OWLS training Question

[moosetracker 132]

I know it has been discussed in the past.. But, I said something to our programs Director, based on everything I have seen not only here but surfing around the web.. And since it is not what he thinks is true, I need to show some proof of where I ever got it from..

 

While IOLS is Required of SM & ASM and for Venturing if they have an outdoor program.. OWLS is highly recommended, but not required..

 

He showed me the following passage..

 

BSAs Cub Scout Outdoor Program Guidelines (#510-631) as of the 2009 printing states that for Webelos Den Overnight Camping : A Webelos den leader who has completed position-specific training and Outdoor Leader Skills for Webelos Leaders training should conduct these events. Council is just following that guideline by requiring OWLS. What is your source stating that OWLS is only recommended? Perhaps its been updated? Let me know so I can help make sure people are getting the right information!

 

 

I think I already have him as (highly recommended, not required) simply in what he is stating (Which has the word "SHOULD", not "is required to have")..

 

I also have the following link from Scouting .org..

 

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/Adults/Training/Trained%20Leader.aspx which notes that for Venturing Crew Leaders Venturing crew Leaders whose Crew have an outdoor program must also complete Introduction to Outdoor Skills training to be considered fully trained.. (The same is not stated for Webelos Leaders)..

 

Basically I am not trying to fight the issue.. If the Council wants to tighten the requirements, it is fine with me.. I just stated shock at seeing the statement by the council as in.. "Wow.. I didn't know our council had tightened that policy up.. I have been spreading the wrong information"..

 

But before I show him why I had the opinion that I did, I would like something a little more substantial then one link from a respectable source that did not mention OWLS as required training.. Maybe two or three omitting it but stating Venturing is required..

 

I know I have seen other lists that state required or omit OWLS as required, but add IOLS is required for Venturing with an outdoor program.. Just can not put my finger on it..

[Eagle92 110]

Check out this link,

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/training/pdf/What_makes_a_trained_leader.pdf

 

 

And note that there is no asterisk requiring OWL for tour plan review the WDL will need BALOO and hazardous weather though.

 

Further p 15 in the current G2SS does not mention OWL needed for webelos dens to camp, and it's not mentioned at all in the G2SS.

 

 

Also no where does it mention OWL being needed for camping, only BALOO and Haz Weather

 

[moosetracker 132]

Thanks, this is exactly what I needed..

 

Like I said, I am not out to fight a battle.. I just want him to know that I am not making stuff up and passing out wrong information.. (Well at least not wrong if I don't know the Councils' added policies)..

[Eagle92 110]

A few months back, National was in the process of combining IOLS and WeLOT training into one course. Don't know when that will occur, but many councils have combined the course.

 

Using reason, if national allows IOLS test out, wouldn't WeLOT also be a test out?

[moosetracker 132]

A few months back?? Try a year or more back. I heard about this combination of OWLS & IOLS the first week I took this position (about a year back now).. I had hoped for it before my Fall course, no luck.. I had hoped for it before my Spring course, no luck..

 

Our Council has outlawed the IOLS test-out.. But.. the end of this month I return to the bi-monthly planning meeting to debate a compromise to the IOLS.. Hopefully we can get to vote on it, and I will have a good enough arguement to persuade everyone that it will answer all of their objections about the test-out, we are not making up our own course program, yet it will give the expirienced scouters both a shorter course and a more advanced course.

[Adam S 10]

The test out option is approved by National as described here: http://www.scouting.org/Training/TrainingUpdates/Archives/201010.aspx

 

Your council does not want to do the test out but will deviate from a sylabus in violation with BSA's published Trainers Code of Conduct "Trainers agree to present BSA material in accordance with the published policies, literature, and syllabi of the BSA. You have an obligation to present the material the way it was intended regardless of your personal opinions."

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/26-242.pdf

the last page

 

 

[moosetracker 132]

No.. What I am proposing is to use the syllabus verbatim for IOLS.. Which is a brief description of what to cover in each skill section.. But lock the participants down to 1 patrol of 8 EXPIERIENCED participants.. Hand them the syllabus and have them each divide up a section and be the instructors.. With one District Trainer..

 

We are told all the time to use our expirenced participants as the training staff.. The only thing is that a) all the participants will be expirience.. b) all the participants will be used as the training staff.. c) the class will be small and managable (of a patrol size)

 

Now if you have no one in the course who is a newbie.. How fast do you think they can breeze through a review of knots, even following what needs to be covered? How fast do you think they can go through orienteering? Woodworking tools? etc.. There is no slow down of people who are totally confused.. So with that extra time what can they cover that is more advanced? Why can't they then get out earlier??

 

There is no deviation from the syllabus..

 

As for the test-out I guess the councils who disagree with the test-out had their say. National told them that if they held a vote and the vote between the District Training staff is to not accept the Test-out, National would up-hold their position..

[Adam S 10]

Wow, Moose, that's a shame... It seems like it just makes more work for you... We embraced the test out we have a few hundred leaders who have at least 10 years experience so it just makes sense to us to do this.