CalicoPenn

Pack54 - wow, I'm stunned - someone actually listened to my advice . Sounds like an ambitious schedule - and it also sounds like a lot of fun! I'm betting your son is more excited about camp now too. Be prepared for at least a couple of partials and to make sure your son doesn't get discouraged about them - it is not uncommon for boys to need to take two years for Rifle if they've not spent a lot of time shooting on their own (make sure you pad his camp spending allowance a bit too - it costs money for those bullets - we always suggested that a Scout have two pools of money - one for the rifle merit badge work and one for the trading post/fun stuff. Once the rifle merit badge funds were gone, that was generally it for the year and the Scout would take a partial - unless they were like "this close" to gaining that final score needed to earn the badge - it's just a way to make sure that a Scout isn't disappointed at the end of camp that he spent all his money at the rifle range and got a partial and didn't get to buy a camp t-shirt, like all his friend have). Homework? Yeah, not sure if I have any sound advice on that one - I'm the type that would disable the smart phone and x-box until the homework was done. In the past, I was never a fan of this kind of motivation but I've seen it work - your son is 13 - in two years, he'll be wanting a learner's permit, then shortly after, a driver's license. If Eagle Scout is a rank he truly wants to earn (and it's not something that is expected of him) then a great way to self-motivate is to sign an agreement now between parent and son that he can't get his driver's license until he earns Eagle Scout or he ages out naturally - whichever comes first. I know a couple of 16 year olds who made just that kind of agreement and are now really motivated to earn those last couple of badges and finish their projects before summer.

My favorite Ernest Borgnine acting job has to be a voice-over job on the Simpsons as he tells the gathered "scouts" the tale of how he defeated a bear using just the toothpick of his swiss army knife. I think all we can really say is "Take that, Chuck Norris".

We aren't talking about college degrees which are designed to make students ready to engage in specific fields of endeavor. We're talking about merit badges for middle and high school students which are, at their core, an exploration of various topics and activities. No one completing Chemistry Merit Badge is qualified to call themselves a chemist - but someone taking Chemistry merit badge just might find themselves interested enough in chemistry to decide to study it in college.

In another thread, a Scouter and parent mentions a perspective on merit badges and summer camps that we've all likely become familiar with, and one in which Councils have responded to with gusto and that is that summer camp is seen to be less productive if a Scout hasn't earned some Eagle-required Merit Badges at camp and that got me to thinking. Is there a reason we need "required" merit badges for Eagle Scout rank? Wouldn't the Scouts be better served by the program if there wasn't a pressure to earn certain specific merit badges? Consider this Swiftian proposal: Drop the required merit badges to two - that's right, two - First Aid and Camping - and I only added Camping as a second required merit badge because we are the Boy Scouts of America and American's expect Boy Scouts to be able to camp. That's part one. Part two is to take all the rest of the merit badges and lump them into like categories - for example, all the nature merit badges in the category Nature, all the sports merit badges in the category Athletics, all the arts and crafts merit badges in the category Arts and Crafts. I would propose the categories be: Athletics, Academics, Outdoor Sports (shooting sports, fishing, climbing), Nature and Environment, Society (your citizenships, etc.), Outdoor and Scouting Skills (hiking, backpacking, etc.) Water Activities, History and Culture, Arts and Crafts, Labor and Trade, Professions and Commerce, Agriculture and Animals (which would take in pets, vet science, horsemanship), Health and Safety, Games and Hobbies, Transportation, Science and Technology and Bugling (cause I just can't figure a place for it in the rest of the list - ok, maybe Scouting Skills) That is 16 categories. Once that's done, the next requirement would be to earn 2 merit badges each from 6 of the categories (Scout's Choice) and 1 each from the other 10 categories. With the two required, that's 24 merit badges - all but two the Scout's choice - and I think it leads to a more well-rounded Scout. For those that can't fathom giving Scouts that much freedom to make their own choices, I might allow that we can name the 6 categories that 2 merit badges be earned from - and my suggestions, if we were to go that way, would be Nature and Environment, Outdoor and Scouting Skills, Water Activities, Health and Safety, Society and Science and Technology. So my modest proposal - any thoughts?

That's precisley why I discourage scouts from taking merit badges like the Citizenships and Communications at summer camp - it's a waste of opportunity. There are ample opportunities to earn those "classroom" type badges all year long. I would include First Aid in with that. I'd even suggest not doing Cooking or Camping at summer camp either - invariably, you end up with partials and your at home counselor is going to review everything you discussed with the 17 year old counselor for those badges anyway. On the other hand, there aren't as many opportunities to earn those badges utilizing the outdoors that are, or were, an intrinsic part of summer camp - merit badges like Rowing, Canoeing, Small Boat Sailing. Merit badges like Rifle Shooting, Shotgun Shooting and Archery. Merit badges like Pioneering and Orienteering. Merit badges that are a perfect fit for a summer camp program like Basketry, Leatherwork, Pottery and Wood Carving. The entire panopoly of nature oriented merit badges like Nature, Mammal Study, Forestry, Fish & Wildlife Management, Bird Study, Insect Study and Reptile & Amphibian Study. There may be no better a place than Summer Camp to earn Astronomy, Fishing and Fly Fishing merit badges. Some summer camps may even offer merit badges like Whitewater, Horsemanship or Climbing. Wilderness Survival is a popular choice, and well suited to Summer Camp. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the only Eagle-required merit badges that should be offered at Summer Camp are Swimming and Lifesaving. I know you're concerned about the $400 summer camp going to waste by not being productive and seem to suggest the it will be productive if three Eagle-required badges are earned. Let's turn that around a bit - why bother to spend $400 to earn three badges that can easily be earned year round for little to no cost? Isn't that the bigger waste? I'm a big proponent of letting summer camp be summer camp, not summer school. I think it's a much bigger waste of $400 for summer camp not to take advantage of merit badges that are best earned at camp - ok, so they aren't Eagle required - they still fill out the electives - but more than that, they offer what's best about the Merit Badge program - an opportunity to explore, to try, to do new things. In fact, I can't see any reason why your son should wait until Summer Camp to earn any of those three required merit badges - it's only early April - surely he can be working with counselors on them and earn at least First Aid before Summer Camp even arrives. I wonder how much he might surprise you if you were to take that list of summer camp merit badges, cross out all the "class room type" and Eagle Required (except for Swimming and Lifesaving) and see what he woud choose to do instead.

So Basketry isn't a First Year tradition in your troop? Though we weren't required to do it, it was a tradition in my Troop for all first year campers to complete the Basketry Merit Badge. Our summer camp had a required one hour in camp site siesta for all units after lunch (which was really an excuse to give staff a break in the middle of the day) and this was a perfect filler for it. Besides baskets, an awful lot of lanyards, leatherwork and whittling was done - and it was very common for older scouts who had already earned the Basketry Merit Badge to buy themselves a kit at the trading post and just do one for the heck of it - which turns out to be a great way for older scouts to share a rather obscure skill with younger scouts and to help them along with their projects.

Despite what has been suggested in the blog, it is not readily apparent that the policy of the BSA is that e-mail and text communications between leaders and scouts must be copied to someone else. The should in the sentence suggests that it be done, but doesn't mandate it. Of course, that's not to say it isn't a good idea for the reason Stosh provides - it just isn't required. Unless deleted, e-mail and text message will remain available - even if the leader deletes texts and e-mails that cross that line, the scout will still have it. If a leader was being inapproriate in e-mail or text communications with a scout, unless both parties delete the messages, one of them will have it. Even if text and e-mail messages are deleted, if there is an accusation and it's taken seriously, there are often ways to retrieve the messages. Certainly copying them to someone else or to a blind mailbox makes retrieving things easier, but I suspect in most instances, it's going to be overkill.

The question is answered, kind of, in Section 4.2.3.6 of the Guide to Advancement, by which I mean it doesn't really answer the question definitively but rather gives examples then leaves most of it to the judgment of the leaders, scouts and merit badge counselors. (I could have sworn one of the reasons for putting together that "new" advancement guide that is numbered like some kind of ISO Quality document or Military Standards manual was to make things clearer). It covers pretty much what folks have already shared here. It only prohibits doubling up if a requirement specifically prohibits it -thus you can't use the cooking merit badge work for rank advancement or the rank advancement work for cooking merit badge. You can apparently use the rank advancement work for camping merit badge and vice-versa, but you also can't use the camping merit badge work for cooking merit badge. It suggests that a service project "could" be counted by a Scout for two different awards, but provides that it might not be a good idea - without outright prohibiting the practice. It suggests that you can piggy back similar parts of requirements so long as the non-similar parts of the requirement are met - such as the Citizenship and Communications merit badge requirements to visit a public meeting - each merit badge have different tasks related to the visit so as long as those different tasks are completed, it could be done with just one visit to a public meeting. Beyond any specific prohibitions written in the requirements, it's really left to people's discretion. It would be up to the MBC to allow cooking work for rank to complete the same/similar requirements in Camping Merit Badge (and for the SM/PLC/CO to allow Camping merit badge work to complete the rank requirements). If I were the Camping Merit Badge counselor, my answer would be that the Scout would have to complete it again. Negative feedback from the parents, Scout, SM/ASM's, Committee would be met with "He can always choose a different counselor). Service projects? My answer would be "no, it counts for one only - that is Troop policy" - and if there was any pushback, the answer would either be "I'll be glad to help find a Troop more suitable to people wanting shortcuts" or "Congratulations, Mr. CC, you're the new SM" depending on the support from the committee I received. Now - my question to you is: Why are you starting to help Scouts with their summer camp merit badge requirements? What exactly are you doing? About the only thing that you folks should be doing is providing a list of merit badges offered at camp, strongly suggesting that certain merit badges not be pursued at camp that can easily be done back home (and I'm of a mind to not disagree with units stating outright that certain merit badges, like any of the citizenship badges, or any other non-outdoor badges, including first aid, will not be allowed to be earned at Summer Camp. I'm also of a mind to not disagree with any unit that says their Scouts can not attend any T to FC classes at summer camp. Once the lad chooses the merit badges they might want to take, the only other thing as an adult I would do is point them in the direction of the merit badge books, answer any question about pre-reqs and requirements that I can, and suggest to any Scout that chooses one of the shooting sports badges to start saving up some money now because those badges can cost a bit of coinage to complete.

It looks like it might be an old summer camp patch from the 1910's or early 1920's. Where did you find it, that might help narrow it down.

The Guide to Safe Scouting has both guidelines and mandates - the key is to read carefully and look for certain keywords. When you see words such as must, shall, are limited to, required - then you're dealing with a mandate from policy. When you see words such as should, may, recommended - then you're dealing with guidelines. The Guide isn't an actual policy document, it just gives an overview of various policies that fit into the safe scouting rubric and enhances that overview with guidelines on implementing the policies and on best practices.

I went through NCS for Cub Scout Day Camps about 30 years ago - and note that everything Twocub stated came back to me in a rush - nothing much seems to have changed. Our group was fairly small - 4 from my Council (at the time, we had transitioned from each district doing their own day camp to Council doing day camp - 6 one week sessions all in one place) so in addition to a Camp Director and a Program Director, we had two Assistant Program Directors who also doubled up as program area heads), and 6 from other Councils - camp school was held in Indiana and we had folks from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia in attendance so we had two dens and had a blast. In addition to Twocub's suggestions, I would suggest that you make particular note of anything stated in training on policies that you may need to discuss and clarify with your own Council. My example is the policy of informing the Scout Executive of any suspicions of child abuse and leave the reporting to the authorities in their hands which conflicted with state laws in Illinois and West Virginia which make EMT's a required reporter, regardless of whether they are employed as an EMT or not (the other states may have the same law but in our class, we had one EMT from West Virginia and one from Illinois (which happened to be me). Something like that is a question that is best discussed with your Council when you get back - it's really a question beyond the scope of the camp school. Your Council might also have stricter policies on something like BB Gun storage, etc. etc. - I'm sure you get the jist of it. I'll make one last observation - Twocub is right that this training will make you a far better Cub Scout leader - what he doesn't mention is this training will make you a far better Scout leader, regardless of program.

Ceremonies were held at night, after dark. Supper started at 5:30 and ran until 6:45 pm. ALL are invited to supper. The tests ended or were suspended at 5:30 (only the test of silence was reinstated after dinner until the ceremony takes place - for further reflection after supper). At supper, full meals were served to all - candidates usually sat at the same table as members of their units, or with mixed tables of candidates and members of other units. Arrowmen were encouraged to engage the candidates and get their impressions of the day, as well as to talk about their own experiences - at supper's end, the Lodge Chief would reinstate silent reflection for Ordeal candidates and would impose silent reflection of Brotherhood candidates with the instruction to reflect on their discussions at supper. Active arrowmen not on the ceremonies team were encouraged to help the kitchen folks close up shop - it usually took less than 1/2 hour to get everything squared away. Was it strictly by the book? Depends on when you consider the end of the day - we always interpreted it to mean the end of the work day, which ended with the start of supper. The feedback received during this time was invaluable to the lodge, and many folks, both candidates and arrowmen, always mentioned how that was one of the most meaningful things done all day. We did receive pressure to hold the ceremonies earlier in the day, before supper, when the Spring Ordeal Weekend was held in our Wisconsin (5 hours away) camp, mostly from our LDS brothers so they could hit the road and be home before midnight, which would then be Sunday, though most of our LDS members completed Ordeal at our Fall Fellowship at the local (45 minutes away) camp. That pressure went away when the local Stake carved out an exception for our Ordeal Weekends by clarifying that the OA was also a calling and not just something nice to do. Not sure if other stakes throughout the country came up with the same elegant solution.

I'm surprised that Philmont staff were wearing uniforms from their home units. When I was a staffer at Maine National High Adventure Base in the 80's, we were provided staff uniforms that had gold epaulets, the US flag, the Staff patch and a name tag - and that was it. No knots, no CSPs (of course not, since we worked for National), no OA Lodge flaps, no other patches of any kind. Unit uniforms were not allowed - we were employees of National - not members of units, councils and lodges. Our registration was as National Staff - not a "summer only" camp staff unit.

I'm not a fan of the use of condiment packages on campouts - few things are more dispiriting than to walk into a campsite to set up and find little bits and pieces of condiment packets littering the campfire area. No matter how well you think you're cleaning up afterwards , there will always be little bits floating around. Unopened staples, like pancake mix, ketchup, syrup, jiffy mix, etc. was labeled by patrol name and stored (we were fortunate enough that our sponsor let us store unopened food in a designated cabinet in the kitchen. Open dry staples that was not grain or grass based (example: flours, pancake mixes, corn meal) like coffee and hot chocolate mix would also be labeled and stored. Each patrol also had a spice bag that would be stored and restocked as needed. Anything opened - from bread and eggs to syrups and ketchups to pancake mixes was split among the members of the patrol - the patrol members would get together to split it amongst themselves - think the Scouts don't know who in their patrol needed it the most? It wasn't unusual at all to see one or two patrol members taking the lion's share home without feeling like they were getting charity from their fellow patrol members.

Its called the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act which was passed as part of the No Child Left Behind Act on January 8, 2002. The Act states that no school receiving federal education funds can refuse to give equal access or fair opportunity to meet in a school which is an open forum or limited public form to any youth group listed in Title 36 as a national or patriotic organization. In addition to the BSA, this would apply to the Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs, Future Farmers of America, Little League Baseball, probably the Naval Sea Cadet Corps and the Big Brother/Big Sisters. Sorry Campfire, you're out of luck. It doesn't apply to adult organizations listed in Title 36 like American Legion.The interpretation has always centered around the words Equal Access and Fair Opportunity. If the school lets Little League pass out flyers, they have to let Cub Scouts pass out flyers. If the school lets Campfire meet at the building, they have to provide equal access to the Boy Scouts (yet ironically, the act wouldn't prevent a school from denying Campfire access even if the school was providing access to the Boy Scouts) and the access needs to be equal (or better) - if Campfire meets 2 hours a week, the Boy Scouts have to be allowed to meet at least 2 hours per week. If Campfire is charged $50 per week, the Boy Scouts can't be charged more than $50 per week - for the same facilities (there can be differential pricing if the facilities are different - if Campfire pays $50 per week for a classroom and the Boy Scouts are meeting in the gymnasium which might have a $100 per week fee, the Scouts don't get the gym at $50 per week just because Campfire gets a classroom at $50. But, the school can't charge another group less than the $100 per week charged to the Boy Scouts for use of the gym There is one exception - affiliated groups. The provisions don't kick in if there are school sponsored clubs meeting after school - if the chess club, chemistry club, yearbook club are meeting at the school after hours, that doesn't mean the BSA or any other Title 36 youth group can demand equal access rights. There is also a way for Schools to keep their federal funding while refusing the Boy Scouts and that is by closing the school building and grounds to every and any outside organization. The act doesn't requires schools to give access to the BSA - only equal access - and equal access to no one gets access that is not a school related club is no access.

First - when creating a "Save the (insert favorite cause here) Facebook page, never create a page that requires a person to log in to Facebook to view it. Not all of us are on Facebook, nor want to be on Facebook. You've lost the ability to reach out to those people. Second - making financial claims based on 2017 revenue accounting standards that are not required until 2017 leads cynical people like me to be suspicious of the motives for using those standards - especially if there is no discussion on how it differs from current standards. I've taken a look at the 2017 standards and I'm not sure how much those standards will change current accounting for a summer camp that is open 4 weeks a year. There isn't a whole lot of future revenues or multi-period contracts that will likely affect reporting requirements. What is the deficit under current standards - is it significantly different? If so, in what way. If not, why make claims in 2015 based on 2017 requirements? Third - have you dug into the Trust issue at all? Both camps are owned by Trusts, not by the Council. Who controls those trusts? What do they say happens when the camps stop operating? LeFebre has a 4-week summer camp season. Lyle a 2-week summer camp season. Is there a cost/benefit analysis of pouring a lot of money into one of these properties to bring it up to minimal standards if the property is not owned by the Council? Do we know if the Trust(s) even allow for the kind of improvements that need to be made? Fourth - What happens 5 years from now, or 10 years from now, or even 2 years from now when the Save the Three Harbors Camp Experience starts to fade away and no longer is actively involved in promoting the camps - what happens when it becomes a one-person operation and that person leaves? I'm not trying to be negative here, I understand the emotional aspects of this - my Council went through this same kind of issue way back in the late 70's early 80's when it closed one of it's summer camps. It's not fun to lose those traditions, but from experience, about 6 years from now, those traditions will have been forgotten in most Troops when the Scouts that attended those camps age out and new Scouts attending other camps form their own traditions. When I was a Scout, my Troop always attended MaKaJaWan. Since the 1990's the Troop has attended Napowan. The Troop's traditions have changed - and you know what? I have a lot of fun chatting with the Scouts in the Troop now and listening to their stories, their traditions, and comparing it to the stories and traditions from my time - if we shared the same traditions, our conversations might be more along the lines of "Yeah, we did that too" - sorry, I think that's boring.

The BSA has a permission slip form: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/19-673.pdf They recommend that is be used by units for outings and that it be used for each outing rather than as a blanket form. However, they only recommend that it be used. They do not require a permission slip to be used for any outings, EXCEPT for any outings that involve flying. If an outing involves flying, then the permission slip MUST be used, and I'm sure their legal counsel would prefer that this particular form be used. This isn't required just for outings where a unit may take a commercial flight from say Chicago to Seattle to hike Mt. Ranier (and wouldn't THAT be a cool high adventure trip for the Scouts), it would also be used if you had arranged a flight on a B-17 Flying Fortress at the EAA museum in Oshkosh.

The closest thing that might help is on the BSA's website ( http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/Leaders/About/ThePack/pcomm.aspx) in the section that talks about the Pack Committee. It states that the Pack Committee must consist of at least three members and actually nams those three members as Committee Chair, Secretary and Treasurer. It would be logical to infer from this that the Committee Chair can not also be the Treasurer since that role would have to be filled by a different individual. But we're talking about the Boy Scouts of America - logic can sometimes be fluid with them - I doubt that Council or National would make a fuss about shared roles as long as there are at least three committee members. Your best bet instead is to get together with the other committee members and explain to the Committee Chair that, while you are sure s/he would never do this, this is the kind of arrangement that throws up red flags all over the place regarding potential for financial shenanigans and none of you feel comfortable with this arrangement and would prefer to have a separate treasurer that is being overseen by the Committee Chair and the committee. If the CC insists on taking the role, then tell him/her you will agree only if all records are copied and turned over to another member of the committee that can act as an informal auditor. If there is any puchback from this, I would resign from the committee immediately - as a member of the committee you do have a fiduciary responsibility and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this situation.

You'll find that the BSA often doesn't define terms like campout - it is their preference that units make that determination on their own. You can see based on the discussion that there are a lot of nuance that can be read into things. Is sleeping in tents in the SM's back yard really a campout? I personally don't consider RV camping to be true camping but what about pop-ups? They're mostly canvas tents on wheels. 3-sided shelters? I'd consider than camping. Holiday Inn Express? Of course not, but maybe a Motel 6. Sleeping under the stars in a hammock or on the ground without a tent? Seems to be an obvious yes but if you bring the BSA Handbook in to it, the handbook suggests that maybe it isn't so obvious since the handbook suggests a tent is required. Would I consider an overnight lock-in at the church or in a museum a campout? Probably not. A Submarine? Probably not. A cabin in winter? Maybe. For me the decision on if the cooking requirements are met if they are done in a winter cabin or not rests on this - Is there really a significant difference in the process. I'm more apt to say it wouldn't count if all the cooking is done on a modern stove with a modern oven and perhaps a microwave oven and toaster available. If the cooking is done on the same stoves a Scout might usually use on any other Troop outing, then I'm prepared to count it. Done on a wood stove? Yeah, probably. Keep in mind that no one is likely going to ask about the circumstances on how and where the meals were prepared to satisy the first class requirements. It's really up to you folks to make the finaly decision for your scouts.

It sounds like it might be a military patch

Ok - maybe inedible is the wrong word - Jack-O-Lantern pumpkins are edible but only in the sense that turf grass is technically edible, or in the sense of Charlie Chapin boiling leather shoes edible. Sure, you can eat it if you want, but the difference in taste would be like the difference in taste between sweet corn and field corn. Best way to eat field corn is to boil it then slather on salt, pepper and butter - the taste of the salt, pepper and butter will mask the tastelessness of the corn. Sure, you can make a pumpkin pie out of a Jack-O-Lantern pumpkin, but it would be wise to double, or even triple the pumpkin pie spices. A good eating pumpkin doesn't require a lot of pumpkin pie spice. Illinois has a state snack - Popcorn - Illinois is the third largest producer of popcorn in the US (Nebraska is #1 - Indiana, home of Orville Redenbacker (the person) is #2). Now here's something the Cub Scouts should get behind - changing the state snack. I'm sure the school kids that put that forth as a school project thought it was a good idea but there really is a much better choice for state snack - in 1930, in Schiller Park, Illinois, James Dewar, while trying to find a use for some idle equipment, invented what might be the most iconic man-made snack food in the history of the universe - Twinkie. So how about it Illinois Cib Scouts - are you ready to correct a grave injustice?? PS - SSScout - Maryland has an official state dessert - Smith Island Cake PPS - I've been having a lot of fun googling this stuff - looking up state soils is eye opening - There are more than enough named soils so that each state can have it's own official state soil. Illinois state soil is Drummond. We don't have an official dinosaur (because to date there have never been any dinosaur bones found in Illinois) but we do have an official state fossil - the Tully Monster - and if the Chicago Bears ever do move out of Chicago, they should be renamed the Illinois Tully Monsters.

I think a field trip to a pumpkin farm would be a great idea - I'm sure it would each the Cub Scouts that the pumpkins used for Jack-o-Lanterns are a different pumpkin than pumpkins grown for food. Jack-o-Lantern pumpkins are pretty much inedible - even squirrels will leave them alone after a few bites. Pie pumpkins tend to be smaller and a deeper color orange.

"Seriously??? With all the crime, graft and corruption coming out of Chicago, one would think the legislators would be worried more about something than what the state pie is. Stosh" When you're a Republican legislator in Illinois, the only legislation that you might possibly get through the process is a bill naming a state pie so I don't begrudge this attempt by Keith Sommer ® at all. At first, I was with the Cubs - Pumpkin?? Eeewwwww - why not go with Lincoln's favorite pie - Lemon Custard. But, since 90% of all canned pumpkin in the US is grown in Illinois, since Illinois is the top grower of pumpkins in the US and it's a 33 million dollar industry, I think it's far more relevant to Illinois than blueberry, cherry or apple so I can get behind it.

I'm going to say this regardless of how politically incorrect it might be - Common Core is being dropped by some states because it has been politicized by ignorant GOP clowns who apparently aren't capable of reading the actual standards and apparently aren't capable of reading and understanding anything more challenging that The Cat in the Hat and the people that vote for them, who apparently aren't capable of reading and understanding anything more challenging than Dick and Jane.

There is a major misunderstanding here of just what these lessons are for - they are NOT, as is being bandied about, part of a History or Social Studies curriculum. Common Core does not have any standards for History and Social Studies. Common Core does not have any standards for Sciences like Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, etc. Common Core has standards for Literacy (reading, writing, etc.) and Mathematics only. What you are all looking at is for the Literacy standards - it uses texts from history and other social studies fields and texts from scientific fields to increase literacy, not to increase understanding in history, social studies or the sciences. The idea is to be able to read a historical or scientific document and to be able to understand what it is saying on its face. From a historical standpoint, context is important - from a literary standpoint, context is not key - its the words themselves that are important. From a literary standpoint, one should be able to read the Gettysburg Address and, without having been told anything about it before hand, know that the US in in a war, Lincoln is speaking at a battlefield of that war, Lincoln is honoring the brave soldiers that fought and died there for their country, and that Lincoln is declaring how important it is to keep moving forward, to keep fighting for the country as conceived by our forefathers. The address also happens to have a great example of how a single word, like Dedicate, can have multiple meanings in one text. That's part of literacy too. One of the hardest things to get students to read is non-fiction - and it's hard to get them to read it because they don't think they can understand it without someone telling them what it means. In most English programs in US high schools, readings tend to be limited to fiction, poetry and plays. Occasionally one might run into a biography or two - Diary of Anne Frank, Night, something along those lines, but one never sees something like The Medusa and the Snail, or A Brief History of Time or Team of Rivals taught in English classes. The Common Core standards in Literacy aims to change that - help people become more comfortable reading non-fiction by helping them realize they can understand what is being written. Context is important - and in this case the context to be concerned about isn't putting the Gettysburg Address into historical context, but to put the reading of the Gettysburg Address into the context of what the Common Core really is about - and that's literacy, not history. Oh - and don't claim HuffPo has problems with the Common Core when the article is an opinion piece by one specific writer in the HuffPo "blog" section which is analogous to the Letters to the Editor/Editorial Pages of a newspaper who also specifically states the opinions expressed are his alone. It isn't HuffPo that has problems with Common Core, it is Alan Singer of Hoefstra University. Context!