Twocubdad

NLE included the video and Power Point. The Tiger specific used overheads. A big part of that course asked us to use the standard den meeting planner and plan a den meeting, using what we had learned. That was good. I actually used the plan from the course for one of my den meetings. Den Leader specific and Committee specific both gave us a wad of photocopies, which were never referenced during the class. I've got the folder from one of the classes right here -- it's not marked which class it was for. Most of it is copies out of the training manual (I have a copy of the book) or rehashed out of the Leader Book.

You hit the nail on the head when you said the quality of the training experience still relies heavily on the quality of the trainer. The woman teaching my Committee specific course was clueless. And you better believe I let the course director and training chairman know. Puffing a couse feedback sheet helps no one. I disagree with you to an extent that the courses are cumulative and build one upon the other. I think they are much geared toward the rookie Scouter who is taking each course as their first exposure to Scouting. Although I like the concept behind NLE -- Scouters of all levels getting the big picture of aims and methods -- it pushes too much of the program basics into the leader specific courses. Maybe the new Fast Start will address that and allow the position specific courses to be more, well, "position specific." One more observation -- why in the world aren't all leaders given -- or required to bring -- a copy of the Cub Scout Leader Book to training? Familiarizing leaders with the book and showing them where to go to find their own answers would be a tremendus benefit. Frankly, some of the courses I've had would have been time better spent sitting quitely reading the leader book.

Thanks for the good info, Bob. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but here are a few thoughts/observations from the trenches: 1) If BALOO is mostly administrative/health/safety and WLOT is mostly outdoor skills, how does WLOT train me to take my Webelos den camping? Since BALOO isn't a Webelos leader requirement, where do I get the health and saftey training? 2)WLOT and IOLS are being offered together next week by our council. If the courses are similar enough to be taught by the same team and at the same time and place, why can't the courses be combined or at least made reciprocal? Of course there are Webelos subjects that don't apply to Boy Scouts and vice versa, but the similarities strongly outweigh the differences. As a trainee, I would rather sit through an extra hour of training which doesn't apply to me rather than have to repeat another entire weekend of training a year from now. To put it another way, if I'm a Webelos II den leader, why would I want to take WLOT now, knowing that at crossover in February I'm going to need IOLS. It doesn't seem to be a good use of the volunteer's time. 3) Same point relating to Cub Scout position-specific courses. I've taken every course except Cubmaster. I also had the old Basic Cub Scout Leader Training. Except for Tiger Den Leader (which was my first position-specific course) the others repeated 85% of the same information. You said the courses are designed as a continuum, but I disagree. Each course is designed to accommodate a new volunteer at each position. Over the four courses, you get the same introductory-level information, but never the next level. As I said in a post a couple weeks ago, if I have to play the Pin-the-Badge-on-the-Cub-Scout-Uniform game again, I'll scream. My point is that National has created many distinctions among the courses with few differences. The training is very broad but also fairly shallow. The number of questions raised on this board by very good, and well-trained Scouters tells me there is a deficiency in the training. A solution? When Mr. Williams calls for my advice, here's what I tell him: Don't slice the training by position, rather organize the classes by experience and/or responsiblity. "Cub Scout Leader I" could be program basics and getting started as a Den Leader. "CSLII" is more indepth as to programming and working with boys, health and safety. "CSLIII" is more advanced, includes leadership skills, how to recruit leaders, dealing with Scout retention, working with the professionals, (many of the topics addressed on this board). In my experience, a brand-new Tiger Leader has much more in common with a new committee member than he or she does with a more experienced leader who is taking on Pack- or district-level responsibilities. When I became Committee Chairman, I took the Committee position-specific course. It was an absolute waste of my time. It would have been terrific as a basic course for a new Blue & Gold chairman, or Uniform closet coordinator. But as a Scouter with a couple years experience, I can't recall any new information. No specifics about the proper way to handle money, what records the committee needs to keep, etc. So where do I go to learn to be Committee Chairman?

In another thread someone wrote that their Scoutmaster, "contends that since he has been to Woodbadge he is qualified for any position. I've asked him to get a letter from the Council stating that all of the Training Requirements for him have been waived so that we can become a Quality Unit." While I don't buy the "trained for ANY position" arguement, it raises an interesting question. Does more advanced training certify you for lower-level courses? If not, why not? Two situations: #1- Our council has offered BALOO training only one time since the course was implemented, so our Pack doesn't have any BALOO certified adults to lead overnighters. We do, however, have several Webelos Outdoor trained leaders. Do we meet the BALOO requirements? #2- Several years ago, our ADC was denied his Webelos Leader square knot because he had not taken Webelos Leader Outdoor Training. Yet he had taken the similar Boy Scout level course (whatever it was called then) AND was on the training staff teaching the Boy Scout course. Comments?

Except in Texas where "He needed killin'" is an affirmative, legal defense. (A joke, just a joke. Please, no angry pro-Texas posts.)

A couple ideas -- Working on the whittlin' chip, I made blanks for the boys by cutting the profile of a boot and arrow head out of 3/4 white pine on the band saw. The boy whittled each to shape, used a black marker to make the laces and sole of the boot, and dipped them in water-base polyurethane for a finish. For the slide part, we hot-glued 3/4 plastic waterpipe onto the back. (Rough-up the pipe with sandpaper for a better stick.) The best part of this idea was when I cut the blanks, I left a 3- or 4-inch "handle" attached to each-- at the top of the boot and at the blunt end of the arrow head. After finishing most of the carving, the boys used a small saw to cut off the handle. Not only did this save several fingers, but with little hands and relatively weak grips, it made the small slides easy to hold and carve. #2-- Before Christmas, we made Christmas tree slides. I bought pre-cut 1 1/2-inch wooden trees at the local crafts store. They're in the section with all the little wooden parts. I think they cost less than 50 cents each. We painted them green and decorated them with gold thread for garland. I bought several colors of the small beaded garland which we cut apart and glued on for ornaments. We painted stars on the trees, but I sure if you dig around the crafts store, you can come up with ideas for decorations. Just think small. Used the same trick with the water pipe for the slide. These were a HUGE hit at the December Pack meeting.

(Inadvertent double post)(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

Venturer2002 and NJCubScouter; In your earlier posts today, you both run through a number of scenarios -- some real, some hypothetical -- relating to the bullying incident. The one thing you omitted, and the key element of this situation, it the physical contact between the two boys. The bullying, the inappropriate sexual talk, withholding property, are all worthy of punishment. But when the older boy "humped" the younger one, I think a critical line was crossed. Here's my question: If that doesn't rise to "sexual misconduct" which requires contacting the SE, then what does? Seriously, what would the older boy have to do for you to report this to the SE?

I'll probably regret this in the morning, but... I'd say if it's prescribed by a physician and in a labeled bottle from a pharmacy, then it's okay. While I'm not a doctor,(and don't play one on the Internet) but I did work in a hospital for a while. The hospital pharmacy kept a bottle of rot-gut on hand which was occasionally prescribed to alcoholics who were in such bad shape that drying out posed a medical risk. I don't know if there is any other reason to be prescribed alcohol, but if you're so bad an drunk that you need prescription vodka, I think our CO and pack leadership will have a problem with you on the campout anyway. Alcohol is prohibited because it is a factor in facilitating child abuse. Obviously, not everyone who drinks abuses children. But most abusers use alcohol or drugs as a prelude to abuse. Someone with a propensity for child abuse is much more likely to act on their impulses if they have a few belts onboard. Sure, I'd like to have a beer sitting around the campfire with the guys (actually a nice single malt and a good cigar, but that's another thread). It would also be nice to share my tent with the homesick Scout or the single-parent Cub who can't go camping otherwise. But that's not what we signed up for.

I found a new one at a local army/navy store for, I think, $30.00. It's a dead knock-off of the official BSA hat. The main thing is that it's brown, like the BSA hats, versus the green surplus USMC hats. Unfortunately, the store closed about six months ago and there is no manufacturer info inside the hat, so I can't tell you how to find one. Of course you still need to buy a BSA hat pin, band and chin strap, which together totals more that the $30 hat. I'm not positive, but I don't think those items come with the official hat, either. By the time the smoke clears, you'll end up with $130 in an official hat.

There are several different elements to this "case" which taken alone could have resulted in several different responses: Taking the boy's chair and refusing to return it should have resulted in a gruff, one-minute reminder about respecting others' belongings. Teasing the younger boy about being a homosexual and telling the boy "I know you want me," ect. is bullying -- a fairly egregious case of bullying -- and should have been dealt with through the normal dicipline procedures -- calling his parents, sending him home, suspension, or however the PLC and troop handles it. Where this kid stepped off the cliff is when he humped the other guy. Please re-read Bob White quote regarding member responsiblities the G2SS. Touching another Scout in a sexual manner violates the Scout Oath and Law and Youth Protection guidelines. At that point the appropriate and required response of the leaders should have been to follow the Youth Protection policies and notify the Scout Executive. Eagle_SM -- You're right about the intent. Obviously the older boy was not trying to have sex with the younger Scout. Just the opposite, he was taunting that the younger boy was homosexual and wanted have sex with him. It dosn't matter that what he said was just a sexual reference or if it had sexual intent. My point is that the combination of bullying, physical contact and especially sexual content (however you want to describe it)crossed a huge the line. Double Eagle -- I know adolescent boys probably alway have and probably always will participate in this kind of behavior. I, too, grew up in the 70's and for a while during junior high the fashionable put down was to call someone a fag. Our local variation was to call them a "Bill White" supposedly named after local gay guy (I don't know if he was a real person or not)who, according to legend, flew through the bedroom windows of young boys and performed oral sex on them. Sometime in the sixth grade a teacher overheard one of these taunts. Everyone in ear-shot, about six of us, were hauled to the principal. We got a week of detention, had to write a ten-page report and had our parents called. My punishment at home was even worse. Compare that to maai's situation where the adult leaders' initial response was to do nothing, and were the Scoutmaster is now treating this a case of "roughhousing." Is it possible that the diffrence between then and now is not the boys' actions but the response of the adults? Is it not our purpose to teach and hold Scouts to a higher standard?

"The unit should inform the Scout executive about all incidents that result in a physical injury or involve allegations of sexual misconduct by a youth member with another youth member." -- 2001 Guide to Safe Scouting, page 6. A basic element of Youth Protection training is that we, as adult leaders, are not trained or qualified to judge whether or not sexual abuse has occurred. Our obligation is to report the incident to the local SE and let him decide the appropriate response. But since we have the luxury here of debating these issues in hindsite -- and if you still don't think this is sexual misconduct -- let's try an experiment. Tomorrow at lunch, randomly select a woman. Grab her purse and refuse to give it back to her. When she trys to take it back, stroke her hand and tell her "I know you want to get it on with me. Come here and do it with me." Now start making humping movements on her. My recommendation is to have the names of a good criminal defense attorney and bail bondsman with you first.

Someone asked, "What laws were violated?" Review the original post. Standing next to someone and humping them is sexual assault in most states. If this isn't a clear YPG violation, what is? Thirty years ago as a Scout, I saw where this trail ends. It ain't pretty. The older boy should have been removed from the other boys immediately and the YPG violation reported to the local Council Executive. Sorry folks, but this isn't even a close call.

A rather curious topic. I'm sure Bob is getting a chuckle over all the free analysis. I'd like to hear his answers! I'll answer the second part first: Bob gets all the direct questions because he has the knowledge, experience and/or stack of Scout literature to answer them. If you want to know what the official Scout policy is on a topic, ask Bob. As to the first question, it doesn't seem to me that Bob takes any more heat than anyone else on the board. There are a couple of other flame throwers I'd give that distinction to. When Bob seems to be criticized, it's more the BSA policy he quotes that's the target, not necessarily Bob's opinion. I think Bob has assumed the role of "Keeper of the Faith" for the board. I don't know if that's just his personality, Scout training, or if that's his official role with the site. I have to think that to some degree, he's just playing the part. I don't think anyone can be a part of any organization like BSA and not have some strong disagreements with the official policy from time to time. I see this site as a place to grouse and blow off steam while among family. I can gripe about thing here that I wouldn't say to non-Scouts or even parents. Interstingly, while many of my posts question various policies and complain about how BSA does things, I'm the "By the Book" guy in our Pack. At our last leaders' meeting, we had a big arguement from a few leaders who wanted to dump the various rank hats in favor of a "Pack Hat." Nipped that one in the bud. In any rate, "By the Book Bob" serves a needed function here and he does it well.

Amen! Not to be sexist about it, but it's the mom's who show up on campouts with the big tins of brownies and cookies! The more the better! So what do you do to encourage moms to camp? The two primary objections I hear are "I am NOT sleeping in the woods" (my wife) or "It's a guy thing. They need to do this with their dad." Any suggestions?

I'm our district's Roundup chairman and on the Council membership committee and have heard of no such national requirement. In fact, the membership committee is pushing the council to track SSNs, and is meeting some reisitance. If it were a requirement from National, I think that debate would be different. We have a problem of mutiple registrations for Robert Smith, Bob Smith and Bobby Smith -- two of whom drop out of Scouting at some point. It has caused real problems with our registration numbers and recruitment and retention goals. Collecting SSNs would solve that problem, at least. The more practical problem is that few people, I think, have their kids' SSN with them or in memory when they come to registration. I'd have to go to the safe deposit box and find the cards for my own boys. I think a little flexibility is due. Turning away boys without their number is draconian. I certainly wouldn't turn anyone away. Sign 'em up! The paperwork can follow.

I don't disagree with you about the quality of the basic shirt and pants. In fact, I've argued your same position at committee meetings. I've yet to see a boy wear out a uniform before they out grow it. I've also made the same comparison between the cost of Scouting vs. sports. However, you can go to any Wal-mart or Tartet and buy similar-quality clothes for half the price. With the quantities national is dealing with, they should be able to negotiate similar discounts. I understand distribution costs and overhead, but the retail markup on apparel is astronomical. BSA should be able to offer uniforms at a lower price. My biggest gripe is with the hats and neckerchiefs and similar accoutrement. They're junk. I've had to buy my boys new hats half-way through the year. The Webelos neckerchief is so thin, it's impossible to roll or fold it properly. I don't know what it is, but it's just the wrong type of fabric for the use. And it cost twice what it should have. Our new neckerchief slide is the color of an old penny -- not a drop of lacquer on it. I could go on..... Patches? You're right. Everything should be of that quality and value. I'll add that the boys books and other literature is very reasonable. As for the mugs, camping gear and other miscellaneous stuff, I have no problem with them charging whatever the market will bear. Those are non-essential items and subject to competition from non-BSA suppliers. And don't think you can out uniform me, bunkie. You won't find anyone more proud to wear the uniform than I. Two(fully-uniformed)CubDad

Hopefully, all those positions aren't open. I wouldn't include all the positions that are already filled, and the above advice not to hit the new parents at Roundup night is sound. I think, however, discussing the open positions is appropriate for the parents of your current boys. At Roundup, it's more important to impress upon the new parents that their participation and support of their own sons is key to their success in Cubs. I think it's also fair to tell them that the operation of the Pack is a cooperative effort and that at some point they need to help at some level. It's important to establish that expectation early.

Sounds to me as if you guys are arguing two sides of the same coin. In our pack -- and I can't really speak to Boy Scouts -- the vast majority of boys who drop out do so due to some combination of other interests and a lack of parental interest and support. Many of the boys (read parents)who drop out decide to concentrate on something else. These are often boys who excel in a sport and choose to focus on that. This usually starts with the Bear and Webelos-aged boys as they move into more competitive leagues. The second largest group are boys (read parents) who are justs shopping. "We did Cub Scouts this year, we think we'll try soccer this fall." The last quarter leave for a variety of reason, including that they just don't like Scouts. I'm not suggesting that we run the perfect program or that none of the drop-outs are "out fault." Admittedly, from time-to-time we've had weak den leaders and have lost boys due to them. But we do run a good program. Our philosophy is, we set a nice table, anyone who wants to eat is welcome. Sure, I hate to see a boy drop out, but in most cases, it's not a decision we control.

Thanks, Bob. Much wisdom in a few lines. I can honestly say that the only one our Pack doesn't do in have Den Leader meet separately from the committee. Hmmmmm.....something to think about.... Here are a couple of additions: -- They go camping and participate in other outdoor activities. -- They support district and council summer day and resident camps by encouraging boys to attend and supplying more than their share of adults. --They train their replacements. -- They stick to the program by encouraging the boys to work toward advancement. -- They provide opportunities for the boys "to help other people" through service projects.

Bob -- Perhaps you or someone else can shine some light on the business end of the supply division. The cost vs. quality of Scout Stuff comes up regularly and seems to be a constant source of complaint. What kind of margins does the supply division work on? Are they a significant source of revenue supporting general operations? Are these kind of numbers made available? Personally, if supply division profits support general operations, I have no problem with that. But basic uniforms and supplies should be at cost. I just spent about $75 for a new Cub Scout uniform. That's too dang much. If that's what it cost BSA to deliver those goods, there are big problems at supply.

Are there any Cub leaders who have taken the new Wood Badge course? Part of the change was the elimination of the Cub Scout Wood Badge and combining it into one course. From the above discriptions, it sounds as if most of the course is foucused on managing boy-lead Troops. How are the needs of Cub leaders addressed? Our council is offering a course in October, and I've kicked around the idea of applying. But since our training committee cancelled both Webelos position specific and Webelos Leader Outdoor Training (both prerequisites), it would mean two weekends in September and two weekends in October -- a bit much. I've also committed to national camp school this winter, so my one hour a week is booked!

The pants are the biggest problem. I'd make them more like military BDUs (but NOT cammo, I don't want to start that argument again!) -- similar fabric, more pockets, with adjustable waists and cinched cuffs. The latter two would make the pants wearable through a few more growth spurts. For that matter, I'd re-issue the pre-WWII spats/gaiters. Very functional outdoors and I admit it, I like the Saturday Evening Post look. Are the dress wool pants available in boys sizes? I have a pair I wear for indoor events. Not everyone can afford two uniform pants initially, but by the time they've been in a couple years, most boys seem to have a couple uniform sets. The dress pants would make a good second pair. I like the campaign hats, but $100 for the official BSA hat is nuts. I bought a brand-new knock-off at the local army-navy store for $25. But I spent more than that buying the official hat emblem and hat band. It's half a shade off the official hat in color. The same store has used DI hats for $10-15, but they are green, not brown. Although I think they're sharp, I realize the campaign hats aren't practical outdoors or for the boys. I take much better care of mine than I think the boys would. My ideal uniform would have a bushwacker hat for field use and NO hat for formal/indoor use. That would solve the hat/no hat problem we've discussed on another thread. One big change I would make would be to address quality. The orange Tiger t-shirts are junk. Our Pack T's were a third the price and twice the quality. I also bought a red knit golf shirt but won't wear it. The fabric is so cheap if feels like wearing a trash bag. Official BSA stuff is not inexpensive. For the money, they could do better.

Bob; Our Council has choosen not to implement the Pack Trainer position because they say the a syllabus has not been produced for the position by national. Is Pack Trainer to be a separate course or will they have the same Train The Trainer certification as regular trainers? If it is separate, when is the syllabus due out? What courses will the Pack Trainers be able to teach? Is is possible to get the Pack Trainer certification outside the local council? We have a large pack and would benefit greatly by the ability to schedule training for our own new leaders. If our local folks ever get off the dime, Pack Trainer would be a priority for us.

By the way, thanks for the update, ScoutNut. I'm sure I read about a pending uniform change on Virtual Cub Scout Leader Book more than a year ago, but I suppose they must have been mistaken. I think BSA promotes the rumor mill by doing a generally poor job of communicating with the rank and file. (But that's another thread.)