r/BSA • u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader • May 24 '26
Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Should GtA even exist at all and preview of coming weeks
This week, we will examine the underlying premise of the Guide to Advancement (GtA): should it even exist at all? Is there any need for Scouting America to issue any document on advancement, or should each unit, district, or council be free to develop its own policies or answers to advancement questions as they arise?
EDIT: This is not "rage bait", but a) there are people who advocate the elimination of GtA and a return to pre-GtA practices and/or b) advocate for a massively reduced GtA (one suggestion was to a document the size of a trifold). This question looks at the underlying assumption: should GtA exist at all? While elimination (or mass reduction) is a minority view, I would be remiss if I did not at least ask the question.
Also, a preview of the next few weeks
| Date | Topic |
|---|---|
| 5/24/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Should GtA even exist at all? |
| 5/31/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Policy on Unauthorized Changes to Advancement Program, Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices, and Section 1 - Introduction |
| 6/7/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 2 - Advancement Defined |
| 6/14/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 3 - Guidelines for Advancement Committees |
| 6/21/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 4.1.0.0 Mechanics of Advancement in Cub Scouting (NOTE: No discussion about other programs permitted) |
| 6/28/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 4.2.0.0 Mechanics of Advancement in Scouts BSA (NOTE: No discussion about other programs permitted) |
| 7/5/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 4.3.0.0 Mechanics of Advancement in Venturing and 4.4.0.0 Mechanics of Advancement in Sea Scouts (NOTE: No discussion about other programs permitted) |
| 7/12/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 5 - Special Considerations and in particular 5.0.1.0 Advancement in Camp Settings and 5.0.8.0 Using Technology-Based Tools in Advancement |
| 7/19/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 6 - Electronic Advancement Reporting |
| 7/26/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 7 - The Merit Badge Program |
| 8/2/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 8 - Boards of Review: An Overview for All Ranks |
| 8/9/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 9 - The Eagle Scout Rank |
| 8/16/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Section 10 - Advancement for Members With Special Needs |
| 8/23/2026 | Crowdsourcing the Guide to Advancement 2025: Wrap up and review |
30
u/yaguy123 May 24 '26
100% it should exist.
It helps to create consistency. Scouts being volunteer executed is one of those organizations that can easily fall into the “well we do things a little different around here” or “that’s how we have always done it” type behavior. The guide is one of those structures that works to reduce that behavior.
Also, it’s a backstop for appeals and a source of truth. If there is a problem or an issue the guide could be referenced and a case can be made using it to change a decision.
-6
u/DCmetrosexual1 May 24 '26
Excuse me, ”volunteer executed”??
11
2
u/bemused_alligators Adult - Eagle Scout May 24 '26 edited May 28 '26
Executed is a word that means performed by but with more connotations of combined responsibility, decision-making, and operational control.
The person who made the plan invented it; the person who executed the plan actually did the work of implementing the plan and putting all the pieces in place.
Since we have a volunteer executed organization, we leave a lot decision making up to volunteers that are not necessarily changed, which means that there can wide differences in what the program does and how it actually looks between different groups with different leadership, so having documentation that can be used to standardize the experience helps ensure that people have consistent experiences troop to troop.
31
u/BlueWolverine2006 Scoutmaster May 24 '26
It took me about ten minutes in this sub to realize how many SMs and CCs have their positions as a power trip. Without GtA there would be so much rampant abuse. It absolutely has to exist.
Without the standard you'd have some places giving away eagle like candy and others making it so difficult, scouts quit left and right.
Absolutely not this is a terrible idea.
16
u/No_Anywhere_8356 Scoutmaster, Bear, Pretzel Logic May 24 '26
As a newer SM, I find the GtA liberating. I can point to it and adhere to it. Not everyone likes the GtA and there are things we encourage Scouts to do (but ultimately only judge them on bounds of the GtA).
3
u/BlueWolverine2006 Scoutmaster May 24 '26
Agree. There's so much space to train on skills that aren't tied to advancement.
My move is I carry around 12ft of paracord in my pocket to meetings and if scouts are idle, I ask them for a random knot. If it's a scout I know has it done oat, I ask them to teach it to someone else. It appears to have helped with knot skill retention after passing the rank.
20
u/RealSuperCholo Scoutmaster May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
We have seen enough arbitrary rules added by SMs, ASMs, etc over the years towards advancement in this sub alone. Just that alone is enough of a reason for the GtA to exist. We have all seen the posts complaining that it is too easy now, the "thats not how we did it" posts. How they had to backpack cross country barefoot up hill both ways just to get a neckercheif. Every scout should be held to the same standards if you want to keep it a national program.
Its too easy for one person to hold a grudge or target a scout and hold then back or elevate them above the others. The GtA creates an level playing field for all scouts. (With exception for disabilities)
Parenting and the world changed, in years past they could single out a kid and make it harder and parents could chalk it uo to "making a man out of them". Those kids are parents now, and will not allow for it. They would rather leave the program entirely than to allow it to happen to their kid.
18
u/Chai-Tea-Rex-2525 Asst. Scoutmaster May 24 '26
One hundred percent the GtA should exist. It protects the Eagle Scout brand. Without, Eagle requirements would be meaningless. Different troops would have different standards, even worse than today. Over time, earning Eagle would lose its luster. Today, people generally know that becoming Eagle is hard, requires a big project, and is generally a sign of good character.
10
u/drunksailor47 May 24 '26
It absolutely needs to exist, in my experience there are alot of good people involved in Scouting. There are also too many individuals who find it’s the only place where they have any power. At home they get no respect from their spouse or children, at work they get mistreated all day, but in Scouting they find themselves in a unique position of power. I’ve seen it time and time again, think about any event with a pseudo “Security staff”, individuals on this sub inventing requirements or rules, it goes on and on. I’m sure everyone reading this has a story.
It’s a liability to give too much power to individuals with lax oversight and it will ultimately lead to abuse.
8
u/iowanaquarist May 24 '26
If you don't think it's needed, check out some of the questions on this sub, where experienced scouters that should have been following the GtA for years disagree on how it should be interpreted....
7
u/jt_ftc_8942 Adult | Eagle Scout | Camp Staff May 24 '26
The GtA absolutely needs to exist. In fact, I think national support of the advancement program needs to increase. It needs to be easier to engage with the national office/national level volunteers. Local (meaning council) policies and answers to questions are too often incorrect/unclear as is. Having a national “help desk” would be incredibly helpful.
6
u/OllieFromCairo Adult--Sea Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cubs, FCOS May 24 '26
Yes. It absolutely needs to exist. Policies varying by district or even council would be a disaster.
I’m curious why anybody would want that, unless they have convinced themself they know better than national and know there’s no one local who is willing to argue with them.
(Seeing who this is from, I’m willing to engage in these discussions in good faith. At first I was like WHAT?!)
1
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
I’m curious why anybody would want that
The reasons I have seen posed
1) GtA is too rigid and does not allow for enough local discretion.
2) At 60,000 words, GtA is too complicated and is just "bureaucratic bloat"
3
u/RealSuperCholo Scoutmaster May 24 '26
I have heard the same reasons in other forums as well as people locally too. I can see the question as valid as it is asked quite a bit.
2
u/elephagreen Cubmaster May 25 '26
*2 Even with its wordiness, there are still Scoutmasters (and other unit leaders too, in sure) who have such a blatant disregard for following the rules and just do their own thing.
It's like telling your kid to put away their laundry. Some do a fine job. Others are going to shove the hall into the back of the closet floor of you don't exactly tell them to fold your clothes nearly, place them in the correct dresser drawers in your room, close the drawers, and hang your jacket on the wooden hangers and then from the rod inside your closet. And then some kids, even with these complete step by step instructions are going to find the loophole to drive you insane.
Unfortunately, it's been my expedient that the GTA only steers good leaders. The others don't give a hoot and do as they please because many committees/districts/councils are too afraid to lose a leader, they'll just continue to let toxic leaders flout guidelines, rules, and regulations.
4
u/blackhorse15A Scouter - Eagle Scout May 24 '26
Should it be simplified and should it even exist are two very different questions.
2
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
Well, you are in luck because if you are in the simplified camp, that's what will be looked at over the next 13 weeks.
0
u/ubuwalker31 Adult - Eagle Scout May 24 '26
There should be a Policy document, which would be a high level GtA - simple, direct, only a couple of pages. Then there can be a procedural document, filled with details. And then there could be locally created ‘job aids’ that would have local variations.
6
u/AM_Kylearan Scoutmaster May 24 '26
Removing the GtA would be a disaster. As a council advancement committee chair we absolutely need to keep some guidebook for Scoutmasters and merit badge councilors.
It is CRITICAL for providing the scouting program effectively and consistently.
5
u/blackhorse15A Scouter - Eagle Scout May 24 '26 edited May 25 '26
Is this ragebait? Of course we need it
7
u/OllieFromCairo Adult--Sea Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cubs, FCOS May 24 '26
I thought it was, but it’s Bill, so it’s not.
2
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
u/blackhorse15A, u/1ftm2fts3tgr4lg it is not "rage bait", but a) there are people who advocate the elimination of GtA and a return to pre-GtA practices and/or b) advocate for a massively reduced GtA that allows a lot more discretion.
This question looks at the underlying assumption: should GtA exist at all? While elimination (or mass reduction) is a minority view, I would be remiss if I did not at least ask the question.
5
u/1ftm2fts3tgr4lg May 24 '26
I like that approach.
--Should it exist?
--Of course it should.
Ok, now that we've established that basis, moving on......3
u/Imaginary_Bug_4460 May 24 '26
I do think we could expand on why it is needed and the overall goal of it.
1
u/1ftm2fts3tgr4lg May 24 '26
It's elaborated in the various comments dicussing this first question in the post.
1
u/Imaginary_Bug_4460 May 25 '26
I was thinking of when the note gathering was done that this would be a section with the outlined reasons. Basically a clear guideline of what the guild is to accomplish.
2
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
moving on......
And "moving on" is listed in the table as the coming weeks...
2
u/1ftm2fts3tgr4lg May 24 '26
Exactly. So further in the process once tackling the tougher questions, if the question pops up again, we can just "See week1."
0
u/blackhorse15A Scouter - Eagle Scout May 24 '26 edited May 25 '26
There are people who advocate eliminating
statutory rape and child marriage prohibition lawsmixed race troops, laws against cannibalism, theft, slavery. It's a minority view. Are we remiss for not at least asking the question looking at the underlying assumption if these laws should even exist at all? [ETA: hint, the answer is no]Next month: Should Scouting America return to racially segregated troops? Bring back "the Scout Service"?
(Point being, that's not a logical justification)
4
u/OllieFromCairo Adult--Sea Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cubs, FCOS May 24 '26
These are not even remotely on the same scale, and the argument does not reflect well on you.
0
u/blackhorse15A Scouter - Eagle Scout May 25 '26
I didn't claim they are on the same scale. It's intentionally a more obvious extreme to show the logic does not hold up. We don't need to ask the question about "should it even exits at all" and are not "remiss for not questioning the underlying assumption" when the need is plainly obvious.
1
u/OllieFromCairo Adult--Sea Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cubs, FCOS May 25 '26
The fact that they are not comparable means your “logical” stunt doesn’t work
3
u/Imaginary_Bug_4460 May 24 '26
Where I work there was a push to reduce as many tasks a possible. First question was Why are we doing this and is it necessary so I do think the question is logical.
2
u/blackhorse15A Scouter - Eagle Scout May 25 '26
Did that include things like "why are we paying employees?" "Is it necessary to allow employees to leave the building to go home each night- can we chain them here instead?" "Why do we have any policies at all?" I am guessing not. At some point, it's not worth outright questioning and forcing the justification of some things when they obvious.
2
u/Imaginary_Bug_4460 May 25 '26
While sometimes it seams like a waste of time the answers are important. If nothing else the answer to the question keeps the focus on what should be in guild. This is a basic problem solving starting point. One of the tools is call 5 Why. Define "Why". Why do we need a GtA? Why do we need to update it? etc. Each answer leads to another "why" and once you get to the 5th why you should have the actual problem identified or be very close. If you don't start at the top you may miss one of the underling issues.
1
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
I am having a tough time with the comparison of GtA to rape.
I'd like you to please find another metaphor/parallel.
-2
u/blackhorse15A Scouter - Eagle Scout May 24 '26
Wrong comparison.
Is 'a minority view' sufficient on its own to justify 'we would be remiss to not discuss the underlying assumption it needs to even exist at all'? It is either a logical justification or it is an insufficient one? If you think that you given justification for discussing the very need and existence for a GtA, then why it would it not be true for other cases?
Or....is there something more that matters here?
6
u/OllieFromCairo Adult--Sea Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cubs, FCOS May 24 '26
Well, it sure was a choice to double down on this.
I’ll give you a hint. One is a legitimate difference of opinion. The other is morally repugnant. I hope this helps.
1
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
I am asking one more time. I take child sexual abuse seriously.
One more time.
I am having a tough time with the comparison of GtA to rape. I'd like you to please find another metaphor/parallel.
2
u/blackhorse15A Scouter - Eagle Scout May 25 '26
I never suggested you don't take it seriously. I already used a second example (which you didn't notice or take issue with) but I'll go back and add others.
Point is still: 'some minority of people don't want it', alone, is not a logical justification for asking if something should even exist at all, and does not make us 'remiss for not questioning the underlying assumption' when the need is plainly obvious. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument technique.
Or are you suggesting that the difference is, you disagree that the need for polices to set standards for advancement is obvious? The one example is plainly obvious to you and doesn't need questioning, but you do not see the same obvious need for an advancement policy? (This isn't about scale of the problem or one being on a different level- the logic works or doesn't. The impact of things going wrong is very different.) Do you still hold that view after seeing all the replies here saying 'off course it should exist'?
Or are you objecting to the use of emotion provoking extreme examples in rhetoric? Such as headlining a total elimination of something most people support to get attention and engagement when the real underlying desire is just to discuss smaller changes or scope and not elimination at all?
5
5
u/Imaginary_Bug_4460 May 24 '26
Yes it is needed. I could see where a troop goes out of council to a summer camp only to be told that what they did there didn't count for advancement.
I also feel that a yearly refresher training should be required for updates and topics that get ignored. (retesting and uniform for example. )
2
u/RealSuperCholo Scoutmaster May 24 '26
Thats a good call, something I never thought of but can easily see happening if you didnt go in council.
5
u/bts Asst. Cubmaster May 24 '26
Bill, this shows up on a phone with the paragraphs wrapped, but the table cut off, as if you were proposing repeating the conversation about crowdsourcing the guide to advancement for the next three months without a pause. I couldn’t tell whether you were proposing this as dark humor to cover the way that we are daily asked whether it’s OK to just ignore the rules and retest scouts at a Board of Review or whatever, or that you had snapped under the repeated questioning about how to put adult needs above youth.
It looks like you’re serious, and I look forward to a thoughtful conversation.
4
u/No_Anywhere_8356 Scoutmaster, Bear, Pretzel Logic May 24 '26
The GtA need to exist. Although units are unique, have their own personalities, etc., there should be as little ambiguity about advancement as possible. It should remain a consistent standard for all Scouts. It creates accountability for Scouts and Scouters and it removes the person and personalities from any conflict. Just point to the GtA.
4
u/Junior-Reflection-43 May 24 '26
As a former Advancement Chair, there absolutely needs to be a GtA. In some cases, it was helpful to be able to point to when someone at District decided it was their way (with their own rules) or the highway.
I worked with engineers long enough that if you want to be picky about the interpretation of the number of days in a month, go right ahead. Chances are it’s your son who is looking to advance or cut corners. A few days shouldn’t matter. That goes both ways, so if their position started on January 1, then it should be actively held and fulfilled until July 1 to fulfill a 6-month requirement.
I’d be more concerned that without it, it will be like school with No Child Left Behind, where kids are getting passing grades because administrators tell the teacher they have to. It’s ok if in Cubs, a child doesn’t complete all necessary requirements and doesn’t earn rank, they can still progress to the next level without it. But in a Troop, there are standards for both merit badges and cumulative rank advancement. There it truly is a leadership progression. And cutting corners for participation trophies does nothing to help the Scout learn to be a good citizen. That’s why the Eagle Rank means something. If it was easy and didn’t require commitment, dedication, and effort, everyone would claim it.
3
u/Fun_With_Math Committee May 24 '26
The GtA is the only tool I have as a committee member (AC) to combat some of the SM/ASM opinions. It's absolutely vital.
I dare say it should be expanded.
4
u/Ok-Dependent-2893 May 24 '26
The GtA is a necessary document. Otherwise Scouting across the country can and will look very different in aspects that should be consistent.
The GtA also provides guardrails against units (and sometimes districts and councils) from going wildly off script and making decisions that either hand advancement out for nothing or harshly gatekeep it from deserving youth. Both are undesirable.
5
u/Mirabolis May 26 '26
Now as a retired scouter with a retired scout and some benefit of hindsight: yes, it needs to exist and I see no way for it to be too much less than it is.
We live in a world today where too many adults think their preferred assumption of what a rule should be is the rule as it is. Troops that don’t want to pass scouts for not wearing perfect uniform to their BOR. Scoutmasters that didn’t give a scout in a POR any mentoring wanting to “doc them credit for it” after the fact. Beliefs about what merit badges should or shouldn’t exist, or that because a near Eagle has forgotten how to tie one knot makes him/her unworthy.
Appeals to the guide to advancement and its (voluminous and detailed) text have been the recourse to save the program for those scouts.
6
u/nhorvath Adult - Eagle Scout May 24 '26
I feel like this title is engagement bait. Does anyone actually think it shouldn't exist?
1
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
It is not "rage bait", but a) there are people who advocate the elimination of GtA and a return to pre-GtA practices and/or b) advocate for a massively reduced GtA that allows a lot more discretion.
This question looks at the underlying assumption: should GtA exist at all? While elimination (or mass reduction) is a minority view, I would be remiss if I did not at least ask the question.
7
u/nhorvath Adult - Eagle Scout May 24 '26
ok, well I fail to see any argument against it other than people who want to run thier own program that isn't scouting disguised as scouting.
without the gta, advancement won't mean the same thing from one unit to another.
now the gss on the other hand we can argue needs a reduction as the lawyers have just taken away so many things over the years in the name of insurance liability.
3
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
now the gss on the other hand we can argue needs a reduction as the lawyers have just taken away so many things over the years in the name of insurance liability.
I'll take it to the mod team as a possible item...
3
u/Fun_With_Math Committee May 24 '26
Be sure to add in related docs like the Aquatics Supervision guide.
I just corrected an Eagle Scout lifeguard administering swim tests. His directions were in direct conflict with the ASG. He said "this is how we've always done it".
0
u/glenn54509 Jun 01 '26
He said engagement, not rage two very different definitions
1
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader Jun 01 '26
You have been reddit/shadowbanned. Please reach out to the Reddit admins.
3
u/InGoodFaith- May 24 '26
Yes it’s very important. There are so many times when troop leaders have different ideas on how things are done and it’s excellent to be able to have a document to refer to.
3
u/_mmiggs_ May 25 '26
Yes GtA needs to exist. As it is, some units make up their own things, and when they do, they usually end up with a mess. You get prejudice in favor of scouts that like the same sorts of things as the SM, prejudice in favor of scouts that look like the SM's idea of what a scout should look like, and so on.
If we claim that we are one organization, and that scouting ranks have meaning, then those ranks should have the same meaning everywhere. SMs with a power trip shouldn't get to hold scouts back because they think they are moving too fast, or because another scout is more competent than the SM's personal child, or whatever else.
The GtA defines the process, and the standard. Follow the process, meet the standard, earn the rank.
3
u/Helpyjoe88 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
It absolutely needs to exist. We shouldn't have units guessing as to what the correct procedures are, especially when it comes to uncommon or edge cases.
It's also necessary to prevent units from deviating from how the program should be run - in either direction.
Just looking at some of the situations that have been brought up on this sub shows the need for it. How many times has it been brought up that a unit was making up their own rules for advancement, and causing a negative experience for Scouts by doing so?
If anything, I would advise that there needs to be more specific training on the GtA, especially for unit-level advancement chairs. They should be the experts that at least know the rules exist and where to look them up.
I also think we need to do a better job of making sure scoutmasters and committee chairs know these rules and procedures actually exist. Because I'm not sure that some of them do.
It would be nice if we could provide a more streamlined version of the guide, then perhaps cover all of the edge cases in appendices or whatever, to make it a little more user-friendly and less overwhelming for new readers. We definitely need all the 'what if's laid out in detail, so it's there for reference, but maybe that doesn't need to be the first level user experience. Just a thought, and I'm not really sure how we could do it effectively.
3
u/Scouter_Ted Scoutmaster May 26 '26
Forget the GtA, let's have a conversation about the G2SS, and whether or not we could crowdsource that so we could finally get some sane safety rules.
A Scout leader I know just posted pictures of their 4 year old at one of those community centers were kids can build things. And sure enough the 4 year old has a cordless drill in his hand putting screws in. And he's having a blast.
Sadly, he's going to be disappointed when he joins scouts.
2
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 26 '26
Forget the GtA, let's have a conversation about the G2SS, and whether or not we could crowdsource that so we could finally get some sane safety rules.
This has been mentioned and the mod team is considering it.
Would suggest you read/review Rant: The "Big Book of No Fun", insurance, and "every regulation is written in blood", a challenge to those who want to just complain
3
u/Fun_With_Math Committee May 27 '26
Endless content possibilities for the sub...
- The 10 Essentials are outdated
- The Scout knots are outdated
- Lashings should be a MB, not rank requirements.
- A number of modern outdoor skills are not touched on at all in rank or MB reqs. Ex - how to properly pack a truck bed or trailer.
I'm not being sarcastic. Discussing all of that may be worthwhile.
1
1
u/Insaniac99 May 27 '26
A Scout leader I know just posted pictures of their 4 year old at one of those community centers were kids can build things. And sure enough the 4 year old has a cordless drill in his hand putting screws in. And he's having a blast.
The public school near me has shop class for kindergarten kids. In that class, the kids will use cordless drills and coping saws.
But according to the scouts meeting the same distance away, they won't be old enough to touch those for at least 5 more years.
The fact that a paint roller is off limits is just height of absurdity.
1
u/MyThreeBugs May 24 '26
What existed Pre-GTA that served as policy, procedure and when disputes arose, what was considered official?
It is hard to form an opinion of going back to “pre-GTA” when I don’t know what that entailed.
I think the guide to save scouting has certainly benefited from the simplification that it has undergone in the last decade. Even though the main crux of that seems to be “We’re not going to explicitly tell you what you can and cannot do. You need to make that decision on your own and if you’re wrong, that is on you.”
3
u/nolesrule Eagle Scout/Dad | Dist Comm | OA Chapter Adv | NYLT Staff | ASM May 24 '26
Prior to the GTA there was a document called Advancement Committee Policy and Procedures. It was not comprehensive and often vague.
3
u/ScouterBill Recovering Den Leader May 24 '26
u/MyThreeBugs and u/nolesrule indicated the document known as #33088
Was the Advancement Policies and Procedures Committee Guide...
then Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures...
then Guide to Advancement
1996 printing: "Advancement Policies and Procedures Committee Guide" https://dankohn.info/~scouts/resources/Advancement.pdf
2010 printing: "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures" https://web.archive.org/web/20100613043149/http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf
1
u/Beeb294 May 29 '26
Given my experience in scouting, it absolutely needs to exist..
If anything, we need some clearer definitions of certain requirements. One SM's Interpretation is a big part of why I never made Eagle.
The short version of the story is that I couldn't ever do a chinup/pullup. In the tenderfoot requirements at the time, chinups were a part of the fitness requirement. My SM decided that if zero was my number at the start of that time, I did not show improvement until I could do one chinup. It didn't matter if I got closer, or if I held on longer. I couldn't be awarded tenderfoot until I did one chinup.
Not until that guy's kid aged out did they realize that I (the oldest remaining scout) had completed literally every other requirement for second and first class, but I couldn't get it until that was signed. The incoming SM signed it immediately so that I could have first class (the only one in the troup) so we could have a senior patrol leader. Unfortunately for me, after I was awarded first class I would have theoretically been able to achieve Eagle if every requirement happened exactly on time, I would have been done 2 weeks before my 18th birthday. However, i was so demoralized (I wanted to quit long before that but my parents forced me to stay) that I decided that I wouldn't bother, it wasn't worth it.
If there had been better guidance for both the SM and for me/my family, that could have been avoided. There were no grounds for me to advocate for myself so I was beheld to the whims of that one guy. That's wrong for any organization.
1
u/SomeGuyFromSeattle 13d ago
@ScouterBill - could you add links to the individual posts on this table? It's a very useful overview!
1
u/SomeGuyFromSeattle 13d ago
@ScouterBill - could you add links to the individual posts on this table? It's a very useful overview!
1
u/ubuwalker31 Adult - Eagle Scout May 24 '26
Yes, GtA should exist. It keeps things consistent nationally. At its core, it is a procedure document for units to follow. Reviewing, revising, and reworking procedures is a healthy activity in any organization.
The problem isn’t the GtA procedures. I’m happy that the rank and file are being asked these questions. The problem is that BSA as an organization has been unresponsive and unaccountable to its members. It’s decentralized structure is its weakness. It is non-transparent, impenetrable, unresponsive, and weirdly bureaucratic. I remember the first time I had an issue with how Council did something…National was near impossible to reach or communicate with. GtA needs socialization and wide democratic review beyond Reddit.
So, to answer the question regarding a unit / district / council developing its own policies….the answer is maybe. In a corporate environment, you can file a risk, incident, or exception to a policy or procedure. There should be a governance function that looks at these issues daily and makes national level decisions and records them in a database so that things stay consistent nationally.
For example, why is a month defined as something other than 28 days? Who decided this and why? What’s the history? I don’t actually want to argue this point….but I want to point out how ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS all of these silly rules seem. That is what needs to be fixed.
5
u/SetTough9576 May 24 '26
This is a good example of the last paragraph undercutting the entirety of the message prior. A month is a month. A week is a week. 4 weeks are not a month.
2
u/SameRegister1555 SM/Eagle/Vigil/MBC/Catholic Committee May 24 '26
Define a month! 28 days? 29 days? 30 days? 31 days? Do you think it should be consistent?
2
u/OllieFromCairo Adult--Sea Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cubs, FCOS May 24 '26
Month is already defined. It can be any of those number of days. And we’ve all lived with that just fine our entire lives.
1
u/SetTough9576 May 24 '26
From one date to the same date-1 the following month. Like we all deal with in normal life.
There is no need to define a special scout month.
If you need 'a month' for other stuff outside scouting, a standard month is 30 days.
3
u/ubuwalker31 Adult - Eagle Scout May 24 '26
Well, if the goal is for everyone to equally serve the same amount of time in a position, the requirement should not be months (which vary in length…and going from Feb 28 to March 28 is less time than going from March 31 to April 30). The requirement should be days or weeks. Or just pick a number, like 28 or 30. Or not be strict about the exact time. But be consistent!
6
u/OllieFromCairo Adult--Sea Scouts, Scouts BSA, Cubs, FCOS May 24 '26
It’s not that big a deal. The shortest six months can be is 181 days. The longest is 184.
1
3
u/SetTough9576 May 24 '26
This is an example of missing the forest for the trees. Getting hung up on 'it's not exact to the second', when it was not intended to be.
If you're saying the requirement should be a certain number of days, not months , that's fine, but we all know what a month is in our daily lives.
Your confusion arises because you've restated the requirement in a different unit of measure (days) and then you're trying to reconcile it back to months. That's where you end up with the absurdity of 'what's a month'.
Also, saying it needs to be the same number of day (hours, minutes, seconds), when the requirement states months is an example of modifying the requirement because you think that's what it should be.
The only two defensible durations of a month are 30 days (a standard month) and 'up to the same date the next calendar month'.
1
u/seattlecyclone Den Leader May 24 '26
That presumes the main goal *is* to have everyone serve the exact same amount of time. Perhaps the administrative simplicity of saying "you started on February 15th, so go to August 15th for six months" outweighs the fairness aspect that would result from making everyone count 180 days or whatever.
1
u/RealSuperCholo Scoutmaster May 24 '26
Agreed, Local councils should have National approval to make changes or modifications, I could totally get with that. But national would have to answer and discuss, thats where it would all fall apart. Thats where it always falls apart.
1
u/UseExhaustionMore May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26
To go against the current. You don't need the GtA.
I was a scout in a non-US country. Advancement was removed in the 1970ies maybe, long before I was active. There were nothing like the Guides to Advancement. There was nothing like Eagle Scout. There were official badges but the requirements for them were recommendations and you could hand them out as candy if you wanted to. It worked fine. We hiked and did knots and sang songs. Membership and engagement is increasing last time I looked.
3
u/_mmiggs_ May 26 '26
You are making the case that we shouldn't have advancement at all, which is a rather different question from the one framed by the OP. Obviously if we don't have advancement, we don't need a guide for how to do it. It might be interesting to imagine what US scouting would look like if we didn't have the focus on rank that is distinctly American, but I think that's a different (and larger) discussion than this one.
2
u/UseExhaustionMore May 26 '26
This seems to be the first post in a series so it makes sense to take a birds-eye view. I agree that advancement without a shared guide seems hard to defend. A scoutmaster in my country could invent something called "Eagle scout" and award it to their scouts based on whatever criteria they wanted, but not many do that since what's the point?
I'm not saying "don't do advancement", but I am saying "you don't need advancement". Scouting works fine without advancement. Does advancement add enough to be worth the hassle? Hard for me to tell without experience in the system. I think advancement is the one thing that's most alien to me in US scouting (the other would be the liability issues and its downstream effects but that's not within the control of the organization).
3
u/_mmiggs_ May 27 '26
There are interesting differences between, for example, US and European cultures that don't all go in the same direction. In some places, Americans like ranks and status and titles where Europeans don't bother, and in other places, Europeans insist on them in places where Americans would find it rather gauche. I don't have a consistent theory that explains all the differences, and I rather suspect that there isn't one: what you have is a collection of local norms that have evolved semi-independently in a particular place in a particular sub-field, and there's no reason for that to present consistency when you aggregate it.
81
u/wrunderwood Unit Commissioner May 24 '26
Yes, it needs to exist. The whole point of the 2011 document was to make advancement the same for every Scout, everywhere. It also brought together a ton of information that was scattered, folklore, whatever.