BOR and scoutmaster confrence.

[hacimsaalk]

tonight, ( during supper might i add), my dad, the SM, got a phone call. on the other end was the mother of a scout who had failed his BOR(1st class) b/c he didnt know A.how to orient a map, B.didnt know the first aid, C. he didnt know some of the knots, and D. he didnt know the scout oath or law. she "informed" my dad that the BOR was not suppossed to go over the reqs again with the scout. It is just suppossed to be a chat about things, no actual skills need to be checked. ( in other words, once you get the signature on each req, its set in stone, nobody needs to quiz you) she went on to tell him that it was my dads fault her son failed b/c in the SM confrence, the SM is suppossed to "check" the scouts skills one last time.

in our troop the BOR tests SOME skills, not all. the SM confrence is mostly just a pep talk for the BOR, with some talk about the troop thrown in.
we have been doing this since i can remember.

who is right? does our troop need to change, or do we got it down pat?

thanks

hacim

[evmori]

BOR's are not to retest which sounds like what was done. But if the requirements were signed off without the Scout knowing them, whoever signed them is at fault.

I do feel the correct thing was done by no passing the Scout. Especially since he didn't know the Oath or Law.

As long as the Scout was told what he needs to do to pass & another BOR was scheduled I would stick to my decision.

[Mrw]

We use the SM conference to re-check that the scout has at least the basics of the skills. The older boys may sign off on requirements for 1st class and below and they will lose the priviledge if they sign things without the boy knowing it. The SM has sent boys back to practice some things before passing them on SM conference. He is nice about it and makes sure he talks to them again the next week.

The BOR is used to see how the boy is doing in the troop and how he thinks the troop is doing. We may ask a few very basic skill questions, but more to be sure we don't get the "deer in the headlights" response instead of a clue. Most of the little guys are flustered enough by the BOR idea that testing them on skills would be painful for everyone involved.

[ASM-142]

tonight, ( during supper might i add), my dad, the SM, got a phone call. on the other end was the mother of a scout who had failed his BOR(1st class) b/c he didnt know A.how to orient a map, B.didnt know the first aid, C. he didnt know some of the knots, and D. he didnt know the scout oath or law. she "informed" my dad that the BOR was not suppossed to go over the reqs again with the scout. It is just suppossed to be a chat about things, no actual skills need to be checked. ( in other words, once you get the signature on each req, its set in stone, nobody needs to quiz you) she went on to tell him that it was my dads fault her son failed b/c in the SM confrence, the SM is suppossed to "check" the scouts skills one last time.

in our troop the BOR tests SOME skills, not all. the SM confrence is mostly just a pep talk for the BOR, with some talk about the troop thrown in.
we have been doing this since i can remember.

who is right? does our troop need to change, or do we got it down pat?

thanks

hacim

The BOR does not re-test a scout. If this parent or scout appeals this decision it will be overturned. The failure of the scout not knowing this material is in the hands of 1) the scout himself; 2) the SPL and troop guide; 3) the individual who signed off on these requirements; and 4) the SM.

This scout should of passed his BOR and then the committee should of had a meeting with the SM to fix a broken program

[wagionvigil]

Once signed off it is a done deal. By retesting you are adding to the requirements.

[evmori]

Once signed off it is a done deal. By retesting you are adding to the requirements.

I agree but if it is found out the requirements were "rubber stamped" then there are two problems - A Scout not actually completing requirements and someone signing off on requirements improperly. And if this happens and the Scout doesn't know the requirement, he shouldn't be passed until he does.

[vpalango]

I agree with the above posts....

The scout in question should have passed his BOR. The Board should have brought thier program conserns to the Committe Chair/Scoutmaster and remedial action should be taken at that level.

Here's a specific example of how to apply it to this case.

1) BOR goes to Committee to raise the concerns

2) SM researches why a scout was allowed to "pass" these requirements, and remediates whatever was going wrong.

3) SM assigns 1st class scout position of Troop Instructor. Then as part of his "Assignmnent" asks scout to prove his skills to the SM/SPL prior to teaching any class

The point is that there are ways/techniques to "catch up" when the system breaks, and part of the skill of leading a troop is figuring out how to be creative/flexible in addressing problems in a positive way.

[Lynda J]

The mother is correct. BOR is not a re-test of skills. And if the SM let this boy get past the SMC without checking if the kid knew his stuff then the SM fell down on HIS job.

[FrankJ]

Hacimsaalk:
From your description, it sounds like the board was a little overzealous in its review. They are not suppose to retest specifics. But the board is more than a casual chat. They can delay advancement. If advancement of a scout is delayed the Chair of the BOR should have discussed the review with the SM. The bit and pieces need to work together.

There is an excellent write up of what a BOR is & is not on BSA's web site

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/supplemental/18-625/index.html

It says in part:

But be aware that a Scout who is poorly prepared for the board, one who clearly has not achieved what his book says that he has, is a product, as much of his own merits as of the merits of those who have brought him the board, to those who have signed off his accomplishments without actually having them properly achieved. Thus, a Scout may not be as responsible for his lack of preparation as might be thought. This does not grant carte blanche to the ill-prepared Scout, but it does give the board a way to understand what must be done and to assist the Scout in doing it.

The BOR is not a place for re-testing, but if the skills are clearly not learned, advancement can be delayed. Notice I did not say the scout failed th BOR. The BOR has an obligation of letting the scout know both verbally & in writing what is required to advance. Ideally the scout & the BOR would be in agreement at the end of the process.

[MisterChris]

The mother is correct. BOR is not a re-test of skills. And if the SM let this boy get past the SMC without checking if the kid knew his stuff then the SM fell down on HIS job.

I have a STRONG suspicion this Mom would have been in the SM's face if the boy had failed his SMC because of a lack of knowledge. "After all, the requirements were signed off, so he had to know them at one time."

I'm prejudging this Mom, unfortunately, and that's not fair. You can offend a parent in a situation like this based on how it's presented. Sugar goes a lot further than Bitter. I don't know how the BOR presented this to boy or Mom. But I DO know that some parents are very difficult to please regardless.

I have no idea why the BSA has the SMC be a review of skills, and the BOR is just a 'level-set' to see 'how the boy is faring, is he happy, well adjusted, does he like his PL and SPL'

In our troop we have these roles reversed and for good reason.

An Eagle BOR is a pass/fail based on a Scout's records, his skills, his attitude, his letters of reccommendation (or LACK of them). Misrepresentation or foul language in the BOR. An Eagle BOR can fail (and HAS failed) scouts if they do not measure up.

An Eagle BOR can (though most of the ones I have sat on do NOT) review any requirement for any skill or any MB.

We tailor our BORs to review the skills. My SM supports me on this. In the SMC he gives a pep talk, finds out how the scout is doing, where he's going. He works much closer with the Scout than we do. Often the SM is a father figure for these boys. In the BOR I review dates, records, leadership position, service project hours, etc.

I have just recently added that the SMC is to make the Scout's Handbook the document of Record that the scout has completed the Scout Spirit and Leadership Position. The SM should know these things, while I would generally NOT know. The scout has to show me his book before beginning the BOR.

I have failed several boys in a BOR before, for a lack of knowledge of scouting skills, for not being in uniform, for not knowing their knots.

Personal Opinion - I probably would have passed this 1st class scout.

- For a scout approaching First Class, I would give him a liberal helping of Grace on not knowing knots, he gets less questions, and more grace on everything but the uniform and the Scout Spirit. A LIFE scout gets no grace on knots, and still gets a bit on skills. The test is passed with a 70% and each question is accompanied by helps when necessary.

But if a scout came before my BOR and REFUSED to repeat the Scout Oath and Law, he wouldn't pass. If he made fun of it or mocked it he wouldn't pass. If he struggled through it and got it close, sure he'd pass that.

You can be ABSOLUTELY SURE that I told the boys what they missed (I have a form, they get to keep it) notifying them of what points they need to work on, and a new date for the BOR (usually the next week)

You can ALSO be sure that that scout has 1) learned a lesson on BEING PREPARED and 2) will be certain to pass on his next BOR.

Our Troop Bylaws document this process and I have NEVER had a parent challenge it. Even the scouts that failed understand why and are ok with doing a retake the next week. Their parents thank me for taking the time to explain why they didn't pass, and are apologetic that their son wasted my time. (But, it's not a waste of my time. It's valuable to me to see how the boys are progressing, and whether they are learning. And to force them to review and actually KNOW the material. It could save a life someday.)

I do not 'Lord it Over' these boys. If they do not pass it is more than obvious to them that they did not, and WHY they did not, before I even give them their results.

[MisterChris]

The board of review is how the troop committee (or the Eagle Scout board of review) tracks the progress of a Scout to determine his understanding of the ideals of Scouting and how he applies them in daily life in the troop. If the board of review is for rank advancement, the board will satisfy itself that the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for that rank and will review with the Scout the requirements for the next rank. The board of review is also a way of reviewing the troop's progress.

This review is not and should not be an examination or retest of skills learned. Rather, it is an attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals, both in the troop and outside of it. The board should get a sense of the importance that the Scout attributes to Scouting in his home life, at school, and in the troop. It also shows how the Scout perceives the troop and its adult leaders.

These two paragraphs from the link (thanks for the link, BTW) appear to be contradictory.

In the first paragraph, the BOR is to determine if the Scout is 'prepared for the BOR' and it must satisfy itself that he has 'done what he was supposed to do' for the Rank.

In the second para, the BOR is not to retest. It's a check on his attitude (That should be passed in the SMC as Scout Spirit) and how Scouting affects his daily life.

What would a scout prepare for the BOR? how can you determine if he is prepared or if he has completed the reqs if you cannot test? In the paragraph you cited in your quote, the boy may be held up on advancement (i.e. NOT pass the BOR, it's the signature and the Adv Sheet that determine if he gets the rank) if he has obviously not learned. How can you determine this without some type of question or test (call it what you will)?

[wagionvigil]

" Troop Bylaws" cannot go against National policy or procedure. Any troop that does this is walking on thin ice and If a council wanted to play hardball the charter could be lifted.Troop Bylaws cannot change anything pertaining to advancement etc. Like atendance policies,fund raising policies BOR procedure.

[MisterChris]

ok.

I'll read over the linked BOR documentation, get retrained, and submit this thread to the SM and TCC.

[scoutaholic]

Here is my understanding of how it should work.

The SMC is a time for the SM to talk individually with the boy about his advancement/goals/successess/struggles/likes/dislikes/etc/etc/etc. It is not a Pass/Fail thing. Every boy should have SMC even if they are not advancing (or especially if they are not advancing).
When I do SMCs I meet with each boy. We talk about their progress on advancements, what they need to work on, their scouting goals and progress on them, what they are learning, how they are feeling about their relationships with their fellow scouts, how they are feeling about their youth leaders, what they are learning as youth leaders, how they are feeling about their adult leaders (yes, I have occasionally had to hear a thing or two about my failures in this part), how they feel the troop is doing as a whole, what they feel the troop is doing wrong and/or right, etc. etc. If they are up for advancement, we do review over the requirements for what they have completed (so they at least remember doing it in case the BOR asks), and we go over what is needed to complete the next advancement. We would also talk about what to expect in the BOR.

The BOR, as already stated, is not a time to test the scout on the skills he should have learned. They should review a little bit, just to make sure I am doing my job with them. If the scout has prepared for advancement and the BOR, he should be prepared to discuss his progress in earning the advancements. This may feel less like a test if the questions are more like "What did you learn by doing this skill?", "How can this skill apply to your daily life?", "What did you like/dislike about this part?", etc. This will elicit answers that will show what has been done without testing the skills themselves. I have never seen a BOR use a map/compass/rope/etc and actually require the scout to demonstrate his proficiency in the skills. The BOR is not the time or place for that.
The BOR is also a time for the committee to spend time with the boys and through that interraction find out how the troop is doing. They can and should ask some questions similar to the ones I mentioned above as part of the SMC. That is how the committee knows when there is a problem in the troop programs or leadership that needs to be addressed. I don't know of any troops that do it, but I have heard/seen it recommended that all boys have an occasional BOR even if they are not advancing. That way the committee gets to work with each boy and get the point of view of all of them.

I have been SM for 7 years now. In that time, I have only seen 3 boys not pass their BOR. All three were because they couldn't do the Oath and Law.
The 1st was a Tenderfoot (when the requirements say to have it memorized). He apparently had forgotten it and had no clue, even with help and prompting. He was devastated and cried, but understood. He studied and passed the BOR the next week. I have never seen him struggle with the Oath/Law since.
The next one was the younger brother of the 1st (several years later). He was up for life, and still apparently struggled to get it. When he came back the next week, he not only knew it, but could tell us what it means. He will be up for his Eagle BOR next month, and I'm sure he will have no problems with the Oath and Law.
The last one was a boy who was up for 1st Class. He also struggled with saying the Oath and Law, but I think the real reason he didn't pass is that he didn't seem to care. They told him he could pass off the Oath&Law with a member of the board whenever he was ready. It took him 3 months to decide he was ready, and he did a new BOR. This boy still doesn't seem to care about his scouting. He only does what his parents make him do, and they apparently can't make him finish the requirements for the next advancement. I'm pretty sure his mother thinks I am a bad SM, because her boy isn't an Eagle yet, but I can't make him do it and I won't give it to him without actually fulfilling the requirements.

[MaScout]

MisterChris says, "I have failed several boys in a BOR before, for a lack of knowledge of scouting skills, for not being in uniform, for not knowing their knots.

Isn't this "adding to" the requirements? Uniforming is a method of Scouting. Where does it say a youth must be in uniform to pass a BOR? Our committee has delayed advancement for this reason. While I agree there is no excuse for showing up for a BOR out of uniform, I question if it is right.

[wagionvigil]

That has been discussed before in these forums. Look for the thread that covers that.

[616kayak]

I’m still a scout not an adult who leads a BOR, but if I were this is what I would do.

For starters, I would pause the BOR until he knew more information. I would not say I failed him, just that we will pick up on where we left off when had a better grasp on the information. If he didn’t know 2 or 3 things I would advance him and talk to the SPL about having the scout trained by some one qualified.

I assume he knew the information at one point. Many scouts forget knots they don’t use. The key is training. Having games that practice scout skills can help scouts advance and know essential information.

Failing a scout at a BOR can cause him to lose his motivation to advance.

[evmori]

If the Scout was never taught the requirements and they were signed off, he never did them. PLUS, he didn't know the Oath & Law. I would not have passed this Scout on his BOR. I would have told him what he needed to do to pass, given him this in writing & schedule another BOR for him.

[FrankJ]

Where does it say a youth must be in uniform to pass a BOR?

From Advancement Commitee Guide Pub 33088E pg. 30
The Scout should be neat in his appearance and his uniform should be correct as possible, with the bages worn properly

As Wagionvigil said, what this means has been discussed elsewhere.

[MisterChris]

MisterChris says, "I have failed several boys in a BOR before, for a lack of knowledge of scouting skills, for not being in uniform, for not knowing their knots.

Isn't this "adding to" the requirements? Uniforming is a method of Scouting. Where does it say a youth must be in uniform to pass a BOR? Our committee has delayed advancement for this reason. While I agree there is no excuse for showing up for a BOR out of uniform, I question if it is right.

In brief, (yes and no), in the BOR document linked above, and yes.

I've already stated that I'm forwarding (and now have) this thread to our SM. I've reviewed the BOR policies on the referenced page. I'm instituting a change. We're changing our procedures.

The requirements I was reviewing are not in addition to the requirements for advancement. The boy is required to learn them. So the reqs were no different than already required for advancement in the first place. Still, I've been 'corrected' that requiring him to pass a test is 'adding to the requirements' because the test ITSELF is a requirement.(?)

- so, (yes and no).

Read the policies for the BOR linked above. I did. And it has a paragraph allowing you latitude on requiring the boy to be in uniform and neat in appearance.

"How to Hold a BOR" para 4:

A board can expect a Scout to be neat in appearance and properly uniformed.