Linked Troops - What are these?

[codger]

I posted these same comments in another thread, but they apply here as well:

It is plain to me and many others that there is no need to speculate on whether certain changes will come to pass - that in the immediate or very near future:

Packs and then Troops will become FULLY COED, forced into this by a confluence of pressure from: activists: "separate but equal is not equal" , lawyers/lawsuits, and Nationals' desire to minimize bad publicity. This is a given, and to believe otherwise flies in the face of the past 20 years of history of our organization and others.

And the PROGRAM WILL MORPH INTO A PALE SHADOW OF ITS PREVIOUS SELF as the presence of girls will inevitably change the nature of the events, merit badges, requirements, styles and more. No ecosystem can remain unchanged once a foreign species is introduced into it.

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, codger said:

I posted these same comments in another thread, but they apply here as well:

It is plain to me and many others that there is no need to speculate on whether certain changes will come to pass - that in the immediate or very near future:

Packs and then Troops will become FULLY COED, forced into this by a confluence of pressure from: activists: "separate but equal is not equal" , lawyers/lawsuits, and Nationals' desire to minimize bad publicity. This is a given, and to believe otherwise flies in the face of the past 20 years of history of our organization and others.

And the PROGRAM WILL MORPH INTO A PALE SHADOW OF ITS PREVIOUS SELF as the presence of girls will inevitably change the nature of the events, merit badges, requirements, styles and more. No ecosystem can remain unchanged once a foreign species is introduced into it.

Huh?

Adding girls is not going to force the program into a pale shadow of its former self.

[qwazse]

Wendy Shaw, National's Membership Growth Group Director gave the keynote speech and taught a seminar at our UoS this weekend. The keynote was the usual "rah-rah" stuff: Positive media attention (which means little in region where for forty years, press releases usually came in advance of pink slips), Girls dens were growing, some additional boys joined because their sisters were having fun in a den, some dads participated more since the kids shared the activity, ... the usual rose-colored anecdotes.

The seminar was more interesting as it focused on the challenges facing troop program rollout on Feb 1. For your edification, I'm sharing my notes, some of which we've hashed out already, but might help us understand what the pros are and are not getting ...

Advancement challenges

• Rogue troops (my term, not hers): how to tell a girl "no" when someone told her "yes"?
• Eagle scout rank being rushed by 16 year-olds. How to keep it "about the journey, not the destination?" This got a lot of scouters in the room talking, because the girls they knew weren't giving two hoots about advancement. Meanwhile, national is getting inquiries from such girls.
• The current thinking is that local advancement folks need to have this that conversation. I think the hope is that the best policies may trickle up from them.
• As far as the requirements themselves are concerned, internally the sentiment is unanimous to make no changes. Externally (i.e. In the media) people have no clue about advancement, so they will not understand why a scout may not be approved for rank.

As far as scrutiny by girls:

• There is a lot of asking about eligibility for World Scout Jamboree, with blog posts by girls saying they can't wait to come.
• Packs are concerned, each might have one or two AoLs but in sparse districts, a CO might not get the numbers to field a troop. (At this point, I leaned on our council membership pro about a plan to do "girl talks" in those districts' middle schools.)

Linked-Troop

• Besides the common CO, they will share the troop #, and may share COR, MCs, ASMs, but not SMs.
• I asked, and yes the linked troop will pay a separate rechartering fee.  
• Why this arrangement? The ostensible concern is over youth leadership opportunities. They were very concerned that boys will leave a fully co-Ed unit.
• However, national won't police troops as to their compliance with "separate but equal" meetings and activities. That will be up to council (I guess through that ubiquitous commissioner corps?).

Depth

• Where a female youth is present, one registered female adult will be required at all activities and meetings of packs, troops, and crews.
•  I interjected, "You do realize that you just killed Venturing?" She didn't disagree.
• The real problem (not unlike what some of you experienced in the 90s) is that only 2% of trained ASMs/SMs are female. If growth surpasses training, we will be in the same jam as Scouts UK was.

Things that aren't changing:

• The organization remains Boy Scouts of America.
• The magazine is Boy's Life.
• Den Chiefs ... actually more venturers have started to fill those positions in the pilot packs.
• Handbook - girls like the content, The next edition may have more images of girls, but the layout remains the same.
• O/A will continue to have only one lodge per council.

As far as the specific name for troops of female youth, she said they are still taking suggestions. I used "BSA4G" and she was taken aback. I explained, and I think she liked the sound of it. But it clearly shows she's not reading this forum. I'll try to send a link her way.

Those are my notes. Hope they help.

[Tampa Turtle]

26 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Wendy Shaw, National's Membership Growth Group Director gave the keynote speech and taught a seminar at our UoS this weekend. The keynote was the usual "rah-rah" stuff: Positive media attention (which means little in region where for forty years, press releases usually came in advance of pink slips), Girls dens were growing, some additional boys joined because their sisters were having fun in a den, some dads participated more since the kids shared the activity, ... the usual rose-colored anecdotes.

The seminar was more interesting as it focused on the challenges facing troop program rollout on Feb 1. For your edification, I'm sharing my notes, some of which we've hashed out already, but might help us understand what the pros are and are not getting ...

Advancement challenges

• Rogue troops (my term, not hers): how to tell a girl "no" when someone told her "yes"?
• Eagle scout rank being rushed by 16 year-olds. How to keep it "about the journey, not the destination?" This got a lot of scouters in the room talking, because the girls they knew weren't giving two hoots about advancement. Meanwhile, national is getting inquiries from such girls.
• The current thinking is that local advancement folks need to have this that conversation. I think the hope is that the best policies may trickle up from them.
• As far as the requirements themselves are concerned, internally the sentiment is unanimous to make no changes. Externally (i.e. In the media) people have no clue about advancement, so they will not understand why a scout may not be approved for rank.

As far as scrutiny by girls:

• There is a lot of asking about eligibility for World Scout Jamboree, with blog posts by girls saying they can't wait to come.
• Packs are concerned, each might have one or two AoLs but in sparse districts, a CO might not get the numbers to field a troop. (At this point, I leaned on our council membership pro about a plan to do "girl talks" in those districts' middle schools.)

Linked-Troop

• Besides the common CO, they will share the troop #, and may share COR, MCs, ASMs, but not SMs.
• I asked, and yes the linked troop will pay a separate rechartering fee.  
• Why this arrangement? The ostensible concern is over youth leadership opportunities. They were very concerned that boys will leave a fully co-Ed unit.
• However, national won't police troops as to their compliance with "separate but equal" meetings and activities. That will be up to council (I guess through that ubiquitous commissioner corps?).

Depth

• Where a female youth is present, one registered female adult will be required at all activities and meetings of packs, troops, and crews.
•  I interjected, "You do realize that you just killed Venturing?" She didn't disagree.
• The real problem (not unlike what some of you experienced in the 90s) is that only 2% of trained ASMs/SMs are female. If growth surpasses training, we will be in the same jam as Scouts UK was.

Things that aren't changing:

• The organization remains Boy Scouts of America.
• The magazine is Boy's Life.
• Den Chiefs ... actually more venturers have started to fill those positions in the pilot packs.
• Handbook - girls like the content, The next edition may have more images of girls, but the layout remains the same.
• O/A will continue to have only one lodge per council.

As far as the specific name for troops of female youth, she said they are still taking suggestions. I used "BSA4G" and she was taken aback. I explained, and I think she liked the sound of it. But it clearly shows she's not reading this forum. I'll try to send a link her way.

Those are my notes. Hope they help.

Good work. Thanks for bringing up (obvious) points. 

[Jameson76]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Wendy Shaw, National's Membership Growth Group Director gave the keynote speech and taught a seminar at our UoS this weekend. The keynote was the usual "rah-rah" stuff: Positive media attention (which means little in region where for forty years, press releases usually came in advance of pink slips), Girls dens were growing, some additional boys joined because their sisters were having fun in a den, some dads participated more since the kids shared the activity, ... the usual rose-colored anecdotes.

 

Interesting

• The advancement challenges and some troops stumbling over themselves to have the first Girl Eagle will be an interesting situation
• The scrutiny by girls is an interesting topic, specifically what happens when there is no local BSA4G troop linked or otherwise for them to move into.  Especially if there is a robust Boys troop at the CO..those outside of BSA will ask "heck can't they just join that current troop??"
• Seriously....shared Troop numbers?  That will end well
• The depth portion may be a challenge (needing a female), especially to have meetings and do activities and as some units move to coed  sorry Linked troops, that may present an obstacle

 

[Eagle94-A1]

6 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

• The depth portion may be a challenge (needing a female), especially to have meetings and do activities and as some units move to coed  sorry Linked troops, that may present an obstacle

 

One troop I know plans on getting around the female scouter on camp outs with "family camping with their dad and/or brother." While they have not thought about meetings yet, bet they use "patrol meetings" to get around the meeting issue.

 

One thing that hit me, will patrol day activities that currently do not require an adult now require one?

[Scoutmaster Teddy]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

 

• O/A will continue to have only one lodge per council.

As far as the specific name for troops of female youth, she said they are still taking suggestions. I used "BSA4G" and she was taken aback. I explained, and I think she liked the sound of it. But it clearly shows she's not reading this forum. I'll try to send a link her way.

Those are my notes. Hope they help.

I'm still dying to know what will happen to the OA. I understand that women are allowed in - I get that. The OA's youth leaders are males. Adult advisers are mixed, of course. Female Chiefs or a separate inner organization?

[T2Eagle]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

 

• Where a female youth is present, one registered female adult will be required at all activities and meetings of packs, troops, and crews.

I realize that this person SHOULD be speaking from a place of expertise, but has anyone seen this in writing as a policy?  I haven't yet taken the new YPT, is it in there?  The FAQs I've read have said that there can be male den leaders and SMs for female dens and units, and has been silent about having to have a female leader always present.  Even requiring the second adult at an event to be registered is somewhat of a change from the current two deep requirements. 

[Southpaw]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

they will share the troop #

At Least we will not need to buy a second Troop Flag, those are expensive.

[Tampa Turtle]

58 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

• Seriously....shared Troop numbers?  That will end well

Do you get to add up Troop#1(male)+Troop#1(female) for bragging rights? Seems like a kludge.

[Jameson76]

2 minutes ago, Southpaw said:

At Least we will not need to buy a second Troop Flag, those are expensive.

But the girls flag has to have glitter......

 

[Jameson76]

17 minutes ago, Scoutmaster Teddy said:

 separate inner organization?

Do you mean another organization that is within the first sub-organization that used to be more secretive that is within the original organization and is part of the larger original organization that sprung from an organization across the pond that was brought to the new country in an effort to sell magazines?

[Eagle94-A1]

3 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

I realize that this person SHOULD be speaking from a place of expertise, but has anyone seen this in writing as a policy?  I haven't yet taken the new YPT, is it in there?  The FAQs I've read have said that there can be male den leaders and SMs for female dens and units, and has been silent about having to have a female leader always present.  Even requiring the second adult at an event to be registered is somewhat of a change from the current two deep requirements. 

That standard was in a powerpoint for early adopters. At the Cub level 2 adults over 21, one of whom must be a registered Scouter, can work with all boy dens, BUT one registered female over 21 MUST be in attendance at all functions of an all girls' den.

 

Gotta love the double standard.

[qwazse]

4 hours ago, Scoutmaster Teddy said:

I'm still dying to know what will happen to the OA. I understand that women are allowed in - I get that. The OA's youth leaders are males. Adult advisers are mixed, of course. Female Chiefs or a separate inner organization?

That "one lodge" decision was pretty fresh scuttlebutt. So, it's likely the rest is being thought through.

But, keep in mind there is nothing in O/A's policy that explicitly excludes girls. The requirements were quite intentionally phrased to not mention sex, then national advisors hid behind BSA's policy for troops.

[Eagle1993]

57 minutes ago, qwazse said:

That "one lodge" decision was pretty fresh scuttlebutt. So, it's likely the rest is being thought through.

But, keep in mind there is nothing in O/A's policy that explicitly excludes girls. The requirements were quite intentionally phrased to not mention sex, then national advisors hid behind BSA's policy for troops.

I thought girls wouldn’t be in OA until 2020 but was told that Explorer and Venturing would start OA elections next year.  Has anyone else heard of that change?