find warm and friendly people who listen to what he says and only want to help him have a good experience with Scouting. A wisely run Board of Review can itself reinforce this good experience and increase a Scout's ability to communicate with all adults, including his parents.

 

YIS: L-Owl

[rlculver415]

ASM7 has it. BOR is not a time of retesting, but it is a time for questions. He listed some good ones. Others might include: "Tell us about your experience with (name a skill,whatever)?", "What did you learn by doing -----?", "How could you use what you learned...?"

 

As with any printed material, taking a portion of a passage out of context is a serious mistake. It always leads to misinterpretation. #1 must be viewed in light of the rest.

[ASM7]

We had a Father of a scout from another troop tell us that he has had it with his son's troop BOR. He said that scouts have a First Class BOR that lasts 1 1/2 hours. They retest on everything back to Tenderfoot. They have been visiting other troops in the area. These hard line retesters need a wake up call. Maybe a sign hung around the scout's neck that reads, "I have learned, I have been tested, DO NOT RETEST, Thanks, Scoutmaster". If I had to sit and be grilled for 1 1/2 hours, I'd quit that night.

Doug

[Eagle74]

In agreement that the BOR should not be a skills retesting session. The BOR should be looking more toward the big picture including the scout's role in the organization, whether or not the scout is living up to the ideals of scouting, whether or not the scout lives the oath and law - not just scouting during activities, whether he having a satisfying scouting experience, whether there any issues/problems and what solutions does he suggest, and so on. All boys appearing before the BOR are expected to recite the oath, law, motto, and slogan and be prepared to explain how they are living those ideals. This is done at every BOR, at every rank, so it's no surprise - every boy knows coming into the BOR that this will happen.

 

In our troop we use a "Boy Board" during Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class advancement. This is not something that is BSA official, but falls under the umbrella of "making sure the work has been learned." The Boy Board consists of the ASPL, Troop Guide or Troop Instructor, and another "senior" scout, with an ASM sitting in as an observer. The ASM's job is to assure that the Boy Board does not become a grilling session. The point is to identify any skills weaknesses and help the scout attain a satisfactory skill level. The Boy Board reviews the rank requirements with the scout, asking him to tie some of the knots, demonstrate first aid procedures, asking questions, etc. If the scout can't demonstrate a skill(s), the Boy Board members show the correct way, review the correct answers and then "test" the boy again the following week on only those items where skills were lacking.

 

The nice thing about this is that the boys seem to experience better retention of skills over the first few years. It also allows us to identify deficiencies in the skills instruction process - maybe the instructor did not instruct in a clear and concise manner, or maybe even is teaching an improper method. If that's the case, we can improve the learning process.

 

Using the Boy Board concept, the Scoutmaster's conference and Troop BOR can concentrate on the spirit of scouting and personal development aspects.