Concerns with coed rules, leadership, liability

[Col. Flagg]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This was exactly the opposite of what I have heard at our meetings.  Most have voiced support of fully coed and rejected this proposal as there were not enough volunteers to implement.

It was pretty clearly noted here (in the forum and in the media) that the implementation was to be "separate but equal" with regard to Boy Scouts and the implementation of coed. If this message is being changed now it may be that BSA has heard what many of us were saying originally, that the building a totally separate coed program put too much of a strain on already strained unit resources. I wonder how long it will be before they realize they are cannibalizing Venturing crews too?

However, it is 180 degrees from what they were trumpeting this summer in order to sell this to the opposing rank and file.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Col. Flagg

[gblotter]

2 hours ago, Pselb said:

And this is the trend you will see in the future.  That is why the girls will take over leadership with their focused attention to detail and the boys will let them because it's easier to follow and enjoy the fun of no responsibility.  This will extend well into the high school years.  Unless it is segregated, such as sport activities, the girls seem to do better at running the other school clubs and activities.  I'm sure with the recent media focus, this will occur in Boy Scouts as well.

All true, but it extends further. As the girls begin to occupy major troop leadership positions and the boys step back, Scouting will become known as primarily a girl organization. Then the boys flee altogether in favor of gender-segregated sports teams and others masculine pursuits. This is the path that Scouts Canada has followed. After going co-ed in 1998, Scouts Canada encountered dramatic membership declines, and it is now primarily a girl movement. Summer camp facilities are for sale across Canada. Welcome to the future.

[Gwaihir]

1 minute ago, gblotter said:

All true, but it extends further. As the girls begin to occupy major troop leadership positions and the boys step back, Scouting will become known as primarily a girl organization. Then the boys flee altogether in favor of gender-segregated sports teams and others masculine pursuits. This is the path that Scouts Canada has followed. After going co-ed in 1998, Scouts Canada encountered dramatic membership declines, and it is now primarily a girl movement. Summer camp facilities are for sale across Canada. Welcome to the future.

So the boys who (and I know I keep saying this) statistically face higher suicide rates, higher drug abuse rates, higher high school drop out rates, higher illiteracy rates, lower college success rates... will be left behind once again.  

 

[Eagle1993]

14 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

It was pretty clearly noted here (in the forum and in the media) that the implementation was to be "separate but equal" with regard to Boy Scouts and the implementation of coed. If this message is being changed now it may be that BSA has heard what many of us were saying originally, that the building a totally separate coed program put too much of a strain on already strained unit resources. I wonder how long it will be before they realize they are cannibalizing Venturing crews too?

However, it is 180 degrees from what they were trumpeting this summer in order to sell this to the opposing rank and file.

I agree with the above. I may have read the other comment incorrectly but I did not see volunteers state that they wanted the separate but equal program.  At all of my District and “family scouting” meetings there were questions on where the volunteers would come from given the proposal.  There were questions from COs in how this would logistically work.  The opinions were either fully implement coed or stay away.  I didn’t see much (or any) support of separate Troops. It appears that national is now realizing this.

[Col. Flagg]

27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I agree with the above. I may have read the other comment incorrectly but I did not see volunteers state that they wanted the separate but equal program.  At all of my District and “family scouting” meetings there were questions on where the volunteers would come from given the proposal.  There were questions from COs in how this would logistically work.  The opinions were either fully implement coed or stay away.  I didn’t see much (or any) support of separate Troops. It appears that national is now realizing this.

Right. For those of us on the ground we see the issues with recruiting and keeping volunteers. Now BSA wants COs wishing to roll out Coed Scouting to have *TWO* units with two leadership teams? Or were they thinking that the already overburdened Boy Scout leaders would simply sign up to run the girl's unit too? Who knows.

[Gwaihir]

7 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Right. For those of us on the ground we see the issues with recruiting and keeping volunteers. Now BSA wants COs wishing to roll out Coed Scouting to have *TWO* units with two leadership teams? Or were they thinking that the already overburdened Boy Scout leaders would simply sign up to run the girl's unit too? Who knows.

If girls in Boy Scouts was as popular as National keeps telling us, there should be a surplus of fresh volunteers ready to carry the flag for this historic change.  

[Col. Flagg]

4 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

If girls in Boy Scouts was as popular as National keeps telling us, there should be a surplus of fresh volunteers ready to carry the flag for this historic change.  

More like...

[WisconsinMomma]

Our Pack has not even discussed girls yet. We have other stuff to work on, specifically Blue and Gold and Pinewood Derby.  After that we will likely talk about girls for the next school year's planning. 

[Hawkwin]

43 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

there should be a surplus of fresh volunteers ready to carry the flag for this historic change.  

I emailed my SDE shortly after the announcement offering my support and volunteering to help make it a success.

Will have to wait and see if I am called on my offer as implementation gets closer.

In the meantime, I might volunteer for an early adopter pack.

[Gwaihir]

8 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

I emailed my SDE shortly after the announcement offering my support and volunteering to help make it a success.

Will have to wait and see if I am called on my offer as implementation gets closer.

In the meantime, I might volunteer for an early adopter pack.

But you're already a Scouter.  My point was that National repeatedly stated 1. this move was to get non-scout families into scouts 2. this move was wildly popular with families who aren't currently in scouts.  By National's own position, there should be an influx of excited adults, motivated by this historic change, to hand in their paperwork, take their training and become a Scouter. 

 

[NJCubScouter]

The change at the Cub Scout level has been in place for 23 days.  The details of the change at ages 11-17 have not even been announced yet.  I suppose one alternative would be to wait until we see what actually happens rather than drawing all kinds of conclusions based on what any of us thinks will happen.

But I realize that in this forum, that's crazy talk. 

[Gwaihir]

8 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

The change at the Cub Scout level has been in place for 23 days.  The details of the change at ages 11-17 have not even been announced yet.  I suppose one alternative would be to wait until we see what actually happens rather than drawing all kinds of conclusions based on what any of us thinks will happen.

But I realize that in this forum, that's crazy talk. 

Of course, until something is rolled out we just don't know. 

But this is a forum, which by definition is designed for exchanges,  discourse, conjecture, learning and debate.   

Edited February 7, 2018 by Gwaihir
typo

[qwazse]

4 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

That isn't my contention. They can do as much as they like together, and probably will, but per the graphic put out by Nationals, they will be a separate program. For example, the boys will elect their own SPL and the girls will elect their own SPL. ...

Or, the girls might field two patrols; and the boys, two. Within their units, no SPL necessary. But the PLCs, deciding to coordinate tightly, might decide to elect an SPL for their frequent-and-often activities at the same place and time. He/she may select an ASPL from either the same or different unit. Two troops, four PLs, one SPL, one ASPL.

National sees two charters. Youth PoRs are not on the charter. Even if they were, an SPL would be on one roster and no SPL would be on the other troop's roster and nobody would dare yank the SMs' chains about it one way or the other.

The SMs see youth develop leadership .... to the point that SPL may put on his/her resume: "Boy Scouts of America: Troops ###B/###G, ___ rank, Senior Patrol Leader" SM is listed as a reference and backs the claim.

[NJCubScouter]

4 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

Of course, until something is rolled out we just don't know. 

But this is a forum, which by definition is designed for exchanges,  discourse, conjecture, learning and debate.   

It is, but lately, on this general subject, the balance seems to be off.  We have about 90 percent "conjecture" and debate about the "conjecture" - including me saying that maybe so much conjecture is not very productive.  Some of the other 10 percent, the "learning" part, are posts by the one person (I believe its only one) who is a leader in a pack that is actually implementing the program now.  And I guess the posts by our friends across the pond also fall into that category.

[Gwaihir]

1 hour ago, NJCubScouter said:

It is, but lately, on this general subject, the balance seems to be off.  We have about 90 percent "conjecture" and debate about the "conjecture" - including me saying that maybe so much conjecture is not very productive.  Some of the other 10 percent, the "learning" part, are posts by the one person (I believe its only one) who is a leader in a pack that is actually implementing the program now.  And I guess the posts by our friends across the pond also fall into that category.

If there's one thing I've learned in my years, both as a forum mod and simply as a human being participating in this thing called life... conversation, natural organic conversation never has balance in the short term, but the scales tend to balance themselves out over the long term.  Even if it's debating conjecture... sometimes that's necessary just as a thought exercise, to allow someone to get feelings, thoughts, ideas off their chest and into the open air where they can germinate, propagate, or wither on the vine.  On this subject, people are passionate about the topic, the course of history regarding it, their role in it, and how it will ultimately affect the youth in their charge in the longer term yet even in testy, heated discourse, no one here, at least that I can tell, hates their fellow scouter or wishes them ill will.