TNScoutTroop

Yes. "Cool", among the young, is just the fad of the moment. "Cool", among the old, is just bogus. Dishonest is fake, uncool, and bogus. So, yes, to both real Xianity, and real Scouting. (This message has been edited by tnscouttroop)

Thanks for the further info. We've downloaded and saved the test forms. We were interested to note that they are essentially a compendium of Scoutcraft skills from the T-2-1 requirements. We'll avoid the Train the Trainer thing now. Teaching adults T-2-1 is PRECISELY what we wanted to do. If we get certified, then everyone who attends is eligible for "my butt was in the chair at the right times" carding, a la IOLS. That's NOT what we want. We'd much rather have un-certified training, with the result that all adults must TEST for their certification. That works perfectly with what we wanted. In fact, we talked about some sort of 1st Class for adults certification. We didn't realize that IOLS was supposed to be just that. That is really, really ideal for us. It could prove interesting, though, having District guys come in to test our adults! One question. The "Test out" provision is apparently part of the IOLS training guide. How can we get a copy?

Thanks. Good advice.

Thanks, Eagle92, That's VERY interesting. Doing it that way would be very attractive, because it would create a clear end point on the training we're doing, and parallel Scout testing closely (I assume). That sounds like a fantastic option. Regarding Train the Trainer, that might work for us. It probably depends on two things. First, can you guess whether it's likely to offend the 'powers that be' if we do this? If so, it's probably not worth it. Second, do you know if it would be allowed to do IOLS+, without running afoul of BSA rules and regs? In other words, I can't imagine that our course will be trimmed to less than 36 hours . . . and that may not be enough. I'm assuming we're covering more than IOLS requires; certainly, we're taking more time. If IOLS is a subset of what we're doing, and we can 'embed' it in our class, that would be great. Still, the 'take the test' approach may be best. That's a really appealing option.

Scoutnut, there is some value in what you have to say. We need to be careful in our attitude toward these guys, and phrases express attitudes. It's going to be difficult to develop language and attitudes appropriate to being in the "loyal opposition", while still reaching out to others who've experienced the same things we have. We'll think about it. In turn, we would ask you to consider where this thread began. The original question was essentially, "What are the actual rules?" We learned here what we already suspected: the actual rules were NOT what we were initially being told. Part of the problem is that there's not a single well-defined locus for the actual rock bottom rules of the BSA. But part of the problem, at least in this council, is that some of the professionals, in concert with those referred to as the "beads and beaver set" tend to add rules of their own. This is not the first time we've encountered this; we will be surprised if it's the last. Do you really think it's disloyal or discourteous to challenge those who seek to impose the rules they have made up themselves? Or, that it is disobedient to ask questions concerning whether what we've been told is actually required, given the fact that so often it is not? On reflection, this may be a topic we need to consider formally, and with the senior boys as well as the adult leaders. Scouting's values will often in today's society place those who hold them into opposition with others. How we deal with the misrepresentations and lack of integrity we have encountered in the local council can be a great teaching opportunity for the boys. We seem to be discovering that there maybe a great many parents and boys disaffected by the "method first, content maybe" approach that seems to be shared by so many Scouters, including many WBr's. Communicating where we stand on this is probably essential to reaching out to these folk. Doing to in a way that reflects the Scout Law is also essential, but will be a challenge. It will require two changes of us. First, we'll have to carefully consider what is right in this realm, and then attempt to do that. Second, instead of keeping these discussions out of sight as we've done, we'll need to make them visible to the senior boys, so we can model loyal opposition. That's probably worth doing.

"Another thing yeh might consider if yeh want to keep all da paperwork folks happy is to have someone from da unit take Train the Trainer and get OK'd to instruct. Then you can do your in-house thing for folks and sign off on their IOLS or other training requirements. Plus your good folks will be available to offer training to other units who are interested." That's a great idea. We'll look into that. We've already got one leader who has committed to becoming an ARC Lifeguard and ARC First Aid & CPR instructor by next summer, and another, ex-military guy, who's pretty sure he can become a certified NRA instructor / whatever within that time frame. And, a third was a world class rower in an 8 woman boat, who's coached some national high schoolers, who's going to brush up on her white water and canoe skills. And we just had a walk-in last night who's spent 40 years in Sea Scouts, and is apparently going to make 3 boats available to us with training. We're pretty excited about the in-troop skill set that's shaping up. Now, if we just had a climber . . . And, we just got the good news from our DE a few minutes ago that the 2008 OLS training a couple of us went through will still 'count'. So we're good to go on that score. Oh, and we did invite anyone from Council or District who'd like to attend our troop training sessions, to do so. Once we've trained our leaders, we have no problem shoving a couple through OLS each season so the beads and beaver set will stay off our DE's back. We just want to make sure we get them first, and get them inoculated against the "method first, content maybe" approach. TNScoutTroop

Hi Moose; We just heard from the DE, and reading between the lines, the requirement to attend OLS is a case of some in the Council making up rules on their own, with no official process. A couple of the experienced guys will go to OLS, just to keep the "beads and knots" crowd happy. Going out of council won't do that. Regarding your horror story troop, I'm not sure that that's the direction we're going in. But, it's a worthwhile caution story to keep in mind. In any case, we're not going to be keeping anyone from finding out all they want about Scouting. The website we're building links the Council, BSA National, USScouts, and more, plus we'll be adding direct links to current documents. But, we'll be linking the Wikipedia entries, and Kudu's site as well. The take-away from your story, at least for us, is that we need to be sure that new Scouts and Cubs clearly understand that this is a troop with a VERY close relationship between the CO (church) and the troop / pack. There will be some requirements for the Scouts and Cubs that will be distinctive. But, we're distinguishing leaders (incl committee members) and volunteers. All leaders will have to be approved by the church, and there will be some requirements associated with that. We'll need to be careful to make those things clear up front, so nobody is caught by surprise. That is something we'll probably need to make a priority. We're already getting some unexpected interest from the neighborhood, from both families and at least one old Scouter who has some great skills. And while we want to encourage that every way we can, we don't want to mislead anyone.

SR540Beaver; Tell us now those 'lone ranger' troops are messing up with the BOYS, and we'll listen very, very closely. All actions have unintended effects, and we'd like to avoid or compensate for as many of those as we can. If we can learn from the mistakes of others who've gone down the road we're traveling, we'd really like to do so. But, at this point, convincing us that it's a good idea to play the game that all the beaded and knotted 300 pound beavers and bears are playing would be a pretty hard sell. Our take on it is that their game is almost all sizzle and no steak. Our focus is pretty much on keeping those beavers and bears from contaminating our new guys.

Thanks moose; From what you're saying, sounds like those of us who will be teaching our own IOLS need to just chalk it up as a win for the bureaucracy, grit our teeth, and suffer through another useless IOLS. We do NOT want our new leaders mis-trained by Council, and that's what will happen. Sending them will result in damage; if we go, it's just a waste of time. We have no reason to expect that any nearby council will do it better. I'm sure some do, but there's no way to know how many IOLS sessions we'd have to attend to find out. Better to just suck it up, and keep our newbies away, till they know better. TnScoutTroop

If I've read correctly, the consensus is that BALOO is required for Pack camping, but that nothing else is required. Is that right? Some mention was made of the council requiring things beyond National. Is there a legitimate mechanism by which the council can do that? Or do we just need to 'push-back'? TNScoutTroop PS: (I)OLS is just Fri PM - Sun AM, much less than our 'homemade' version. That's not the point. The point is that it is (a) one MORE weekend and (b) won't accomplish what we need to accomplish. For example, we'll be training 6 - 10 adults how to use a *simple* compass, with a map and on the trail . . . so they can lead, and teach, boys to do the same. The last (I)OLS spent almost the entire training session on GPS, which is neither required, nor basic, nor reliable under many conditions. Our goal is that, when we finish, all the adults will be close to actually possessing Scout skills through 1st Class. We hope we can get it done in that time frame (about 36 instructional hours), but we'll have to see.

Hi; We're about a month away from chartering a new troop and pack. We're doing a Webelos only pack, along with the troop. We'll start off with about 15 - 20 boys, and about 15 volunteers (YPT trained) of whom 7 - 8 will be Scout / Pack leaders. We're planning to dual-register some of the leaders. At least during the first year, most outings, and camping trips will involve both sets of boys. We're trying to work out what is actually required in order to take a troop AND a Webelo-only pack camping. We're getting conflicting information from the council. We're trying to work out our own adult training schedule, and were planning to do our own 'OLS' on 2 Saturdays + 2 weekends, rather than Council OLS, which several of us have already 'experienced'. Unfortunately, Council OLS is typically taught by a bunch of Wood Badgers who are long on theory and short on actual skill. We really don't want to subject new volunteers to that, nor load up their weekends more than we already have. Several of us have encountered 'requirements' in the past that really weren't, so we know that sometimes it pays to push back. But we've been inactive enough over the past two years so we don't really know for sure. Questions: 1. Is OLS mandatory for troop camping? 2. Is OLS mandatory for Webelo camping? 3. Is BALOO mandatory to Webelo camping? (we've never done Cubs b4) 4. Is BALOO mandatory & sufficient for Webelo camping? What we'd planned was the troop going camping with the SM and at least 2 volunteers, and the pack going camping at SAME time and place with the CM and at least 2 volunteers, and with all Pack adults BALOO trained, but NO one current on OLS. Does this meet the rules? If not, how not? Thanks