What to do with semi-uniformed ASM

[qwazse]

I think along the line that Jeff H does. If a scouter shows up in civi's and helps a boy map out a hike plan through a wilderness recreation area, or if a scouter is conversant in religious issues that a boy may have, then I feel that we've applied the methods to the satisfaction of our CO. We aren't making either put on class-A's before having that discussion! Later on our conversation with those scouters will involve the quality of the coffee, the beauty of the campfire, or their opinions on how the boys are coming along. As uniform issues arise among the scouts, we ask the SPL to address them as he sees fits.

 

There is a trade-off in that a boy might think he can show up to a meeting without a class-a even though he had plenty of time to prepare for the meeting. We did have the SPL and ASPL show up in Bermuda shorts once. The SM asked them not to do that in the future (something to the tune of "You have a Venturing crew if you want to make up your own uni!") Were the boys lax because every adult didn't set the tone in modelling proper uniforming? Maybe. And maybe they were just having fun and would have pulled that stunt regardless of how sharp we made the adults.

 

Those and many other boys are now caring adults, so whatever seeming misuse we've made of the Uniforming Method, we haven't seen it hurt our program or undermine the Aims. And most weeks, we remind the boys that the uniform includes khaki pants or shorts, they wear them, and when they do in large numbers the SPL will commend the boys for it. We haven't seen Bermuda shorts for quite a few years!

[Beavah]

Yah, camilam, I'm not tryin' to be argumentative or simply to call out individual lines in your response, eh? I'm just tryin' to offer some gentle feedback and reflection.

 

When yeh say things like "This is about being Adult led", to my mind it begs the question of what yeh think the Youth LEADERSHIP Method of scouting is all about? It suggests that rather than being a full Youth Leadership Method troop, you are a T-shirts or at least a blue-jeans and shirts troop when it comes to Youth Leadership.

 

I also get that when you say "The Scouters hold the Scouts accountable for it". In a "full Youth Leadership" troop, the scouts would hold each other accountable for it.

 

I'd have similar comments on how yeh seem to view Adult Relationships method. Yeh seem to be the blue jeans and T-shirts version of that as well.

 

Now there's nothing wrong with that, eh? Just like I don't let myself get too upset about blue jeans and shirts for Uniform Method, I try not to get too down on partial implementation of Youth Leadership Method.

 

Every chartered organization has to decide on its goals for the youth in its programs, and the unit must reflect the goals of the CO in how it uses Scouting's Methods. So if your CO really sees comportment and dress as fundamental goal that's more important than youth leadership and such, then what you're doing is right and proper, and an excellent way to use the BSA materials. Certainly you seem comfortable with it, and yeh suggest that at least the adults in your unit are good with it.

 

So I'd support yeh on that, and even say "good job." As a scouting commish comin' at it from the BSA side, though, I might gently encourage yeh to think more deeply about how to use some of the other methods better, if that fit in with your CO's goals. Yeh can use uniform method really well without compromising on youth leadership or other methods if yeh approach it a bit differently.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BadenP]

 

I always get a kick out of these uniforming debates. Since, as the post by SP points out, a uniform is not a requirement to be in scouts, why do so many leaders get their knickers in a twist over whether a boy or an adult is in full uniform or not? Are we adults here to mentor and teach leadership and scoutcraft to the youth or create a unit of sartorial correct drones ready for a parade?

 

All of you "uniform police" type leaders really need to ask yourselves what are the real motivation and reasons you are a scout leader, is it to provide a fun and exciting program for your unit or create or recreate a troop in your own personal image/experience of what scouting is supposed to be?

[KC9DDI]

Baden - That's a slippery slope you're on.

 

What are the requirements for being a Boy Scout? It's a pretty short list, right? An age requirement, a gender requirement, affiliating with a troop, etc. Not much there that correlates with the quality of the troop's program, is there?

 

No, a uniform isn't required to be a Scout. Neither is advancement, camping, hiking, cooking, etc. But we probably wouldn't consider a troop that doesn't promote a quality advancement program, or a quality outdoors program to be a very good troop, would we? Even though they're technically not required to do any of those thing.

 

Same idea with uniforming. It's not required, but it is an indicator of a quality program. And troops can and should set some reasonable standards and expectations for uniforming, just like they should set standards and expectations for their outdoor program, or their leadership positions.

 

All of you "uniform police" type leaders really need to ask yourselves what are the real motivation and reasons you are a scout leader, is it to provide a fun and exciting program for your unit or create or recreate a troop in your own personal image/experience of what scouting is supposed to be?

 

An excellent example of a false dichotomy. Many of the "uniform police" type leaders believe that promoting the uniform method does promote leadership and character development.

 

I've worked with troops who managed to run fun and exciting programs, while at the same time setting high standards for uniforming. And I've worked with other troops that were more lax on uniforming, while still offering a quality program. And still other troops are weak on uniforming, and weak on program.

 

As Beavah points out, there is a need to balance the several different Scouting methods. Just like troops can decide the extent to which they want to implement the patrol method, they can also decide the extent to which they want to implement the uniform method. And we shouldn't be knocking troops who have set a high standard for uniforming, and follow through on that standard. Just like we shouldn't be knocking troops who set a high standard for patrol autonomy, and follow through on that standard.

[BadenP]

KC9

 

Slippery slope indeed, those are the facts. Tell me, if a boy came to your troop from a poor family, there was no access to goodwill type stores in your area to be able to afford any type of uniform you would turn him away because he was not able to be in full uniform? Sounds rather Draconian to me. Look, any boy can enjoy and participate fully in any well run program whether he is in a full uniform, an old used uniform shirt, or a necker and cap. If you equate a quality program to everyone in full uniform then I think you need to review your own interpretation and motivation of what makes a quality leader and what TRULY is a quality program.

 

As I have posted before years ago I was an ASM for one of the poorest troops in inner city Los Angeles, none of the welfare families could afford $5 let alone a uniform. You know what, we scraped an assortment of all kinds of used uniform shirts from thrift shops at the leaders expense and those boys were proud of those shirts and being a boy scout. They excelled at scoutcraft skills and everyone of them made it to at least first class, over 70% made Eagle, at district camporees they always took a 1st Place or 2nd Place ribbon at every event, they loved going camping, sleeping in the open since we only had a few tents. Now I would put any of those scouts up against any one of your fully uniformed scouts any day of the week. Who had a quality program was and is NEVER determined by a full uniform. Any scout leader who says otherwise I seriously question their motivation for being in scouting.

 

No KC9 those who are on a slippery slope are those scout leaders who run their troops like despots and dictators instead of trying to really change a boys life for the better.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[KC9DDI]

Tell me, if a boy came to your troop from a poor family, [...snip...] you would turn him away because he was not able to be in full uniform?

 

Of course not, why would you think I would?

 

Who had a quality program was and is NEVER determined by a full uniform.

 

Agreed. In fact, I think I said as much in my last post...

 

those who are on a slippery slope are those scout leaders who run their troops like despots and dictators

 

I'm not sure I'm seeing any references to "despots and dictators" here, aside from your straw-man arguments. Is a troop that has a high standard for patrol autonomy and strong patrol programs being run by despots and dictators? How about a troop that strives to plan rigorous and challenging outdoor programs, rather than car camping? Is that SM a despot or dictator?

 

Uniforming is a method, just like the Outdoor Program or the Patrol Method. Responsible units should be setting reasonable goals and standards for adhering to those methods. Those standards may be influenced by economics, resources, experience and skill level, and even the whims and personalities of the youth and adult leadership in the troop. There's bound to be variation between different troops. But there's no need to be bashing one troop or another if they have decided to set a high standard for themselves.

[BadenP]

KC9

 

I am not bashing any troops, after all it is not the boys who are fault on this issue, it is the adult leaders who want to create their own perfectly matched para military unit that I have the issue with. Having boys in full uniforms is nice but is not always possible or practical in poor areas and a high percentage of unemployed parents as my previous post illustrated.

 

My point is that it is not uniform that determines the quality of ANY troop program, how far the boy will advance, or the skills they will take with them after the days in scouting are over. So put your false accusations aside and concentrate more on what kind of boy scout you are producing in your troop rather than what they are wearing.

[SeattlePioneer]

I see we are off and running giving this regrettable topic yet another lease on life.

 

 

In my opinion, the reason it gets new leases on life is that the advocates of strict uniforming want to be acknowledged as having the "right" solution to the issue, not for their own unit, but for all units.

 

Frankly, if some units want to have strict uniforming standards they are welcome to them, just as eagle mills are welcome to provide a very heavy emphasis on efficient advancement programs.

 

In my opinion, better balanced units wont place a heavy emphasis on uniforms. But that's what the uniform advocates wont accept. That want every unit to copy their emphasis on uniforms and if they don't feel condemned as being a sloppy, "bad" unit.

 

That's the divide I see that animates this discussion and keeps it going.

 

As I've said before, personally I support uniforming and wear a full uniform myself. I provide a neckerchief and slide to new Cub Scouts the day they join so that boys will be "in uniform" immediately as a way of encouraging uniforming. This year Scout Accounts from popcorn sales can be used to buy uniforms. Those are the methods we use to encourage uniforming, not more direct coercive method like complaining about someone not wearing a uniform.

 

In my opinion, that is supporting uniforming as a method. Coercing people by complaining about their not wearing a uniform is not required.

 

Spit and polish units are welcome to their standards as far as I'm concerned, and I'm entitled to my standards and methods for my unit.

 

Can we agree on that? Or must I adhere to the coercive methods used by spit 'n polish units to be a good unit leader?

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>why do so many leaders get their knickers in a twist over whether a boy or an adult is in full uniform or not?

[qwazse]

Confession: In my troop, I am the uniform police. If you've got a uniform, I'll make sure you've got the patches right and ask your boy where his khaki pants are. If there's a problem, I'll help you fix it. If PLC ten years ago defined the troop uniform as no-necker, I help carry that forward in time until a PLC wants to reconsider that decision.

 

Why? Because on one level boys want to look sharp. They also like tradition. Some also like when a fellow scout's sister comes up and asks how they got a particular patch!

 

In as much as it's fun, I'll support it.

[KC9DDI]

Yeah, it's just a method - one of many tools that we use to deliver the Scouting program. To ignore the Uniform method would be akin to ignoring the Outdoor Method.

 

Different troops have different goals and standards for their implementation of each of Scouting's methods. There's a range of possibilities that might be considered "normal" for each method. For example, the "norm" for a healthy outdoor program is probably 10 or so camping trips per year, maybe supplemented with some one-day events here and there. Some troops might camp a bit more, some a bit less, but will still offer a quality outdoor program. But I think we can all agree that a troop that only does 2 car camping trips per year probably could improve in its use of the outdoor method. Likewise, a troop that schedules multiple camping trips per month, every month, is probably going a bit overboard.

 

Same idea with advancement. There's Eagle Mill troops, and then there's troops that make Scouts jump through all kinds of unnecessary hoops to advance. But in between those two extremes there's a whole range of acceptable uses of the advancement method - and some will still be more "strict" than others.

 

So what's so special about uniforming?

 

In my opinion, better balanced units wont place a heavy emphasis on uniforms. But that's what the uniform advocates wont accept. That want every unit to copy their emphasis on uniforms and if they don't feel condemned as being a sloppy, "bad" unit.

 

I guess I'm a uniform advocate - but I'm advocating using the uniform appropriately as a tool to deliver the Scouting program. I don't want anyone to "copy" my "emphasis" - but I would expect my unit to follow through on whatever standard they set for themselves with regard to uniforming - just like I would expect them to follow through on their plans for troop meetings or camp outs.

 

Coercing people by complaining about their not wearing a uniform is not required.

 

Right, no argument there.

 

But who exactly is being coercive, dictatorial, despot-ish, etc etc? I certainly haven't seen that sentiment in this thread....

 

[camilam42]

I guess I'm a uniform advocate - but I'm advocating using the uniform appropriately as a tool to deliver the Scouting program. I don't want anyone to "copy" my "emphasis" - but I would expect my unit to follow through on whatever standard they set for themselves with regard to uniforming - just like I would expect them to follow through on their plans for troop meetings or camp outs.

 

And isn't that the point of the uniform method? Since it is a method, we employ it in my troop. Since we employ it in my troop, we support it to the fullest extent possible. I have made that abundantly clear.

 

There are those though, who think that because we hold the Scouts to a standard of uniform dress that we are ogres. That couldn't be further from the case. I think that I've tried to make that clear too. We call them on it, but it is because it is a method which we employ.

 

To the points of others here, if a Scout is not fulfilling his duty as SPL, do adults just let him flounder and get through it? I hope not. The same holds true for uniforming standards. If the Scouts are struggling with the uniform, do we just let them flounder and get through it? I hope not.

 

The Patrol method is rarely questioned. But the uniform method is demonized as creating a para military atmosphere. No more so than any other method. There are patrols in the military. There are platoons, and companies, and divisions and armies. Yet that is rarely demonized, but it's perfectly ok to call the uniform method out.

 

The problem, in my eyes isn't with the uniform nazi's as they are called here, sometimes. The problem is that there are those who are so mired in anti-establishment that any the establishment is too strict. So, it's better to establish a non-established way of being as opposed to accepting and embracing the methods which are available.

 

Am I going to run up to a troop who doesn't employ the uniform method and call them out? No, of course not. But I am going to call my Scouts out when they don't employ that method; precisely because they passed that method as being a standard. Where is the consistency in that, if I didn't?

 

And finally, if the Scouts are held accountable, then the Scouters are too. They are to be the adult influence, they are to buy into the methods of the troop as much as the troop. If they don't, why are they in that troop? That creates discontinuity and as a leader, I have to call that out.

[Beavah]

But I am going to call my Scouts out when they don't employ that method; precisely because they passed that method as being a standard.

 

Yah, hmmmm...

 

Not to be beatin' a dead horse, camilam, but Youth Leadership is a method, eh? And as a method, don't yeh feel that it also should be supported "to the fullest extent possible" in your troop?

 

I might humbly suggest that full use of the Youth Leadership method would have the youth leaders who set the standard being responsible for helping their fellow scouts to live up to it, rather than having adults do it. I might gently encourage yeh to also consider whether "calling Scouts out" is consistent with the Ideals method where we pledge ourselves to be helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind. As a commish, I might try to model a bit how Adult Relationships method can be used to help lads engage with ideas and thinkin' about things so that they make good choices about uniforming themselves, rather than acting as an adult authority to enforce uniforming standards.

 

We build character in lads by helpin' 'em engage with issues and make good choices on their own, not by enforcing compliance or an external "look."

 

I think that's the gentle or not-so-gentle advice some here are offering. By and large, the folks who run the spit-and-polished full-uniform troops are the folks who do the poorest job with some of the other Methods of Scouting. It's similar to those who overemphasize Advancement, eh? They typically lose sight of patrol method and youth leadership and such, and in the end they miss the whole point of Advancement to boot. The same thing happens to those who overemphasize Uniforming.

 

Uniforming is not about the uniform, the way advancement is not about the badge. They're both about the kid.

 

Beavah

 

[camilam42]

@ Beavah;

 

I might humbly suggest that full use of the Youth Leadership method would have the youth leaders who set the standard being responsible for helping their fellow scouts to live up to it, rather than having adults do it.

 

Trust me, they do; but they also look to the adult leaders to back them up. So we do.

 

I might gently encourage yeh to also consider whether "calling Scouts out" is consistent with the Ideals method where we pledge ourselves to be helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind.

 

You must assume that I am standing there with a yard stick at the ready to beat those Scouts senseless. I don't. There is merit in calling Scouts out consistently in a helpful, courteous, kind and friendly way. The merit is that they see that fraternal and leader led correction can be consistent with Scouting principles. Don't assume that because we call our Scouts out on their uniforms that we are unfriendly, rude, mean and hurtful to the Scouts. That really is selling short, but by how you say that, that is exactly what is to be intimated from your positioning. And it couldn't be further from the truth. But, I suspect that no matter how many times I say it, you just won't believe it, because it doesn't fit into your model of Scouting.

 

As a commish, I might try to model a bit how Adult Relationships method can be used to help lads engage with ideas and thinkin' about things so that they make good choices about uniforming themselves, rather than acting as an adult authority to enforce uniforming standards.

 

You really have not read anything that I've said with any objectivity. You've simply read it in the scope that I am being injurious to the morale of the Scouts. I'm sorry that your skimming of my responses has led you to that conclusion. It isn't the case.

 

A little advice for the "commish..." Be open to the uniforming method a little more. There is merit in it and the standard it sets can be a positive influence on the Scouts.

 

We build character in lads by helpin' 'em engage with issues and make good choices on their own, not by enforcing compliance or an external "look."

 

That is true on one level. But by asking them to wear the Scout uniform, it can help them to make the right choice when faced with a decision the PLC has amended to the bylaws of the charter. In that instance the bad choice is to be out of uniform. THAT is the point. Again, there is merit in the uniforming method.

 

I think that's the gentle or not-so-gentle advice some here are offering. By and large, the folks who run the spit-and-polished full-uniform troops are the folks who do the poorest job with some of the other Methods of Scouting. It's similar to those who overemphasize Advancement, eh? They typically lose sight of patrol method and youth leadership and such, and in the end they miss the whole point of Advancement to boot. The same thing happens to those who overemphasize Uniforming.

 

Says you. But I don't agree and neither does my troop. Who, by the way, wrote this into the by laws long before I was a Scouter. The fact that they keep ratifying it when it comes up for a vote says something, doesn't it? I would think so. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean that there isn't merit in doing it. It just means that you don't like it. And that is your opinion. Thank you for it. I disagree and thus far there has been nothing presented to change my opinion.

 

Uniforming is not about the uniform [...] They're both about the kid.

 

But when the Scouts want the uniform, then it is partially about the uniform. They find value in it and who are you to deny them that? It is up to me, as a Scouter in my troop, to help them instill that value. And that is about the Scout (or kid, if you prefer).

 

Beavah, THAT is being helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind, despite your misgivings about the method on any level.

[BadenP]

KC9

 

Read Beavah's last post, it says many of the same things that I have been saying.

Scouting is and always has been first and foremost about the boys and not about uniforms and badges, which are merely a means to an end. Scouting is all about how we develop the youth to become productive and effective leaders and citizens.

 

As far as despots and dictators are concerned I was referring to three troops in my area who have massive dropout rates each year because the adult and youth leaders run the troop like a military boot camp. In spite of numerous complaints from parents and potential lawsuits the council continues to charter these mini troops (less than 10 boys) each year. Pro scouting in our council has become a joke, missing or unaccounted for funds, total lack of interest in the units, except during FOS campaigns, little to no support for trainings, etc, etc.

 

Barry- you and I often disagree on methods yet I feel you are a good scouter who puts your boys first. The methods of scouting are guidelines for scout units to follow and adapt to each units unique situation, they are not do or die mandates. IMO, a troop who is dirt poor and has their boys in even partial uniforms, due to poverty, etc., IS following the uniform method to the best of their ability in spite of what the uniform police might think.

 

To sum up scouting is first and foremost ALWAYS about the youth, uniforms and badges are merely the window dressing which will always be secondary in the development of every young persons full potential.