I know that some jurisdictions require in-person training for certain things. I don’t know that to be the reason it doesn’t “match” the in-person course code, but it might be part of the historical reasoning (i.e. the perceived need to differentiate between in-person and online training).
That said, I do think that a “roll-up” number for the online training would be nice. That sounded like something @RonaldBlaisdell had passed along as part of the enhancement request.
And Hazardous Weather. 
It does seem inconsistent. Especially since the online BALOO gives a certain that you bring to the actual BALOO training. Since IOLS requires SM/ASM online, YPT, and Hazardous weather to be done before, a certain should be generated that you can bring to show you are done.
Personally, I think the certs are dumb. Just give a report that shows a green yes. But, back to the other issue, you won’t see the green yes until you are registered for the position.
I know we’re wandering OT again, but I’ve never heard that you have to complete all of the “classroom” training before you can take IOLS. I know a couple of folks who have done IOLS, but haven’t yet finished their online modules just in my unit.
After reading your post and a number of replies, I felt I had to respond to your question. I have been involved in training for many years. A person is not position trained for Scoutmaster/Asst. Scoutmaster until the Outdoor Training (IOLS) is completed. The courses and numbers you are referring to are for the classroom portion only. A person must complete both segments to be considered position trained for Scoutmaster/Asst. Scoutmaster. I would also like to note that many of the individual modules apply to multiple positions. The training report I think you were referring to will only show if a person if fully trained for their registered position. For example: I am registered as Committee Member in the male troop and my status shows Trained. I am registered as Scoutmaster in the female troop and my status shows Trained. I am registered as Committee Member in the pack and my status shows Trained. Yes, I wear 3 hats plus also serve on district and council level positions.
My concern isn’t about being “Position Trained” for Scoutmaster, which yes, includes IOLS, YPT, and an SM/ASM Specific course, it is about a specific online course (“Scouts BSA - Scoutmaster Position Specific Training”) not generating a course completion code similar to it’s respective classroom course that generates “S24”, which I have explained within the earlier responses. There is no caveat stating that a person has to complete the online course, in this case, “Scouts BSA - Scoutmaster Position Specific Training” AND a in-seat classroom portion to accomplish the requirements for the Scoutmaster “specific” training. You can do EITHER the classroom course (S24) or the online course (No Course Code) to satisfy that portion of the “Position Trained” requirements. And I also have worn multiple hats over the past ten years we’ve been involved in Scouting.
I think I finally understand. There is no “roll up code” for SM/ASM to show that you have completed the collection of online courses.
I never liked that it still shows that you need to complete the classroom one even if you have done everything else and have the green Yes.
Exactly. If one does the online Scoutmaster training, all the individual courses show up, not the four section modules and not a final cert , even though the online course satisfies the same requirement the classroom course (S24) does. Also, nowhere does it say you must do BOTh the online AND the classroom training.
And to make things more difficult for units, because the training requirements constantly change but once trained, always trained, there is no easy way to determine if the online portion is complete or not since it depends upon the requirements at time of actual completion.
I agree, a rollup code like we have for YPT would be ideal in these situations. It should not be S24 but could be OS24 for example (Online S24).
Ed, that is ALL I’ve been trying to say during this entire thread… Thank you!
This:
“I agree, a rollup code like we have for YPT would be ideal in these situations. It should not be S24 but could be OS24 for example (Online S24).”
If the required courses for a position change before you complete all of them, you essentially lose credit for any course that were removed from the list. For SM training, I’m not sure if you also have to complete iols to prevent you progress from resetting.
Yes, if before completion they change, but after completion, once trained always trained. In my case, I finished SM/ASM training several updates ago so if you look at the course numbers I completed, they do not line up with the existing requirements. A summary code like Y01 for YPT would be helpful in these cases.
But the question is does the training team what it to always count if you haven’t also completed iols? The summary code would essentially mean it always counts.
And don’t forget about SCO_800 Hazardous Weather Training.
Does someone have a connection to the training team to get these questions answered?
I don’t think that has to be true.
We’ve seen various “successor” codes for in-person training. I’m not clear on why we couldn’t have “successor” roll-up codes for online training. For example, hypothetically make OS24 the “roll-up” for whatever the “now current” courses are. Then, the next version of the roll-up code becomes OS242, then OS243, etc. Or, to be consistent with what it looks like the online trianing codes are, reserve the SCO_24X or SCO_24XX series as the roll-up codes for online SM/ASM position-specific training. Then, march through them as needed to indicate revision numbers.
For example, we haven’t seen a requirement to retake S24 (for example) just because the online training modules were updated. Therefore, I would argue that it would be consistent with current practice to say that completion of S24 in-person or the then-current online equivalent series (e.g. OS24) would be “locked” even in the face of subsequent changes to the online modules that previously made-up OS24. IOLS, and SCO_800 could be completed later to become Trained, as long as the individual continues to be registered in that role. To me, this is similar to not requiring a leader to retake IOLS, S24, and/or SCO_800 just because their YPT lapses. They retake YPT and become current again. Consistent with what I understand is current practice, changing registered roles would reset the training requirements for anyone who had become position-trained under the “old” system (e.g. S11 + SCO_800 + OS24) if they came back into the position again.
SCO_800 is part of the online Scoutmaster training curriculum, see my screenshot post above.
@DonovanMcNeil - My council (Del-Mar-Va) does. All direct-contact leaders that have been registered in their position for at least three months at the charter expiration date must be fully trained for their position. Committee members do not have to be trained at all.
Since we recharter on December 31, if we recruit e new den leader or assistant den leader in September, we don’t register the person until October 1. We truly hope the person will complete the training. But f they don’t, they will fall short of the three months on the recharter date and be allowed to reregister.
This schedule is apparently being set by the local council. I understand it can also be set by the charter organization.
The national adult volunteer basic position-trained leader training requirements (Sep 2021) online schedule has progressive schedule with training grouped into sections. For example:
CM/ACM: BEFORE FIRST MEETING, BEFORE FIRST OUTDOOR ACTIVITY, EARNING YOUR TRAINING STRIP
SM/ASM: BEFORE FIRST MEETING, FIRST 30 DAYS, FIRST 60 DAYS, POSITION TRAINED (90 days?)
(note. earning your trained strip requires completing all modules which makes having sub-course section certificates which are not confusing.)
Every position/role appears to be defined individually in the national model. I understand several councils had success with pilot testing requiring all leader be trained. I believe there has to be some adjustment for new leaders joining late in the fall (for units that recharter at the end of the calendar year.) The training schedule for new units may be different.
" SM/ASM : BEFORE FIRST MEETING, FIRST 30 DAYS, FIRST 60 DAYS, POSITION TRAINED (90 days?)"
This isn’t the issue within this thread… Nor is what local councils may require as to when a leader has to be fully trained. Having to complete these modules to be “Scoutmaster” trained is understood.
@PeterHopkins ScoutsBSA has requirements to be trained to be a part of a Troop Committee. While not a part of this thread, that issue may need to be resolved within your local Council to be IAW National guidelines for Committee members.
@CraigMook - I was trying to show that the issue applies to training for more than just the SM/ASM role.
Implementation is complex because all positions need to be considered. BSA now has courses that are:
Implementation of groups of training (group A, group B, …) would probably require BSA creating another database and spending time and and money to which it does not have at this time. There would also be the cost of continued maintance.
My opinion:
Your guess is as good as mine. I was not at the meeting making that hose how to do it.
© 2019 Boy Scouts of America - All Rights Reserved
