jmcquillan

In no particular order... Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Martin Luther King...

Sounds like you don't have an awful lot of other volunteers to "mentor", or otherwise work with the boy. That being the case, I'd have to agree with Mike. You're the SM for ALL the boys, not just the one. As idealistic and desireable as it is to "save" them all, it's not realistic sometimes, and we just have to accept that, or drive ourselves mad in the process. Should you suddenly run into a horde of interested and enthusiastic adult volunteers to assist in this, and all, issues, then a serious attempt might be made to change the boys thinking. You may very well be correct in your thoughts that there might be one whole heck of a lot of emotional baggage that the boy is carrying. The picture of the boys home environment that comes from your posts seems plausible. The boy may very well be just one fo those who would be very well served by Scouting for the rest of his life. But that should not come at the expense of the rest of the troop. I have seen instances where one or two really bad apples in the troop can drive some of the really interested families out...to the deteriment of the troop. Don't let that happen in your zeal to save this boy. If the resources are there to make it happen for the boy, then great, but otherwise you might be getting gray from Scouting long before your turn. As to the overseas trip, no contract, however well written and well-meant, can prevent the boy from becoming that which you fear once over there. And you'd need some real iron-clad assurance by the parents, and a method, money, and adult in place to get the boy home sooner than the rest if it came to that. Are you ready for that? Remember all the other boys you're responsible for, and best of luck.

Not to spoil the party, but it's always been my understanding that a Boy Scout Troop is not a legal entity, and therefore can not "own" property...which is why all camping equipment, et cetera, "used" by the troop, and made available to the troop, even if purchased with funds raised by the troop, technically is "owned" by the Chartering Organization. This also explains why troops can not "own" vehicles or obtain vehicle insurance. Land or structures would count in this fashion, too. Just a couple of thoughts...

eisely, You asked, ...Scouters should not butt in to these matters, but what is the harm of giving advice if the parent asks your opinion? A very different can of worms than the original query in this thread. Of course, if a parent were to ask my "opinion", I would offer it, but not as "advice". Were they to ask my "advice", I'd still only offer my "opinion". I'd remind them of the purpose of Scouting, and say that my "opinion" would be that, perhaps it might be good for them to think about that purpose, and how the words might "fit" within the general scheme of life they sought for their son(s). But I'd also offer my "opinion" that no one but themselves, Mom & Dad, can choose best for their child, within the framework of their family. My family and lifestyle is mine. Theirs is theirs. No one can choose better than me & my wife for our children, and no one can choose better than they for theirs. I would not offer "advice" here, only the words published by the BSA, known to all Scouters and understood by all, but not necessarily by all parents. Those words, from a knowledgable and respected Scouter anywhere, may be food for thought for Moms & Dads. But, IMHO, they should not be offered as advice, or as a better mouse-trap, only as information for parents to know, understand, and, perhaps, use as they see fit. But as I said above, this arena is out of our purview as Scouters...unless and only unless, Mom & Dad open the door and ask us in. Even then, we should tread lightly and speak carefully, as we would hope others would do for us, concerning our own children.

As much as we might want to see all of our Scouts at every meeting and activity without exception, I think that for any responsible Scout Leader to suggest that parents leave Scouting out of their own personal equation when dealing with their sons, personal responsibility, and punishment, is over stepping the bounds. That's out of our purview, and we should not suggest, nor should we expect that parents will make those exceptions.

As much as we might want to see all of our Scouts at every meeting and activity without exception, I think that for any responsible Scout Leader to suggest that parents leave Scouting out of their own personal equation when dealing with their sons, personal responsibility, and punishment, is over stepping the bounds. That's out of our purview, and we should not suggest, nor should we expect that parents will make those exceptions.

Hey, no disrespect or flames intended here. Simply pointing out that we struggled long and hard to find something that worked for us. We were faced with parents of ADD and ADHD kids, and one boy with Tourettes, all of whom desperately wanted something for their boys to participate in and be accepted. Scouting turned out to be that something. We found that we simply didn't have the resources is skills and understanding to deal with many of the issues that these boys bring with them. Moms & Dads who were asked to jump in and help in that effort worked for us, and worked wonderfully. Yes, Scoutmom, that is the "trail" we've found, and it has lead to successes for us. I suppose that sometimes parents may not be the answer, and can make things worse. But until it's been tried, one doesn't know. We tried, and success happened. Neither of my own children had problems like ADD or ADHD or Tourettes, or anything like that. But, we have a nephew who is an ADHD child, and we've worked with him inside and outside of Scouts, and we do understand what goes on in that world.

Mike, ...but I also won't allow that cancerous attitude to infect the rest of the troop. Remember that part, because it's the root. You're the Scoutmaster for ALL the boys and the entire troop. As such, you need to set the example for ALL, and not be lead astray in your attempts to keep one or two boys in the troop. Your efforts are, indeed admirable, and I commend your spirit in trying to keep all the guys, but... You may lose one, or two, to save the troop. That's not a bad percentage in the end. As to the one yong man with whom you have the problem, you might approach him with the attitude that you stand by the principles of the BSA and it's policies, and you'd like to help him in whatever way you might, but he has to understand what the BSA is all about, uniform included, and then he's more than welcome. If he's looking for a Boys Club, perhaps there's one nearby. He may walk, let him if that's HIS choice, it's not yours. You're giving him the opportunity to make a difficult choice, and that's what life is all about. Difficult choices. Having been in your position myself with issues other than uniform, but just as troubling in the mind of the older Scout, I can appreciate both his mindset, and yours. I made it my business to stand by the rules, and would bend over backwards to explain them, and the reasons for them. Ultimately, the choices were theirs, and I would make sure they understood that. I was not trying to force them to do anything other than abide by rules, and that is a very big life lesson to be learned. When they walked, I was dismayed, but sometimes, they would think better, and come back. Sometimes they wouldn't, and I'd wish them well. Only once did I have to invite a returning boy to leave, for good, when it became apparent that his only reason for returning was to make trouble. But that's part of life, too.

jmcquillan, sorry, but Sager is right. Somethimes the parents of a child with ADHD make it worse. I can say that because I am one of those parents. I find that other adults have much more patience with my son than I do. Especially at Scout meetings. scoutmom, While I wouldn't think of questioning your experience, please don't be so quick to discount mine. We've actually had quite a bit of success following ther trail we have. That's not to say we've found any ADHD nirvana, but we've enjoyed a success rate working with the parents of "problem" kids that makes us quite happy. Had that not been the case, I wouldn't have posted.

Rooster7, I do not believe the church, in modern history, has made it policy of openly accepting gay men to the priesthood. If I left that impression, I was in error. Rather, my guess is that the church may have unwittingly allowed for some gay men, still in the closet and not in the open, to succeed into the priesthood. I'm not so sure there might have been a way to prevent that. The question now is, if, and this is only if, the current tragedy that faces the church is due, in part, to some members of the priesthood being gay, what does the church do about it? What course is to be followed? If, by church teaching, homosexuality is a sin, then would it not follow that exclusion of those who practice the gay lifestyle from the priesthood is likely? And, if that becomes the course taken, what will be the reaction of those who plowed a course of wrath against the BSA? Will they react in similar fashion?

Bob White, and others whom I have utterly offended, I offer my most sincere apologies for unwittingly overstepping the bounds of good discussion with my errant observations and misrepresentations. It was not my intention to denigrate the Catholic church, nor its parishioners, only to look at and compare the situations that both organizations find themselves in. Obviously , Ive done nothing of the kind, and only offended. And for that, I am truly sorry. I wont slink away from this one, as Ive put my foot right in it, embarrassingly, awkwardly, and completely. Again, my humble apologies. The church finds itself in a horrible situation, made worse by the notion in the media, that there may be gay priests to blame for some of what has transpired. As homosexuality is a sin, and the Final Communique from Rome attended to the need to better deal with the admission requirements to the priesthood, there are those who add the two, and point to the stated exclusion of gays as the remedy for the future. That being a growing concern in the church in my region, the similarities that exist, or may come to exist, between the church and the BSA, with both having a desire and need to stand on similar ground, lead some to wonder where the voice is among those who called for full admission of gay men to the ranks of BSA adult leadership. Theirs is somewhat silent today, but perhaps they wait for the proof that I did not. Still, I do stand amazed that the mere notion has not picked up the ears and voices of those who we heard, and still hear, on the other side from us in our own pickle. Perhaps, aside from their views which differ from ours, they should be given more credit than I for keeping their mouths shut before thinking. To all, my utterances are my own, and most deserving of my apologies, which I offer again. My wonder, though, still waits unsatisfied. This time, I shall wait a little longer for an answer. jmc

I like the idea of having Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts as male only. I like the idea of having Girl Scouts and Brownies as female only. I like the idea of both boys and girls having their own separate "clubs", where they can do "boy" stuff, and "girl" stuff, as kids usually look upon these things. Attempts to change what we have to all co-ed are, IMHO, misguided. I'd be right in there with those who would call for expansion of opportunities, though, by creation of co-ed programs within the framework that exists. The BSA has already gone down that road with Explorers and Venture. I don't know about the GSA, but I don't think they've looked there. And it's rather apparent to me that if co-ed programs of the same nature, proven worth, and fun that the BSA offers in its all-male programs were to come about, both the BSA and the GSA would likely lose numbers. Perhaps not significant numbers at first, but numbers just the same. (This isn't a slam at the GSA, for the BSA is all I know.) As the BSA has already started the trek, it would seem a natural that creation of new programs, and expansion of older programs (Explorer & Venture), under the BSA umbrella, to offer new and more far ranging co-ed opportunities would both protect the BSA "numbers" that seem to be of huge concern all the time, while at the same time, offering a hugely successful program base to more kids nationwide. Boys and girls could still have their separate trails to walk, or they could choose to walk together, using the time tested methods of the BSA. Separate or co-ed...the choice would be theirs. Idealistic? Perhaps. But it would keep what we know, and expand it for all, while satisfying the requests of many. But I'd not want to see the choice of separate be eliminated.

The "exclusion" thing that has become the flashpoint for many, including the UW, who now hold the BSA in lower regard seems to have gathered new focus recently with the revelations coming from the Catholic Church. On the whole, I'd be willing to bet that the percentages of bad eggs (priests and scouters) to the whole (church and BSA) are very low. Yet both entities will, and do, suffer the consequences in public opinion, short term, and long. On the whole, I'd be willing to bet that the rather public statements by the church that they must exclude gays from the ranks of the priesthood will gather a good deal less condemnation than similar language from the BSA. On the whole, I see a Public public, that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, while the private public may, indeed, be that silent majority. I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays, has not garnered the condemnation from those who condemned the BSA. In the instance of the church, the call for that exclusion was based on abuse of children. Not so in the BSA. There was no abuse to which the stand for freedom of association could be attributed. So..., why the double standard, oh Great American Public?

What do you wish they woulda told you in training? Well, for one thing, I really wish they would have defined that "one hour a week" thing better........

While all of these are great suggestions, one must remember that the adult leaders need to attend to the entire troop, and not be constantly dealing with one disruptive boy to the detriment of the others. As I've indicated in other threads, we've had some boys in our troop who have had medical conditions resulting in disruptive behavior. We have, for the most part, been blessed with ample adult participation for these boys to have individual attention. But that has not always been the case, nor has it been reason not to ask the parents to get involved. We've found that when the parents realize that we do, indeed, want their son to have the Scouting experience, but we sometimes don't have the resources in people or experience with the condition, or both, they're willing to help out at meetings and trips by just being there. Their presence can sometimes make the difference, as they have a better understanding than most of the means and methods for dealing with the boy when he's getting a little out of control. Their presence also lends to the learning process for the rest of us, when we see how they deal with their son. Two boys, both ADHD, will most likely be dealt with successfully in quite different fashions by their parents. And we can't know that unless they lend a hand. Most of the time, we've been able to get these folks involved in the program as volunteers, if to no other extent than to have them understand what the program really is, so they can help us in attending to their sons needs and best interests within the program. In a couple of instances, they have been quite instrumental in helping other families in the troop or the town deal with similar circumstances, if not in Boy Scouts, then Girl Scouts, or youth sports.

A hearty round of congratulations to young som of OGE!!! Job well done.......... Oh..., and as one who is quite fond of the pipes, it is most certainly music when performed by those who have the touch. But I will admit to second thoughts sometimes, when living with one who aspires to play, and must practice at home....while trying to maintain cordial relations with the neighborhood. :-)

You're kidding, right? I mean, you think we'd actually want to sell one of ours? Hey, they're just getting broken in now! And today's tent's? Well, they just don't make 'em like they used to. :-)

I once served as District Advancement Chairman, Scoutmaster, and on the Council Training Committee all at the same time. I was also on Woodbadge staff, and was supposedly required to have a uniform for each position......NOT. I did hve the SM (troop)uniform, and didn't want to change all the patches, so I bought one more outfit to use for Woodbadge training. But, for the district and council positions, I chose to simply wear jacket and tie, or suit and tie, depending on the occasion. Most folks usually wanted to know why I was "all dressed up". No one ever asked where my council or district uniform was. Had they asked, I would have told them that I was in the process of collecting funds to afford those uniforms.....would they like to donate?

Pardon me, but I simply can not resist the temptation here. An article in this mornings (4/18/02) Boston Globe regarding the upcoming meeting of the American Cardinals and the Pope caught my eye. The article speaks to the suspicions and guesses about what the meeting may and may not accomplish. What specifically got my attention was the paragraphs with which the article ended... ''I don't expect much from this meeting,'' said the Rev. Donald B. Cozzens, a former seminary rector and author of ''The Changing Face of the Priesthood.'' ''My hunch is that they will be told to face `the moral laxity in the priesthood and in our seminaries' and to exclude gays from admission,'' he said. ''This is a moral problem in the eyes of the Vatican. To admit it has systemic/structural dimensions is almost unthinkable to them.'' Did you see it yet? Excuse me? Exclude gays from admission? Where have we seen and heard those words recently? What beneficial organization that deals with children has been summarily chastized and castigated for it's support of "Freedom of Association"? Any hint yet? I find it almost unbelievable that the BSA may very well find itself sitting in the same seat as the Catholic Church on one singular issue, which has cost the BSA much in the public eye. One wonders...one does...if the public eye (and mouth) will voice criticism of the church in similar fashion to that cast upon the BSA. My money is on the feeling that no one will dare criticize the church as they did the BSA. My money is on the feeling that they'll find a reason to say ...it's different. Different!? Yeah, right!

I don't add this anecdote to frighten, only to inform. Sometimes things that are hidden can color our attitudes towards boys. Some years back, we had such a boy in the troop, and he behaved in a similar fashion to what you've posted. Recognizing that there was a problem early on, we approached his parents. They rather sheepishly told us that the boy had Tourettes Syndrome, and one of the marks of the condition was behavior that might not seem normal. After lengthy discussions to learn what we could about the condition in general and specific to this boy, we thanked the parents, but added that we would really have appreciated knowing about it sooner. They explained that they didn't want the boy targetted as unacceptable before we got a chance to meet him. They had faced that prejudice before. We made it our business to let tham know that we didn't work that way, and knowing about their sons condition would only help us to help him. The boys behavior never really changed, but our understanding of the reasons helped us to work with him , and the other boys, who saw his behavior and questioned it themselves. They learned as much as we did. After that, we made it our further business, in the troop newsletter to the parents of potential, incoming, or present scouts in the troop, (we had another general newsletter for public consumption), that if boys had conditions we should know about, to let us know ASAP, so we could learn about them and deal with them, if we didn't already have experience. Many boys across this country may have conditions like this, or similar, that make their behavior appear less than that which is acceptable for others. We felt that going out of our way to assist as we could with these boys, although a burden of sorts, was well worth it. More important, it was well worth the effort to let Mom & Dad know that their kids weren't beyond our capability to work with, if they were in it themselves with us....which was always the case.

After hearing what OGE mentioned over and over again when my kids were in Scouting, that the Eagle was a big deal on a college application, imagine my surprise years ago when the admissions folks for Massachusetts public colleges told me that it was merely a tie-breaker. Were two applicants to come forward, equal in every way, grades, sports, etc., etc., but one had an Eagle, and the other did not, more consideration would be given to the Eagle. I was told that the Eagle on the application does not give one any more chance, or put one higher on a list of possible acceptance than a tie-breaker. That was a little disappointing. Having relatives who have worked in admissions in Mass., Connecticut, and New Hampshire public and private colleges and universities, the story seems to be truer than just the system I dealt with. It's important to note that some schools value the Eagle more than others, like military schools both public and private, but beyond that, some of the story we've all been told is just that, a story and nothing more. When looking for colleges, and the Eagle is something to be put on the application, one should ask right up front how the school views the award, and how it impacts a students ranking with that school.

Bob Russell said; While sports generally do require teamwork, a noble goal, they do not often develop leadership. and, Don't listen to the coach, you are off the team, or at least sitting on the bench. The second is an unfortunate truism to the extent that many adults who get involved with coaching youth sports today forget that their primary purpose should not be "winning". Winning is, indeed, important, and kids won't feel good about themselves and their efforts as individuals or as a team if winning doesn't happen. But it shouldn't be the primary focus. As to the first statement, piggy-backing on what I said about the first, leadership once was, and could be again, a frequent consequence of team sports were the coachs more aware of, and more committed to teaching team effort as a goal, rather than winning. This is certainly not a slam at every coach in youth sports, but it is, indeed, a slam at many. Scouting and sports share much in common, and team effort and leadership are among those things shared, and could be even more. But, the playing field we share with sports is not level, and hasn't been from some time. Perhaps it never will be, but we can keep trying to level it as best we can in our own small ways. I was a Scout in the 50's, and Scouting was pretty active then, at least my childhood memories say so. Then along came the 60's and Vietnam, and Scouting found itself as persona nongrata in a lot of places. Sports never seemed to have suffered that loss. I don't think it was the program. I think it was the uniform, at the time. It represented a lot of the same things as the military uniform to many, as did the appearance of close order stuff within the troops. Scouts were far from para-military, but the appearance was there. We survived that very well, and today are seeing the beginnings of the next downturn in the cycle. And it is cyclic. There's a war. There's military action. There's people from all walks of life that are unfortunately putting too many things in the same basket, perhaps. The same mentality that wrought havoc among our numbers in the 60's and 70's may be some of what we're seeing again, today. There's far more flag waiving and patriotism now than there was furing the Vietnam years. That's a plus for Scouting, as Scoutings tradition with flag and country is still the same as it ever was. But sports is a lot tougher competitor for kids time today than it was back then, too. Does the BSA and it's very public stance on very public issues work against higher participation? I bet that's a no-brainer. Contraversy like the gay issue, and the on-going-never-let-it-drop-God issue (having been dormant for many years, now re-appearing publily), can't be good for promotional purposes. But I think the whole thing is cyclic, and we'll get through the tough times, if we don't change our message and kowtow to the multitude of those who would change Scouting for their own purposes. Stay the course, and follow the lead set by our predecessors. The program is good. It doesn't require change. It ain't broke, so don't try to fix it. Ignore the nay-sayers until the last. And I'd be willing to bet that the unfavorable image that Scouting may have been burdened with in some arenas in this country, is just so...in those arenas only. There are still places in this country where Scouting is held high esteem by the majority. As we survived the Vietnam thing, we'll survive this one, too. It may take as much time, though.

Quit Scouting? Sure, kids do it all the time. A lot of times they leave because they lack the parental support to make a good informed decision. They might not understand what they'll be missing. They might just end up "hanging around" with their friends without direction, wasting time. They might not have the family to help them understand their options, and what the consequences of their decisions might be. They might just be involved in too many things...school, church, family, baseball, football, hockey, soccer, every single other sport they can get into. They might be trying to fit the proverbial five pounds in the four pound bag, giving 25-50% to each, never 100%, and getting about the same out of each. Once again, Mom & Dad haven't done them any favors by allowing them to get in these situations. Then again, it might just be that Mom & Dad decided that Junior would be in Scouts, not Junior. That's never, ever a good situation. Scouting is something that kids need to "want" to do in order to enjoy it, and get the most out of it. If they're a Scout because Mom & Dad told them they would be, no matter the good intent, and if the boy just isn't grasping what he can in Scouting, then Mom & Dad have done him no favors. Sometimes Mom & Dad win, and Junior comes to like Scouts. But that's more the exception than the rule. Kids don't like feeling that they're being made to do something they don't want to. Some things they simply don't have a choice about, like school. But Scouting? They shouldn't be forced to do Scouting. A boy can be in Scouting and be having a good time, but he also remembers that M&D "forced" him to join, and for them he still harbors a little resentment. How many of us can relate to that, huh? Probably many. In my years in Scouting, as SM, I've run into two situations where Mom & Dad told Junior that he would not be able to get his drivers license without his Eagle first. Upon discovering these situations, my very first reaction was to be infuriated. How dare those parents use me and Scouting as the sword of Damacles over the boys head.....argh.... I made sure to take the time to sit with both sets of parents, without Junior, to let them know that this was totally unacceptable, and I and the troop would not be made part of that scenario. Once they realized the "error" of their ways, they move the sword to some other thing in the boys life....go figure. As Art Linkletter said, "kids will say the darnedest things", and "I wanna quit" comes pretty easily when they're upset, sad, unnecessarily under a parents thumb about something that should be fun..... If the boy appears to be having a good time, but in private moments with friends says he wants out, that may just be ego speaking. But if he says the same thing to you, his Scout leader, then it's time to sit and chat, and perhaps do the same with Mom & Dad. If the parents are the "drop-off" type, and are rarely seen other than dropping off, all the more reason to have that chat.

CubsRgr8, If the troop program isn't what it should be to attract boys and keep them, well, that's something that the troop can fix. But, there are other things the troop can not fix. While it may not be "typical" to lose so many, it is, quite frankly, "typical" that some will leave. Scouting is not for every boy. Even among the really young, Cub Scout age, there are those who know right away that it's not something they're interested in. If their friends are, they're more likely to. When they reach the age to cross-over, they have more "other" interests in their lives, and their "need" to be with their friends may not be quite as strong as it was. And this is to say nothing of the "other" interests they'll gain along the way as they get still older. Sometimes, it doesn't matter how wonderful the Scouting and troop program are. And then, there's parents. In Cubs, parents get used to the one of two adults who seem to do everything, so they don't have to. (BSA = Baby Sitters of America?) When their boys reach the age to cross-over to a troop, with a program that out of necessity requires the involvement of most parents, they may begin to question whether they can support such a commitment, and so much time. Their boys may suffer the brunt of their decision, and Scouting will not be a part of the boys lives. In defense(?) of those who take that path, many parents today get their children involved in far too many activities. Kids will be changing uniforms in the car as Mom or Dad drives from one sport to another to Scouting to Church activities to and from school to Grammas house to home.....(puff, puff....) And what happens then? Kids never have a chance to give 100% to any one activity. It's 50% here, 50% there. Some parents actually recognize their childrens limits, and choose, or "help" their boys choose among activites. Scouting is not always included in these choices. Many times, that happens only after the boy has crossed over, and Moms & Dads become all too aware of what Scouting will require, from them, and their boys. For a variety of reasons, they walk away from Scouting. It's not always on a level playing field with other activities, like sports. Parents will commit their time to sports over Scouts, as their interest may lie there, and their boys go with that choice. k9gold-scout said that parents have said their "only regret is that they didn't stay longer". I've heard parents say that, only to find that they're among the ones who decide that Scouting isn't as important or as much fun for their boys as youth sports are. Go figure. Our troop was pretty much always at the 60-70 boy mark, and our retention and program were admirable. But we still had our drop-outs, whether Dad had been a Scout or not. We did not have "feeder" packs. There were two packs, and two troops in town. Cubs only had two choices for troops. Our troop always seemed to get the Lions share at cross-overs, thus our numbers stayed high. We had many Dad's say that they had been in Scouting. Some were able to re-live it, or finally get what they missed as a kid, but not all. As I said above, some left anyway. One thing we must remember...we are not the only game in town. And boys do not "need" nor are they "required" to be in Scouting. We should not feel like failures if many boys choose not to participate, nor should we complain if some leave. What we should do is make the program offering as good as it can possibly be, ("if you build it, they will come"). We should "focus" on working with those boys who are there, and want to be in Scouting. If there are some, or many, who choose otherwise, so be it. This is not a numbers game, here. It's a program and opportunity game. And if we are able to work with only a few who really want and enjoy it, then that's about the most wonderful thing we can hope for...we will have touched a few, and hopefully helped them be better for it. Those who choose not to include Scouting in their lives, we wish them well, and leave the doors open for them, but we don't chase them. But if, as I said at the beginning, the troop program can't pass muster, and that is why boys aren't staying, then that's something that can be fixed, and should be. But even then, you'll have some who leave, and some who never come in the door.

The best thing? Well, that would probably be the method the course uses to organize most everything you already know in little bits and pieces, and presenting it to you in one clear and concise order for you to use. Most of what WB teaches is, for many, stuff they already know, but have never put it all together in a fashion that they can consciuosly use. There's a lot of common sense, a lot of what you might have picked up in the military or high school and college sports, a lot of what you might have picked up as "street smarts" along the way, and, of course, everything Scouting. Outside of the WB format, few of us have ever been exposed to something that takes all of that, and puts it together in presentation and on paper, in an order that makes sense, and is user friendly. I remember saying to myself many times when I took the course many moons ago...."Hey, I knew that already. But...it makes more sense when put together with this or that." The understanding and order the course put to everything I already knew, but didn't realize I knew, and the new information provided also, was probably the best part about WB for me.