The new SLS and CLC courses

[Capt Rivera]

Anyone have the "old" SLS materials, [digital format] or have a link to them?

[winterg]

My certification expires at the end of the month in ES unless I retake my NIMS courses.  What's the difference?  Wouldn't hurt to keep current but I would most likely make it an optional item.

[Eclipse]

There should be no requirement for those to retake the classes, but the curriculum and discussions are excellent, and so we should be encouraging our people to take the updated classes.

Regardless, our more seasoned members should be involved in an ongoing basis as staff or instructors, so they should be getting contact in that way.

The biggest single issue I see with the SLS/CLC program is that many states don't offer enough of them, so staff officers treat them like a PD-ticket punch and get exposed to the information and ideas too late for them to be of much use.

I encourage my people to get into an SLS as soon after joining as possible, and then be involved as staff from there.

[PHall]

SLS and CLC are both PME or Professional Military Education courses.
In the real military, PME courses are updated all the time, but you're not required to retake one just because it changed.

[EMT-83]

What NIMS courses expire?

[Eclipse]

What NIMS courses expire?

I think he's referring to the various requirements for ICS300/400/700/800 depending on your qualification level.

For example, everyone in ES has to take FEMA IS 700, and Branch Directors and higher have to take IS300.

ES ratings go inactive on 0101009 without the above, though what the practical reality of that is going to be has not been communicated downstream.

[winterg]

I had them all previously but my Wing is making me and a lot of others redo 100/200/400/700.  I think that's it.

[ol'fido]

I have as friend who is a Certified Professional Agronomist outside of CAP. A few years ago they changed the requirements to become a Agronomist. My friend dodn't lose his certification. He was grandfathered in. Why is it that in CAP you can be certified in something one day and not the next simply because they decide to change the rules? Shouldn't we be grandfathered in? GTL one day. Jack diddly the next? This is what frustrated and drives more people out of ES. SLS/CLC is the same thing. You took SLS and CLC in '88? Your done! Unless you want to be an instructor or director later on, you should not be required to take it just because they changed it.

[Eclipse]

You're not "jack diddly" - this is additional training requirement(s), far from what happened in the mid-90's, you don't lose all your taskings, you simply go out of currency until you take the respective test(s).

For the majority, GTL's & M's included, its a single online test - IS700 - hardly onerous. The IS300 has been the stickler for most, because in a lot of cases its a week-day in-residence, though there have been opportunities for weekend classes.

As far as "grandfathering" - in the mid-90's we had a much more serious situation - members who had been active for a long time given more than a calendar year to re-take the new 116/117 online tests, who couldn't be bothered, or stood on nonsense like "I've been doing this for 30 years and no one is going to tech me anything".  They lost everything because they wouldn't take a 15-minute test on subjects they should be intimately familiar with.

Many never got back into ES and complain to this day about it, despite the fact that it was their own fault for refusing to accepting an evolving situation with greater expectations.

[Capt Rivera]

Sorry but lets stay on topic... there other open discussions for our ES related thoughts/observations....

Thanks...

I know there are some information pack rats out there. Someone has to have the originals...

[Eclipse]

I actually have them, looks like slides and handouts - PM me for a link to some fairly large .zips

Nertz...new slides in the old dir.  I know I have them somewhere, will post when I do...

[ol'fido]

Yeah, I am jack diddly and I have been doing this for 30 years. It's not because I couldn't be bothered to take a test online. It's because they kept changing procedures and requirements.  At the time I stopped doing GT and ES, the preocedure dictated by wing to get a 101 and stay current was changing about every 6-8 weeks and we were changing ES officers at wing about every 12-16 weeks at that time. I don't mind playing ball but I do mind that every time I get on the ball, some little guy somewhere decides to dream up a new requirement to stay "current". And, as for IS-700 it looks a lot like the same stuff I saw in IS100/200 regurgitated with new slides. And, yes, I have taken it but it does not change one thing in how I would do my job at a mission. It's just another useless hoop to jump through.

Now back to what this thread was supposed tobe about. I took SLS as a cadet. I went back and did SLS/CLC as a senior. I have instructed at SLS/CLC and next year I will probably be a director. But I have seen nothing in all that time that leads me to believe that there is anything so earth-shaking about the new curriculum that we need to have people retake it ( even to teach at it). Again, another useless hoop.

[heliodoc]

I can agree with olefido on the SLS CLC thing

The I 100 thru 800 thing is a "new" requirement that CAP, in general, should have accomplished a long time ago with the responding agencies.  Many of those have completed it and many are straggling, LIKE CAP, an organization that wants "to do all" because we have all this and that

Now on to the CLC SLS..... as long as CAP is into online testing... then its time to stop think that online testing is some miracle tool to train people.  CLC, SLS, and UCC probably need to be done so everyone has a chance to interact with each other just like I 300 and I 400.

But  I have taken SLS and UCC and found really NO earthshattering reason why most of that can not be done online also, as long as ES is done online and the famous ACSC can be done online, why not put UCC, SLS, and CLC in the same lane.

Everyone can argue the interaction and "butt" time needed.  That is fine but to accuse folks "because I have been doing this for 30 years" argument doesn't hold water.   Some of CAP's folks must think that everyone has to contribute 110% on everything and then get accusatory to others  about what they do or do not do...

CAP reqs for recurrency are pretty lame at time and to retake SLS, CLC, and UCC a would be a complete waste of the members time.  Recurrency on these courses??  Right.  New Curriculum??  Is that like plagarizing other organizations leadership courses?  Do not tell me that CAP "doesn't do that" That I would call BS

[Eclipse]

That is fine but to accuse folks "because I have been doing this for 30 years" argument doesn't hold water.   

It doesn't hold water, not a drop, not even a hint of dampness.

Some of CAP's folks must think that everyone has to contribute 110% on everything and then get accusatory to others  about what they do or do not do...

And some folk go around thinking that just because they did a drive-by on a skillset they can forever wear a BTDT badge and not even consider the fact that technology and procedures change, they may have actually forgotten something, or Lord forbid, they might accidentally learn something.

Its also amazing that 99% of members are able to somehow negotiate the "mine field" of systems and personnel changes, yet some of the most vocal 1%'ers can't figure it out and then blame others for their losing quals.

You might also momentarily consider the idea that the reason we need experienced members to come back and teach the course isn't for them, its for the new guys.