Linked troops won't work

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, 69RoadRunner said:

I don't think having 2 boy troops under the same CO makes sense so why would having 1 boy and 1 girl troop under the same CO make sense?

I think separate boys and girls' troops does make sense when the majority of the current members, parents, and volunteers do not want a "linked troop." I have been told by several folks that they will either quit Scouting altogether, or look for a male-only troop is my troop becomes a "linked troop," aka coed in these parts. The troop would be literally decimated members wise, and lose several key volunteers.

 

Quote

If a CO chooses to add a girl troop and transfers half of the boy troop's money and gear over to the girl troop, don't you think that's going to create a lot of resentment?

Our CO does not financially support the troop and pack. So if they excercised their right as CO and take moneyfrom the troop that  the boys earned, yes it would. In fact I bet the folks above would quit over it.

But if they gave money from their general funds to help start the girls' troop, no it would not.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Eagle94-A1

[scotteg83]

9 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I don’t know. Our troop and crew have same CO, COR, same meeting night, same meeting location (different rooms). We share equipment, but usually have different dates four outings, but not always. Sometimes we share programs or service projects.

We have different Committee’s, different unit leaders and different youth leadership.

The youth work out the logistics. Sometimes we have improvise on equipment.

Our focus has been on providing the best program we can for our units, less about reasons we can’t.

there goes the chance to do both units

[fred johnson]

45 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I think separate boys and girls' troops does make sense when the majority of the current members, parents, and volunteers do not want a "linked troop."

"Linked troops" is not co-ed, it's two single gender troops under the same charter org.  Before, a charter org could have one troop.  Now the plan is two if they are single gender troops.  Thus the term "Linked Troops".

When reality sets in, it may be viewed as co-ed because many troops will have significant overlap to make it work.  

Edited June 15, 2018 by fred johnson

[an_old_DC]

14 hours ago, qwazse said:

@TMSM, where is it written that you have to have two of every POR? If you get a new patrol of boys, do you all say, "Oops, time to get another SPL, QM, Scribe ..."?  When a troop is down to 16 (let alone 5) boys, we make it clear they don't need an SPL/ASPL. Two PLs and their assistants can do the trick. If they plan an activity with another troop, they may choose who will serve as SPL for the event.

 

@qwazseall of the BSA Family Scouting FAQ say linked troops will have their own PLC, which is responsible for planning their own troop’s meeting and outings

[T2Eagle]

49 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

"Linked troops" is not co-ed, it's two single gender troops under the same charter org.  Before, a charter org could have one troop.  Now the plan is two if they are single gender troops.  Thus the term "Linked Troops".

When reality sets in, it may be viewed as co-ed because many troops will have significant overlap to make it work.  

I think it's worth noting that some COs already have two troops under one CO.  Does anyone on the forum have experience with that. how does it work both in theory and in practice?  Is the difference in that model and linked troops two committees instead of just one?

[Eagle94-A1]

59 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

"Linked troops" is not co-ed, it's two single gender troops under the same charter org.  Before, a charter org could have one troop.  Now the plan is two if they are single gender troops.  Thus the term "Linked Troops".

When reality sets in, it may be viewed as co-ed because many troops will have significant overlap to make it work.  

 

With all due respect, "linked troops" will be coed troops. Linked troops share everything: CO; committee; meeting night, time, and location; trips and activities; equipment; and ASMs. The only thing they cannot currently share is SMs. Even then some are saying that is a suggestion and not a requirement for "linked troops." That sounds like a coed troop to me, and all the volunteers I have talked too. It also sounds like a coed troop to the Boy Scouts I've talked to as well.

 

[an_old_DC]

7 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

With all due respect, "linked troops" will be coed troops. Linked troops share everything: CO; committee; meeting night, time, and location; trips and activities; equipment; and ASMs. The only thing they cannot currently share is SMs. Even then some are saying that is a suggestion and not a requirement for "linked troops." That sounds like a coed troop to me, and all the volunteers I have talked too. It also sounds like a coed troop to the Boy Scouts I've talked to as well.

 

I too believe they will become co-ed. In a few years, BSA brass will announce troops can officially be co-ed and they will say “this is what parents and volunteers want.” It’s the same argument they currently use for mixed gender packs

Edited June 15, 2018 by an_old_DC
Autocorrect

[ValleyBoy]

46 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

"Linked troops" is not co-ed, it's two single gender troops under the same charter org.  Before, a charter org could have one troop.  Now the plan is two if they are single gender troops.  Thus the term "Linked Troops".

When reality sets in, it may be viewed as co-ed because many troops will have significant overlap to make it work.  

Correct,  From discussions with our troops unit committee we as a unit would be open to having a linked troop that could meet even on the same night as our present unit but our CO would have to be approached by adults that are willing to start and take the leadership role of the new unit.  As a boy's troop we would be willing to assist the new unit in training of there adult leaders and possible join activities just as we would with any other scout troop.  

[fred johnson]

48 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

With all due respect, "linked troops" will be coed troops. Linked troops share everything: CO; committee; meeting night, time, and location; trips and activities; equipment; and ASMs. The only thing they cannot currently share is SMs. Even then some are saying that is a suggestion and not a requirement for "linked troops." That sounds like a coed troop to me, and all the volunteers I have talked too. It also sounds like a coed troop to the Boy Scouts I've talked to as well.

 

The difference is the rule / direction / guidance versus reality.  Reality, things will be co-ed.  Thus why I'm arguing there will be confusion.  The rule / direction / guidance is two separate troops; one for each gender.  

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, fred johnson said:

The difference is the rule / direction / guidance versus reality.  Reality, things will be co-ed.  Thus why I'm arguing there will be confusion.  The rule / direction / guidance is two separate troops; one for each gender.  

Have you seen some of the guidance coming from national?  It is a charley foxtrot!  Best example was the CSE talking about combining girls and boys dens. He begins with the official line, then at the end states, "as long as everyone works out of their own book, you will be fine" or words to that effect. That video can be found on Bryan's Blog.

And if you look at the early adopter FB group, you have lots of pictures of "joint den meetings."  Heck there was an article about how the girls are better behaved, i.e. sitting still and paying attention, than the boys. And no one is saying that  the early adopter is not following the guidelines form national.

[HelpfulTracks]

I see a good deal of opposition to girl units because some organizations will not follow policy and have coed units.

Yet when organizations don’t follow policy in other areas (advancement, boy-led, patrol method, uniforms et al.) most argue they should be corrected rather not having that standard.

I have seen units extremely lax with advancement standards. It doesn’t make sense to drop advancement from the program because some units won’t follow policy. Just as it doesn’t make sense to oppose female troops because some units will ignore policy and become coed.

I support the new policy, but I am absolutely opposed to coed troops. 

I will push back on th parents that try to impose coed troops just as forcefully as I push back on parents that try to treat troops as cub packs.

[Hedgehog]

On 6/15/2018 at 8:43 AM, fred johnson said:

When reality sets in, it may be viewed as co-ed because many troops will have significant overlap to make it work.  

The key is that there is no overlap in youth.  Different youth = different youth leaders =  different Troop.  The level of interaction between the Troops is decided by the Troops' youth leaders.  The rest is details.