Board of Review - re-write the books

[Bob White]

Ill bet everyone new this was coming....There are three areas of scouting that the BSA controls with unalterable policies. Uniform, Safety and Advancement. Scout run BORs are more than unofficial, they are a violation of advancement policy and are not recognized by the BSA. Every advancement application requires that the BOR was conducted by at least 3 troop committee members. This is not an area of scouting where a unit or individual can do as they please.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eagle74]

You're right BW - I saw it coming down the barrel as I typed.

 

Try this on for size: Forget the term "Boy Board". The Scout is instructed/trained/taught the skills by other seasoned scouts. He must still demonstrate that he can know/perform the skill. Rather than one person performing the evaluation with potential for bias, there are three observers. Three observers serve to provide an unbiased opinion of whether or not the scout has obtained proficiency in the skills. Three observers also make the evaluation process more consistent than a single different observer for different scouts.

 

Does it fit so far?

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I dont think it fits and here is why:

 

The goal for each troop should be that once a scout learns a skill the troops program provides ample opportunity for the boys to use that skill. He can teach other scouts the skill, he can participate in a patrol demonstration to the troop on this skill. On campouts and other troop activities he gets to tie knots, make lashings, use a compass, cook meals, he uses what he was taught and helps teach it as well. By the time a scout makes it past the Scoutmaster conference, there should be no doubt that the scout "knows his stuff".

A troop whose program is oriented towards scouting (what a concept)will have scouts who know their skills.

 

It is my opinion that troops who want to be sure the scouts "know their stuff" by the grilling of the scout at a BOR or a preliminary BOR are not showing confidence in the scout skills portion of their program and have to use these tactics to be sure. I would rather see a troop try to improve the scouting skills content of its program than devise ways to test the scout on his skills. Wait a minute, if they improve the scout skills portion of the program, they wont have to retest, because everyone is confident the scouts "know their stuff"

 

Another way to look at it is the "boy board" isn't just held at advancement time, but is ongoing. The constiuents of the described boy board (ASPL, Patrol Guides, Instructors, oh heck, lets just say the PLC) are constantly teaching and and designing activities/meetings which have scouting skills as the core.

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Eagle74]

I like the path you're going down OGE, and I agree. Although I don't totally disagree with a peer review concept (for lack of a better term at the moment) I'm looking at a way to slowly back away from it as currently done in our troop without ruffling too many feathers. It's been a part of the troop advancement process since well before I came on board.

 

You're correct in saying that a program rich in scouting skills content eliminates the need to use a review in most cases. Ours is not quite there yet, but is doing OK. I have been able to steer the boy board system away from a "grilling" to a process of interactive review with positive reinforcement of accomplishments and teaching where skills are lacking, instead of "you don't know it - come back when you do." To me, a scout that is lacking in skill(s) that have been signed off usually points to a failure on the instruction side of the equation.

 

I can see the value of a peer review or simply a review within the week-to-week program established by the PLC - "OK, everyone show me how to tie a tautline hitch". You're correct in saying that by the time the boy is signed off on all the skills for a rank and ready to advance, is not the best time to see if he really knows the skills.

[k9gold-scout]

I think that scouts reviewing and retesting the new advancing scouts is a good idea. This could be done at a patrol leaders council under the guidance of an Eagle Scout. Now when this scouts comes before the adult board he will be ready. The adults should be made to realize that the scouts should do any testing under the guideance of the Scoutmaster.

[yaworski]

" If I had to sit and be grilled for 1 1/2 hours, I'd quit that night. "

 

On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that those boys know their knots and first aid.

[firstpusk]

"Hi, my name is firstpusk and I - sigh - am an auditor. It all started when I noticed that the other employees were going through boxes of paper clips while I could scavange what I needed off the copy room floor. I knew I was different so I applied for the job in the department of audits. How was I to know that it would lead to. Pretty soon I was taking paper out of the recycle bin and using the blank sides for interoffice memos.

 

I would never tear the tape on my 10 key. Instead, I let it pile up on the floor across from my desk. When the tape came to the end of the role, I would carefully roll it back on to the spindle so that the other side could be used.

 

I knew I was in trouble when I made a tenderfoot scout sit through a six hour board of review. I knew he would finally come clean and admit that he paid an older scout in Ding Dongs to scribble the illegible initials we found in his book. When he finally stopped crying, I knew right then and there that I needed help from the Big Auditor in the Sky."

 

The above is totally ficticious except for the part about being an auditor in recovery. The BOR is supposed to be about making the program work for the boys.

 

I think the interview approach is fruitful. That was the one my wife always used when I was the SM. She couldn't test them because she didn't know the scout skills well enough. She did get to know them pretty well in a very short time. She was able to tell me the hard news more than once about problems scouts were having. I was always a bit surprised that some of the other people didn't give me this info.

[Compass]

firstpusk:

"I think the interview approach is fruitful. That was the one my wife always used when I was the SM. She couldn't test them because she didn't know the scout skills well enough. She did get to know them pretty well in a very short time. She was able to tell me the hard news more than once about problems scouts were having. I was always a bit surprised that some of the other people didn't give me this info."

 

Thank you for this paragraph. This summarizes my understanding of the Board of Review process and how it is supposed to work: additional visability into the hearts and minds of the boys, and how well the program is working. It's amazing what can turn up in a Board of Review.

 

I'm not against auditing or auditors. I just don't believe that the intent of the BOR is merely to examine/re-examine a boy's technical skills. Learning and practicing Scouting technical skills is a means to an end, not an end to themselves.