Retesting Revisited

[Double Eagle]

There is much talk on this forum and other scouting forums about retesting at Scoutmaster Conferences or the Board of Review. I would like to offer my thoughts on this and ask for your polite constructive criticism of these thoughts.

I do not believe that the rank requirements demand that a scout memorize a skill for the rest of his life. Would any of you like to be tested today on high school chemistry or algebra and if you did not have 100% retention of those skills have your high school diploma revoked? I believe that a rank requirement or a merit badge requirement demand exactly what they say, no more or no less. For example, let’s look at First Class requirement 8a.

Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used.

In my opinion, if a Scout can do exactly what this requirement states today then he passes that requirement. If then tomorrow he can not remember how to tie a bowline he has still completed the requirement. This is an extreme example but it illustrates my concept that even if a scout that has passed a requirement later cannot remember some knot tying skill or some first aid procedure he has still passed the requirement.

The path to skill retention is using that skill and teaching that skill to others. One of the problems with knot tying skills today is that many of the knots are not used as much today as they once were. When I was a scout we repeatedly tied the taught line hitch on every tent. We used BSA Voyageur canvass tents. Most tents used by today’s troops do not require guy lines with taught line hitches.

I am an Eagle Scout. One of the requirements that I had to learn and demonstrate to earn First Class was Morse Code. Today I only remember one or two letters of the Morse Code. Does this mean that I should have my Eagle rank revoked?

At the time a scout is signed off on a rank requirement or a merit badge requirement he must do, or demonstrate, or memorize exactly what the requirement states. If that scout cannot do or demonstrate that skill at a later date has no bearing on anything other than that the scout has not had enough opportunity to continue to use or teach the skill.

As a member of my district’s advancement committee I have sat on many Eagle Scout boards of review. At an Eagle board of review I am looking to see if the candidate has demonstrated leadership in their service project and if they have demonstrated character development, citizenship, and mental & physical fitness. I don’t care if the candidate can tie two half hitches. I take as a matter of trust that on the date the requirement was passed and signed off that the candidate did what was required.

Double Eagle

[FrankJ]

Hard to offer criticism. You described my understanding of what BSA expects for rank advancement. My personel opinions aside, I try to run the program to the guideline. All in all I think it works pretty well.

You example about the bowline is a good one. I can teach some one to tie one in 15 minutes. They demonstate it and know the uses, they have met the requirement. Next week if they have not practiced they will probally forgotten the knot. Put em in situations where it is needed a few times they will start to remember. The program is not just about advancement. Provide situations that the skills are needed and the skills will come.

I am sure every program have scouts who have gotten their Eagle by just doing the minimum. Most scouts I know who get that far may have started that way, but end up with much more than that. So I must say taken has a whole the program works.

My advice: Do not compromise on safety. Run the program the best you can. Make sure that the over all program is fun and worth doing.

[SM-890]

I also agree with the fact that once passed, it's passed. we do, however, try to keep some things learned fresh in their minds, so we do knot relays, first aid drills, etc as fillers during a camp out. Since we are a new troop and all are first year scouts, I am looking forward to the scouts teaching the skills to the new scouts next year.

[evmori]

I, too, would agree that once passed, it's passed. But if a requirement is signed off & the Scout never completed it, is that sign-off valid? I would say no.

[deweylure]

Some of the skills are used more frequently than others. Practice makes perfect . I remember far more first aid than I do knots and have used the first aid many more times than I care to think of. There should not be re testing only careful instruction and sign offs to start with.

I personally have not signed off on several scouts despit there protests that they know the skill. I simply ask them to demonstrate it.

Practice the skills using games ,other people have posted the same idea.

One last note. Each scout has different interests,use these scouts to help out. Learn the skill ,teach the skill

Dewey

[FrankJ]

Up untill the rank is award I think it is reasonable to treat an advancement that is improperly signed off as not signed off. After the rank is earned, shame on the people in charge for not catching the mistake. Improperly signed off in my mind means something signed off in error or by some one not authorized by the SM to sign off the scout. I have never had a problem with this when explained to the scout or parent in the right way.

We do not allow parents to sign off rank advancement for their children. The SM voluntarily complies with this. Merit badges are course a different subject.

[WVBeaver05]

Up untill the rank is award I think it is reasonable to treat an advancement that is improperly signed off as not signed off. After the rank is earned, shame on the people in charge for not catching the mistake. Improperly signed off in my mind means something signed off in error or by some one not authorized by the SM to sign off the scout. I have never had a problem with this when explained to the scout or parent in the right way.

Frank, I would agree that a requirement signed off in error isn't valid. This seems to me to be quite different than what is usually being debated here. I don't recall a case where an unauthorized person signed something off. I would have a discussion with them and the Scout (who should know who can sign things off).

Being the cautious person that I am, I normally make sure that I "visit" training being given by our older Scouts until I am confident that they are teaching correctly and testing properly. I am begining to do the same for adults as we get more older Scouts and the Troop begins to run more the way it is supposed to.

We do not allow parents to sign off rank advancement for their children. The SM voluntarily complies with this. Merit badges are course a different subject.

Generally this is true, but we don't have an unbreakable rule. As a small Troop there are some occassions where it is appropriate/necessary. For example, I just looked through my son's book and find that I have signed off 1 requirement (he is Star, nearly Life). That was the Orienteering requirement for 1st Class. In that case, we had no older Scouts who could teach it and I lead an all day map and compass training. None of the other adults felt comfortable with the skill (they attended the training to learn). Another case I can envision (but hasn't happened to us) is where I am the only registered adult present with the other adult(s) being unregistered parents. In that case, I would probably sign off the requirement.

YiS

[Mad Dog]

The problem is and will probably always be that there is what is said in the book and then there is what is practiced by each troop and often the two are not identical. In our troop the SM retests the boys on all of the skills required for each rank advancement and will not let them have a BOR until he is satisfied that the boys know the skills. This might entail one or more SM conferences. IS this right? Of course not. But it seems the local council does not want to get involved in troop policies. So what can you do? Chnage troops? I know some boys who did that and the new troop was worse. One local troop only works on merit bades at summer camp. Another will only hold SM conferences and BOR at the descretion of the SM who uses this power to hold boys back. Unless National and the local councils enforce the written rules nothing will change. This is how I see it any way. Boys often get frustrated and drop out. One SM told me that nobody will complain about him because he is willing to do the job and no one else want sto so he can do as he pleases.

[FrankJ]

I have to admit that parents not signing off requirements is more of a strong policy rather than an unbreakable rule. Must scouters I know would be tougher on their own sons. The rule is more so for the people outside the program will not think we are showing favortism.

[WVBeaver05]

So what can you do? Chnage troops?

I'm not really that much of a proponent of changing troops. There are two parts to the reason. First, coming from a state with a large portion of the Troops being rural Troops, it often just isn't feasible. Second, in many cases I would recommend staying and working to change the Troop operations to fix the problem.

Having said that, there has been a case where I did recommend it. In this case, the Scout was going to quit because of the way a Troop was being run. His father and I were unable to convince him to even try another Troop and he has quit. I consider this to be a waste. Currently, his best friend from church who is a member of a different Troop has been trying to get him to attend and see if he likes it. Maybe there is hope!!

YiS

[OldGreyBear]

Everytime I read a thread about this type of stuff, Scouters using the Troops they serve as balm for their feelings of sheer inadequacy, I think more and more of the "certified" troop idea.

To be a "certified" Troop a Troop would submit dcoumentation and undergo a "site visit" from a nearby "certified" Troop. The documentation and visit would show the troop is boy lead, properly trained and the polcies and procedures of the BSA followed. Retesting wouldnt be an issue as the Troops program would make retesting redundant.

This would have to be a voluntary program, run by volunteers, but it wouldnt take long for prospective scouts to ask if you are a certified troop and if not, why not,

just a thought

[WVBeaver05]

Everytime I read a thread about this type of stuff, Scouters using the Troops they serve as balm for their feelings of sheer inadequacy, I think more and more of the "certified" troop idea.

To be a "certified" Troop a Troop would submit dcoumentation and undergo a "site visit" from a nearby "certified" Troop. The documentation and visit would show the troop is boy lead, properly trained and the polcies and procedures of the BSA followed. Retesting wouldnt be an issue as the Troops program would make retesting redundant.

This would have to be a voluntary program, run by volunteers, but it wouldnt take long for prospective scouts to ask if you are a certified troop and if not, why not,

Wow! I never heard that idea before. It certainly is something to think about.

What has everyone heard of an upcoming policy that the top leader position (SM, CM, etc.) must be fully trained in order for the unit to recharter? What I am hearing is that this will progress further into the leadership positions -- e.g. top leader this year, CC next year, etc.

YiS

[WVBeaver05]

Unless National and the local councils enforce the written rules nothing will change.

By now some of you may be getting the idea that this is a "hot" subject with me

So, those of you with more experience/knowledge/etc., can you tell me why it is that National and local Councils don't appear to have any interest in enforcing the rules? I've seen it on a couple issues locally in the last couple years, and I've read about way more of it and more serious issues here. The recurring theme seems to be that the local Council will not even attempt to interfere.

This is just beyond my comprehension so any insight will be appreciated.

[scoutaholic]

... I think more and more of the "certified" troop idea. To be a "certified" Troop a Troop would submit dcoumentation and undergo a "site visit" from a nearby "certified" Troop. The documentation and visit would show the troop is boy lead, properly trained and the polcies and procedures of the BSA followed. Retesting wouldnt be an issue as the Troops program would make retesting redundant. ...

I like the idea of a certified troop. The logistics of running a program like you have specified could be a problem, but I like the idea.

The Quality Unit program may be a step in that direction. It doesn't include a site visit, but does have guidelines that require trained, two-deep leadership, etc. It seems that the actual Quality Unit form is more a a pledge that they intend to run a program as outlined. What if they awarded a High Quality Unit to those who go beyond the intention and actually DO IT.

The other difficulty with this type of program is, how do people outside scouting know to look for a "certified" or "High Quality Unit"? We can have all the programs we want to rubber stamp and say 'this is a good troop', but a newby won't know what to look for before they have joined a troop.

[evmori]

Training should be required for all adult leaders. Every adult leader for a Troop should have to attend Basic Leader Training (BLT) and then position specific training. BLT would give them a better understanding of what the boys go through.

Thanks to those who fought so we could be free.

[Billiken]

So, those of you with more experience/knowledge/etc., can you tell me why it is that National and local Councils don't appear to have any interest in enforcing the rules? I've seen it on a couple issues locally in the last couple years, and I've read about way more of it and more serious issues here. The recurring theme seems to be that the local Council will not even attempt to interfere.

The last thing a District Exec or Council Scout Executive wants to do is risk or cause the possible loss of units or boys. Interfering or upsetting unit leaders could do just that.

Quality District and Council awards are greatly focused on memberhsip levels, as is funding from outside sources (e.g. foundations, United Way, etc.). These both figure into a professional Scouter's performance review and carerer success.

[MisterChris]

Training should be required for all adult leaders. Every adult leader for a Troop should have to attend Basic Leader Training (BLT) and then position specific training. BLT would give them a better understanding of what the boys go through.

Thanks to those who fought so we could be free.

I'd have to say, while this is a great idea in principle, in practice you would have a fairly large percentage of troops forced to fold, while many of the remaining troops would lose a percentage of their leadership.

As stated in the intervening post, councils and national will probably never go for this. I think every national organized club with leadership training has this struggle.

Some policies of the BSA force this compliance - for example, a Cub Pack can't pull a Tour Permit without a Baloo-Trained leader on the trip.

Something like this can be 'stepped into' and it sounds like the BSA is heading there, and I think that it will ultimately be a good thing for all troops.

I believe they'll need to offer a 1-year grace period for troops where the SM leaves before the charter comes due.

I really like the idea of a 'Certified Troop'.

[OldGreyBear]

well actually the Council I serve does have a requirement for Manditory Training and has had such since 2004. This link is to the most recent requirments, oddly enough the Council hasnt lost units, it just hasx stronger ones

http://www.minsitrails.com/Documents/Ne ... /final.pdf


page 2

[Lynda J]

I agree about the training. And it should also be required that leaders renew that training every so many years. I know SMs that got their training 25-30 years ago and have never retaken the training. I have been working with Boy Scouts for 8 years now. I have retaken my BLT three times. And guess what, I have learned something new every time.

[evmori]

Training should be required for all adult leaders. Every adult leader for a Troop should have to attend Basic Leader Training (BLT) and then position specific training. BLT would give them a better understanding of what the boys go through.

Thanks to those who fought so we could be free.

I'd have to say, while this is a great idea in principle, in practice you would have a fairly large percentage of troops forced to fold, while many of the remaining troops would lose a percentage of their leadership.

Why would Troops fold? If it's because the adult leadership didn't want to be trained, then let them fold. If it's because of the age old excuse of no time, then don't sign up. Every adult leader in our Troop went to training or they weren't on our charter come renewal time.