uniforms in public

[slontwovvy]

Our troop has little policy on this. We wear uniforms to church, in meetings (though most do not), at summer camp, and on long trips. Other than that, we have an almost-anything-goes policy when actually camping, figuring that the boys need to be in comfortable clothes in order to be able to concentrate on much else.

[jmcquillan]

The descriptors "new member", "junior member", "member", and "senior member" are designations put forth by the unseen webwizards who guard and moderate this site. Those forces are unknown. They're unseen. They're hiding in the dark places behind the banners and in the closets. They venture forth rarely, and even then, only in disguise. You'll never see them. You'll not know they're next to you. They'll come upon you when your unaware. They'll change your tag without your permission or knowledge. They are...the watchers...

 

On a lighter note...I agree with Rooster7. ALthough the clear majority of participants in Scouting in the US may be Christian, we welcome all. Certainly we've had a very healthy participation of other faiths in our troop over the years. And that has always presented both a challenge and opportunity for the Christian Scouts among our ranks, and our own selves, too, to learn more about the diversity of religion in this world. And that's good...

 

On the uniform question, I agree with others who indicate that the Class A uniform is something we've never required or even promoted as appropriate wear on the trail. They're a little expensive, and then frail, for the rigors of the trail. Add to the wear and tear the necessary removal and replacing of badges on new uniforms when the old wear out prematurely, and you've got the perfect ingredients for parental complaints. The uniforms are fine for troop meetings and ceremonial wear. But I've long thought that if the BSA desired a uniform in the woods, then they'd be well served by working with a real outdoor clothing manufacturer, like North Face, LLBean, et cetera, et cetera,...to design and provide rugged outdoor clothing of the modern fabrics and elements that are to be found in your local REI, EMS, Cabelas, et cetera. The technology is out there for real rugged clothing. And I don't think an outdoor uniform of that type would have to include all the badges and ranks as seen on the regular uniform. The outdoor clothing could be simply that which identifies the group as a unit, with some markings or a couple of patches. The kids might even like the idea that the colors weren't the regular Scout uniform colors. They could be similar to colors on the open market today. But they'd all be the same. Others on the trail and in the woods would easily identify the group as a team or unit or troop. The regular uniforms could be left for the indoor stuff, where they'll survive a little longer.

[OldGreyEagle]

I would not be in favor of changing the traditional class uniform at all.

 

That being said, I think JMQ may have an excllent suggestion. The traditional Class A becomes the "dress" uniform and then a real "outdoors" uniform could be developed in the BDU, Tech style.

 

Will there be complaints becuase of two uniforms? Perhaps. but kids have to wear something while camping and its not going to be the class A all the time. Something better suited to the rigors of the trail while producing an "uniform" appearance may be the ticket

[sctmom]

I like the ideas of an outdoor type uniform.

 

As far as cost, many kids play sports..how much do the parents pay for those uniforms and the membership fees each season?

 

Also, if you show up without your uniform or the correct color uniform you don't get to play ball. Same should be for scouting, if you don't wear what the Pack or Troop says you should, then you don't play.

 

Wow, I'm sounding more like my father every day!

 

From a Cub Scout point of view, BSA has decided one way to keep Webelos interested in scouting is to MAKE them wear the brown uniform starting in the 4th grade. The smallest off the rack Boy Scout pants come in a size 8. Fine, most of you say. My son is in the 5th grade and some size 8's don't fit him. He can walk right out of most of them while they are buttoned and zipped. He's still squeezing into size 7's because he thinks 8 slims are too loose. (yes, he owns a belt, but doesn't want to cinch up his waist line)

 

Seems weird that BSA doesn't want Webelos camping too much because "they should save that until Boy Scouts" but turn around and say dress them like the older guys.

 

If BSA said here is a pair of durable pants, made for all shapes and sizes of boys, and functional, I would pay $40 for them. That is if it is something he would wear without fear of getting it dirty and he liked them. Even if I had to pay $40 every year because he outgrew them (in my dreams!...hehehe). Some Cub Scout packs that are associated with private schools use the blue school uniform pants as the Scout uniform pants.

 

BSA has also decided that Cub Scouts need a brand new $12 hat EVERY YEAR. This is absurd. Should be one hat for Cubs, maybe one for Webelos and one for Boy Scouts.

 

[KoreaScouter]

I pasted this q/a list in from another string about camouflage that everyone apparently got tired of following. My questions (largely rhetorical) are not about camo in particular but uniforms in general...

 

Q. If the BSA is a uniformed organization, and the handbook, the catalog, et. al., all depict Scouts in complete BSA uniforms, how could this discussion even be taking place?

 

A. Although the complete uniform is depicted in Scouting literature, there is no requirement, either joining or rank advancement, that calls for a Scout to possess or wear any part of the uniform. Therefore, it's considered "optional" by many Scouts and Scouters.

 

Q. Why is it that BSA depicts complete uniforms in its literature, but apparently doesn't actually require members to wear a complete uniform?

 

A. One possibility: expense, considering that Scout families of modest means may not be able to afford them, and BSA does not want to exclude Scouts from the program because of the cost of the uniform. Another possibility: a perceived "dork" factor by kids who aren't Scouts, and a reluctance by potential Scouts to endure the peer "attention" if forced to wear what's perceived as a "dorky" uniform.

 

Q. Expense? Is the uniform that expensive?

 

A. Obviously, yes, the official BSA uniform is expensive, especially when compared with comparable commercial youth and adult activewear clothing. In the latest catalog, the youth short sleeve shirt is $23.05, the trousers $36.30. Adult uniforms are even more expensive. An acknowledgement of the expense is that many troops operate uniform exchanges, buy uniforms for volunteers with troop funds, or are officially "waist-up" and/or don't require leaders to have uniforms. Look at the trade in uniform items, some brand new, at online auction sites such as Ebay and you'll see what people consider the fair market value for these items vs. the catalog cost. Also, many families are reluctant to pay that much money for clothing, especially trousers, that their sons will rapidly outgrow before it wears out.

 

Q. What can be done about this expense?

 

A. Some of the "band-aid" measures above help. However, if BSA wants to end the debate and get all Scouts and Scouters uniformed, here's a couple possibilities. Stop considering new uniform sales as a profit center. Price new clothing items so they're more affordable, and a better value than wearing jeans or camouflage pants -- lower prices, get more customers; basic retail marketing theory. Also, to account for growing boys, adopt a "trade-in" policy at district/council Scout Stores/Trading Posts that would allow families to get a trade-in allowance for serviceable shirts/trousers if buying new like items in larger sizes. The district/council Scout Store could then offer these used items for sale and recover the trade-in allowance. Everybody wins; expenses for families are down, more traffic in the stores, and the trade-in policy psychologically "locks in" the families to purchase BSA official items.

 

Q. What about the "dorky" perception?

 

A. The BSA uniform hasn't changed much since 1910. Sure, materials are different, new accessories, patches and insignia are all different, but if you look at a picture of a fully uniformed Scout in 1914 and one today, you know immediately that they're both Scouts. There's nothing wrong with that. I like the constancy, the tradition, the link with the past, knowing my son is wearing the same stuff (basically) I wore as a Scout. And, I don't think we should get rid of it. However, for options, look at what the Girl Scouts are doing to maintain relevance and attract/"keep from losing" their membership. They've revamped many of their uniforms to bring them more up to date and make their members more likely to wear them. BSA could retain the traditional Class A uniform, and explore/authorize other "outfitter" or "extreme activity" options.

 

Q. Hey, wait a second. Are you saying the BSA Class A uniform is becoming irrelevant or impractical for everyday wear?

 

A. Answer that yourselves. Do all your registered leaders possess/wear the uniform to troop functions? Do all your registered Scouts possess/wear the uniform (even the shirt, properly configured) to troop meetings? How about on outings? How about on campouts, camporees, summer camp? If not, why not. Too expensive, not suitable for hiking, tough to clean at summer camp. In other words, all the reasons we already know. In short, the Class A uniform has become the "dress uniform" for ceremonies, BORs, etc. For outings, where Scouting is supposed to take place, we mostly wear something else.

 

Q. So what's your bottom line here?

 

A. If BSA wants to end the debate (we can't do it ourselves), they can:

 

- Require the uniform as a joining requirement or rank advancement at some point

 

- Make uniform clothing items more affordable through pricing and trade-in allowances

 

- Acknowledge that troops are "doing their own thing" when outdoors, and offer activity uniform options that are affordable, look good, make sense, and that Scouts will actually wear. This is better than the "vigilante" approach troops take now because there's a vacuum at National.

 

Again, let me say that I like the uniform very much, I get a tear in my eye when I see my son in it, and do not want to get rid of it. I'm an old-fashioned, tradiitonal kind of guy. But, I'm also tired of seeing summer camp look a "contra" convention because nobody wants to wear Class A's in the dirt and there's no viable alternative (activity polo's and t-shirts don't cut the mustard either).

 

This shouldn't be too difficult to fix -- there's a lot of smart people in Irving, Texas (Dallas Cowboys headquarters excepted).

 

C'mon, whaddya say?

 

[sctmom]

Looking at my (yes, MY) Boy Scout handbook last night, I found that it says to wear the complete uniform for indoor events, and special outdoor events like ceremonies. For most activities, wear a troop or camp t-shirt and the uniform pants.

 

So, if we just get BSA to fix those pants to be comfortable, in a variety of sizes, good useful pockets, more suitable material and zip-off legs (oh, I love those things, they are so useful), then it would be solved. Correct?

Because then your son would be wearing his $45 pants at least once a week, maybe more if he likes the way they fit and look.

 

So, what do we need to do? Start a letter writing campaign to National?

 

[Bob White]

You raise alot of intersesting points, however some of the responses have also caught my attention. Something that I feel would answer many of the topics that have been raised in this thread is Partricipation in New Leader Essentials and Scoutmasterand Assistant Scoutmaster Leader Specific Training.

 

One thing that you will learn at training is that there is no such thing as Class A and Class B uniforms. In the Boy Scout Program there are 2 uniforms. The dress uniform and the activity uniform. The dress uniform consists of the official tan shirt, scout belt, scout pants or shorts and scout socks. The activity uniform substitutes the official red golf shirt with the Scout emblem on it for the tan shirt, and includes the scout belt, scout pants or shorts and scout socks. anything else is not being in uniform.

 

Not that not being in uniform is always a bad thing. There are times when being in uniform is inappropriate.

 

However in the situation you discuss, hiking, the activity uniform is very applicable and is used by many scouts.

 

What about Troop Shirts, and other scout t-shirts? They are fine depending on the circumstance, but let's stop refering to them as class B's. they are simply out of uniform.

 

The program goals that the uniform Method is used to accomplish cannot be met by being out of uniform or only wearing the shirt.

 

The program allows for both uniformed and non-uniform activities. The 2 official uniforms work for most but not all situations. Be in Uniform when you can and when it's appropriate, and wear other appropriate clothing when not in uniform.

 

But let's remeber that a uniform goes from shoulder to shoes and is not just about dressing alike.

 

Best wishes for successful scouting.

[KoreaScouter]

Bob White:

 

No disrespect intended, but you have no idea what level of training any of us have -- there's members here whose ink isn't dry on their leader app and others with Wood Badge beads, an Eagle knot, and an OA flap, and everything in between...not that one needs to be an MIT graduate to decipher BSA literature anyway. There's actually ONE official uniform, not two, according to the SM Handbook. Interestingly, the same SM Handbook also says the one official uniform is good for all occasions...which of course, it's not, and that's why there's so much discussion on these threads. The terms Class A & Class B are not official terms, but their very mention in BSA literature and widespread standardized use by Scouts and Scouters everywhere abbreviates the uniform discussions.

 

While I agree with most of your points, including the argument for full uniforming, I think your reply sidesteps some of the questions. In other words, no matter how many official uniforms there are, no matter what they're called, even if there's only one, why isn't every Scout and Scouter wearing it?

 

I'm fully aware, as are all Scouters, that The Uniform is one of the eight methods. What about the other seven: Ideals, Patrol Method, Outdoors, Advancement, Personal Growth, Adult Association, and Leadership Development? Collectively, we're unbending on the use of these methods...except the uniform one? Why is that? Why isn't a complete uniform a joining requirement? We'd never give a Scout a pass on the Ideals, or let them completely eschew campouts in favor of lock-ins, etc. But, we normally and routinely let Scouts wear whatever they want as a "uniform". Doesn't make sense in context with the other methods, and again I ask why we do this?

 

There are a tremendous number of legitimate questions about national uniform policy, uniform durability/fit/cost, and uniform suitability for the various activities inherent in Scouting. If all was right with this we wouldn't be discussing it.

 

Others have said it: this isn't an issue we Scouters can fix in an online discussion group...

[Bob White]

I agree Korea Scouter that this is a wide topic and not solvable in this format. i was just trying to address the class A class B topic. I also mean no disrespect but as pointed out in the new Scoutmaster Leader Specific Training there are indeed two uniforms (as described in the catalog). They include 2 shirts, the uniform shirt and the activity shirt (an optional uniform shirt)

the terms Class A,and Class B do not appear in any BSA training material or resource material.

[KoreaScouter]

The terms Class A and Class B are in Scouting literature, but not as an endorsement; it's to say they don't exist, which is right in line with what you're saying. But, I think that's organizationally delusional, since the terms do in fact exist among Scouts and Scouters everywhere. Just look at a typical Troop's by-laws in their web site; references to Class A through Class D uniforms.

 

Fundamentally, we're right back where we started. I think we're all in agreement that the uniform as a method of Scouting is a good thing, and full uniforming is a good thing. Until BSA requires full uniforming as a joining requirement, as they do knowing the Scout Oath & Law (as part of the ideals, also one of the 8 methods), the discussion and teeth-gnashing will not go away.

 

Don't you see it as unusual that the uniform and what it stands for, as one of the 8 methods to achieve the 3 aims, is not an actual requirement, at joining or any other time?

 

Are you surprised that without this requirement, many troops "do their own thing" regarding uniforming?

 

Do you agree that there are legitmate cost, durability, and fit issues that, combined with no actual requirement to wear a complete uniform, result in many families not fully uniforming their Scouts?

 

Is it a chocolate mess? Sure, and it really hits home when you go to summer camp and see what many of the Scouts are wearing. If, collectively, we're (read: BSA) not interested in requiring a uniform and/or providing standard options for the various activity levels, we can't complain if our Scouts resemble a band of Contras when they're out and about.

 

[Bob White]

I understand where you are coming from on this topic but I think we see the cause of the problem differently. For instance, you say that the the reality is that Class A's nad B's exist because units have it in their By-laws. I see from the standpoint that Uniforms, Advancement and Youth Protection are the three areas of scouting strictly controlled by BSA Policies and units have no authority to set rules that are counter to those policies. If they followed the scouting program and explained the purpose and the facts of scouting uniforms more scouts and more adults would be in uniform. These illetimate "unit By-laws" are part of the problem.

 

I would hate to see uniforms made mandatory at joining. I know that must sound counter to my stance, but it really isn't.

 

I want the scout and the leader to wear a correct uniform because it the right thing to do, not because their membership required it. I would rather see a boy grow up with good character and no uniform then with a good uniform and no character. I want him (and adults in a full uniform to show pride in thier appearance, to show they are proud of the scouting family and the ideals we stand for, and because he has accomplished things in his young life and feels a sense of dignity for his work. Now of those things will happen if he has no choice. The growth comes from the realization that it is the right choice.

 

As far as the price... I don't buy the it (pardon the bad pun). If they were on the football team they would have no problem wearing ALL the uniform and the equipment to go with it. Can you image a boy hitting the field wearing different pants than the rest of the team. or not wearing the team socks because he didn't like the fashion statement. Try to convince me that those socks are utilitarian and not tradition.

 

There are lots of ways to afford a correct uniform. Few if any units don't use scout accounts as part of fundraisers. My Son has used Popcorn sales to pay his dues, buy his uniform and pay for activity fees for years. We make sure he buys on Shirt sleeve shirts and gets them a size too big so that there is room to grow and he can layer clothes under in cold weatther. we buy the pants long, with the elastic waist and hem them with a along cuff to the inside so that they can be let down as he grows. He wore one uniform through Cubs, Got his scout uniform in 2nd year Webelos and has worn it through his second year of Boy Scouts. That's one uniform every three years or under $30 a year. We are still the cheapest sport in town.

 

As far as the design... lets be honest the pants pockets were designed to look at and not use (it drives me nuts sometimes), but we are a huge club and change takes time. I'm am so proud of who we are, what we do, and how we do it, that if the price I have to pay is crummy pockets... well that's fine with me.

 

Let's face it good uniforming helps deliver a better program and positive reinforcement, adherence to National uniform policies, and informing youth and adults as to the purpose and benefits of the uniform method is what gets the job done.

 

We are our own worst enimies when we set the example by mixing non-uniform pieces with uniform pieces and continue telling the fairy tale Class A and B.

 

We just did the New Leader Essentials and Troop Committee Challenge Training with my son's troop. After which we presented the 14 members with their Trained strips. They quickly realized that we expected them to be uniformed and when the subject of what pieces were needed they questioned if uniform pants were required. When I asked "if your son was heading to a job interveiw in a suit jacket, tie, and gym shorts on..would the parent suggest they put on the matching pants instead? They laugh and wrote down pants on their shopping list. two members have already bought the full uniform.

 

 

[FScouter]

Frankly, I don't believe that improvements in the quality, durability, and cost of the uniform would make much difference at all. Troops will continue to "do their own thing" because they like to be different and do their own thing. Personally, I love my uniform.

[KoreaScouter]

Bob;

 

I think you and I are on the same page of the book here. But, to continue with the "book" analogy, I think you're turning to the page from one end of the book, and I from the other.

 

I think your point about good uniform/no character vs no uniform/good character is a false dilemma -- I don't think it has to be one or the other.

 

I don't think I agree with you that uniforms are strictly controlled by BSA policies. A strict BSA policy is what I'm suggesting, but we collectively seem too timid to enforce. There is no national policy regarding ownership and wear of the uniform, that's why we're discussing this. I'm all for a national uniform policy, expressed as a joining requirement. Right now, each Scout owning a uniform is NOT a policy, it's merely a suggestion.

 

Please correct me if I'm paraphrasing your argument incorrectly, but you seem to be asserting that if we correctly portray the importance of the uniform and set a good example, we'll get more uniformed Scouts and leaders, but if we don't, it's not a huge issue as long as they're otherwise dedicated to Scouting. I can't agree with your logic in the context of the 8 methods. For example, let's use the same argument as applied to adult involvement, or the ideals, two more of the eight methods. Can you imagine any Scouter saying "We'd like them to believe in the Oath and Law, and we'll continue to recite it and live it, but if they don't believe in them and are otherwise good Scouts, we'll settle for that." Or, "We think adult involvement is important, and we'll continue to try getting enough adult leaders, but if we don't have them, and the rest of the program's running okay, that's good enough." It would be unthinkable, and should be unthinkable. Yet, we on the whole do not require our Scouts to be uniformed to join. If the uniform is as much a method of Scouting as the Ideals, the patrol method, adult involvement, etc., why is the uniform not a hard, fast joining requirement, like being able to recite the Scout Oath/Law?

 

I understand the sports team analogy, and even use it myself, to put the uniform discussion in context. There are some important differences, though, in how these two things relate to each other. My son plays football, and the equipment and uniforms are sized to the boy, and much of it is provided by the team. Re-read your own post about how you stretch out the uniform dollar by buying oversize and using long hems for growing room. Rhetorically speaking, do you do this with any of his other clothing (and you're certainly not alone)? Why is this necessary, if a uniform that fits today is a good value?

 

One of my original points many posts ago was that National should have a policy requiring a full uniform; AND, it should be accompanied by another policy shift at National that stops using essential uniform items as a profit center (accessories and optional items no problem -- charge whatever you want). Yes, bring the prices down, and permit families to trade in serviceable uniforms at their District/Council Scout Store for larger sizes of the identical item as a boy grows. Added benefit: families who don't want new uniforms right off the bat can buy the used ones traded in; just like a car dealer!

 

If prices were more reasonable, and we could trade in outgrown items for new ones, and National required uniform wear, I maintain that we wouldn't have to go to some of the measures we do as parents and leaders to try to cajole our Scouts into uniforms, or stretch an extra six months out of an ill-fitting uniform.

 

Am I completely crazy here?

[KoreaScouter]

I forgot one more thing on what should be required and what shouldn't.

 

I saw a couple of interesting, seemingly unrelated items, in BSA fact sheets off the National web page. We registered our 100,000,000th Scout in 2000, and the Boy Scout Handbook has printed 40,000,000 copies since 1911. Wait a second. What this means is that 60,000,000 Scouts have done Scouting (for however long or short a period of time) without a Handbook. How could such a thing be possible, especially with recent editions that require documenting advancement requirements in the book itself?

 

Should a handbook be required? It obviously isn't now. And, unlike the uniforms, I don't think the handbook is overpriced. On the contrary, I think the handbook is the best deal going for all things outdoors related...and every Scout should own one.

[sctmom]

About the sports analogy and uniforms ... I just signed my son up for spring baseball (11/12 year old league) and he's about to crossover from Cubs to Boy Scouts.

 

Baseball -- $85 registration, plus $20 instead of selling $40 worth of candy (mandatory), new pants, new socks, new shoes (probably some type of cleats that can't be worn anywhere else), "personal" guy gear. He has a glove I bought a few years ago that he can still use. They will furnish the shirt and hat. During the pre-season and post-season tournament I will have to pay $2.00 for every game I go watch. Plus there may be more for snacks and trophies.

 

Boy Scouts -- he can still wear his shirt from Webelos at least one more year ($30 with all the stuff), will need pants ($40), belt ($7.00), troop t-shirt, handbook ($10), hat, socks, merit badge sash, new shoulder loops, troop number. The socks and hat may be optional. The troop or pack will probably pay for his handbook. He has a sleeping bag I bought last year that will last him for a long time if cared for. He can wear the same time shoes he wears to school (dark colored sneakers).

 

The scout stuff will be worn about once a week for at least one year (he grows slowly). The baseball stuff will be worn a couple of times a week for 2 months.

We checked into football one time and it was very expensive, you had to purchase your own practice pants and jerseys, along with game pants and socks and shoes. They furnished the pads and helmet.

 

No one blinks around here about the price of the ball uniforms. I've seen people spend more on their 5 year old's baseball equipment than you would on a Boy Scout complete uniform. Then the whole family buys t-shirts that match the ball teams. Guess it's a matter of priority.

 

I know there are some neighborhoods and families where price would be a big issue.

Isn't there someone on here that is starting a troop in a high risk area? How are you handling the uniform issue? Is that Brad Andrews?