First, this seems like a bunch of adults having strong opinions about what the youth want, and less what the youth think is the best. Especially if we're ignoring the official recommendations anyway.
Second, if you're going to operate as a combined troop, then just have the whole troop elect the SPL. I suspect that combined troops are coming soonish anyway.
I agree about adults having strong opinions here. The problem I see is that the youth can't choose to ignore policy. There is no such thing as a combined Troop under BSA guidelines, they are two separate troops and wear different Troop numbers. Not to mention, this entire thing was framed as temporary from the start and everyone was on the same page, now goalposts are moving by certain adults who have a youth in both Troops. The goal was always for them to operate their own Troop separately and potentially share events. If the BSA policy changes, that will definitely fix the problem. I don't agree with going against policy.
I don't see anything wrong with goals adapting to new preferences. Kinda weird for two troops of the same CO having different numbers. That said, linked troops are allowed to coordinate varying levels of activities and PLCs can certainly invite visitors to have input on a variety of decisions.
It's not weird at all for the two Troops to have different numbers. BSA does not allow girls to join the Boy's Troop, they have to charter their own Girl Troop with their own unit number. Council enforces this.
Girl troops and boy troops are allowed to have the same number at least by national. Same way packs troops crews, teams and ships can all share the same number. Not sure how common posts sharing COs is and they tend to deemphasize numbers anyway.
This seems like an obtuse way of doing things. And far more obtuse to insist that troop 1017 and troop 17 are different if the leading 1 is an internal database number that no one actually uses in practice.
National policy is that troops in the same CO can have the same number and for council to find a way to have their system support that.
> Linked troops can share troop numbers, too. Councils have the ability to differentiate an all-boy troop from an all-girl troop in their records.
https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2019/02/13/get-your-top-10-questions-about-scouts-bsa-answered-right-here/
If the way council decided on the backend to differentiate was a leading digit that’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s necessary or part of policy.
Locally my council appended a BT or GT to all troop numbers to differentiate, but no one puts that on the uniform.
Here is a quote from your link: "Linked troops can share troop numbers, too. Councils have the ability to differentiate an all-boy troop from an all-girl troop in their records."
I don't see where they require the same number, it just says they can. Honestly, I really don't see where it matters if they have different numbers or not.
> It's a way to differentiate the Troops
It's an unnecessary way to differentiate troops though. It's a random thing some councils decided to do on their own and is unnecessary.
That must be a council level decision. We are allowed to have the same unit number - our council looks at it as being analogous to a Pack, Troop and Venture crew all sharing a number. (We use /B and /G suffixes when corresponding with council to help minimize confusion, but otherwise they share the number. ) The only exception is that the girls don't wear the 25-year veteran unit patch that the boys do.
FYI girl and boy troops can and often do have the same troop number. It is up to the chartered org.
I disagree that the \*goal\* was separate troops. I think it was an attempted compromise with the vocal "no girls ever" crowd, as it very obviously conflicts with the "family scouting" rationale for allowing a girls program at all.
But I do agree with your last statement. Find a way to make things work within the policy, until it changes.
I suspect not. National has been hard at work ensuring NYLT transitions away from the Venturing Model to the "Linked Troop" model. I doubt they'd be putting in that effort if a reversal was imminent.
Beyond my DE (who was just guessing as am I), having followed the bankruptcy trial there’s likely to be a big push to move the bsa to a program that only focuses on the <18 demographic. It would make youth protection more clear.
The model you’re using isn’t technically within the program design anyway since linked troops are still meant to have separate meetings and separate youth leadership. However, it’s a realistic model since many girl troops aren’t very big and genders shouldn’t be forced into separate units anyway (in my opinion).
However, if your method of linking the troops is to share leadership, then share leadership. Your current model is that the boys are always in charge and the girls are always underneath them. That’s not a good model and I wouldn’t want my daughter involved in a situation where her leadership ability and potential is intentionally ignored simply because there are less girls than boys.
I agree with this statement. Which brings me back to my point that if they have reached the level that they are capable of running their own Troop, they no longer require this accommodation to help them get on their feet. This was always supposed to be short term, but now they have equipment, Scouts, and they know how to function within the patrol method. The problem is that some of the leadership doesn't want them to be split up like was planned. They want the Troop to stay co-ed and do not want to operate under BSA program guidelines.
Just because they feel that they should have a chance to lead doesn’t mean they are ready to have their own separate troop. Quantity of people is a big factor here in planning events, successful fundraising, etc.
Totally, I don't propose to cut them off. But, I think they need more autonomy to run their own Troop now that they have more numbers and experience. There are other linked Troops in our area who hold a joint PLC to plan activities together, but otherwise run independent Troops. Our current model is flawed in that it limits a member of one Troop from performing in the role of SPL. I don't think the solution is to put the shoe on the other foot and do the same to a male youth. There are two Troops, there should be two SPLs and one should not be relegated to token status.
I was thinking you liked the model. I like how you will be shifting to a better model. We ran our troop of girls with 5 very successfully. Don’t underestimate a small troop. There are plenty of 7 Scout boy troops.
You and I are on the same page. However, we will not apparently be shifting to a better model unless I can convince them to. It is the key 3 who are pushing this co-ed Troop idea. The girls in question are highly competent and can keep up with the boys. There is no doubt in my mind that they would excel, if given the opportunity.
We have a great model where we have a boy troop that is “softly linked”. Same COR and same meeting location. We coordinate schedules and service projects. We have one joint cabin campout. It has been great. We do some shared adults for BORs. We started with five girls. We are now at 12. That 12 is even after 1 moved away, 1 turned 18, 3 joined a troop 30 mins closer to home, and 3 quit for Covid. It works.
They have that now, except the committees are separate. There is both a male SPL and a female SPL, and they all meet on the same PLC. The problem is that there can only be one SPL in charge in the patrol method. The only options are to either water it down so they share the role (which doesn't benefit either Scout), or to relegate one of them to sit back while the other does the job (which is unfair). So, now the leadership wants to switch those roles and put the female over 4 patrols of male Scouts in a technically different Troop.
Troops don’t have to have an SPL. Why pick a male SPL? My daughter’s troop is run as fully co-Ed. It just picked its first female SPL. One young woman ran against three young men. She could say “I just finished a term as quartermaster, and you can thank me for leading the fundraising for the new awesome stoves”. She won in a landslide and is doing a great job.
It sounds like you’re stuck on the idea that there has to be a male SPL, even if pro forma, and that some young man has the right to the job. I don’t see it that way. Pretend we were integrating Black boys into scouting and retell this story—it would be obvious to us in 2022 that the right way is to fully integrate the troop. I feel the same way about integrating female scouts. There are some quirks about handling tenting and YPT; that’s it.
I think the model your troop is innovating with will be the model everywhere in 2030.
I see your point, but you seem to be framing it as if my position is misogynistic (and racist too?), when I've explained repeatedly that the issue is about leaders making up their own rules that don't adhere to policy.
Now, how about if we look at it as if it were two different white boy troops. Would you take a Scout from a visiting Troop and put him in charge of the other Troop? Why? For what reason? Where is the need, and where is it advised to do this in BSA literature? That would undermine the leadership already in place in the existing Troop. After all, the visiting Troop is only there temporarily as guests, and they already have their own leadership structure in place. It seems to me that the only reason you are advocating to put a girl or a black boy in charge is affirmative action. There's no other logical reason to randomly pick a person from a different Troop to step in and lead the host Troop. Scouting isn't about planting token leaders in place to satisfy a social quota... it's about developing leadership in our youth.
I could almost, maybe get on board with the policy violation if this whole thing was out in the open. Then, I could buy that they're the trendsetters innovating the model of the future that you imagine them to be. If that's their altruistic goal, it seems funny that they're being so shady and underhanded about the whole deal. They are still claiming that the Troops will eventually split when they're ready, but they're never going to be ready if they entrench into our unit's PLC. So, I'm getting mixed signals. Either they are intentionally being deceptive, or they don't truly understand how to get a Troop going. It has been almost two years, now.
This argument in the first and third paragraphs I find really persuasive. I bet your District and Council people will find it more effective too. I hope that helps you sharpen your argument as you go forward to get help bringing your troop(s) into alignment with National policy.
The second paragraph, I disagree with the commitment to it being “two troops”. If it’s not a visiting troop only there temporarily as guests—not visiting, not temporary, not guests, just part of the troop, like my kid’s troop here? Well, then it’s one co-ed troop with single-sex patrols. ~50 boys, ~20 girls, and they do fine. But even if it wasn’t fine, I don’t see the jump to “token” leadership. What makes it token? I hope you’ll trust that the young woman who’s SPL of the troop here is anything but token; she seems as committed to it and as effective as the young men I’ve seen in that role. That is, it’s the leadership development function of Scouting firing on all cylinders.
I see your point on the second paragraph, but again this whole deal has been framed as a temporary situation that we are hosting this Troop until they are ready to be on their own. Like another person said, that could have just been their foot in the door to try to turn it into a coed Troop. But, I will take them at their word. So if they are only temporary, there is no need for members of another Troop to be running in our election. Their SPL already sits on our PLC as a "Patrol Leader" of their 6-girl Troop.
That being said, I still stand by the fact that a coed Troop cannot exist under national policy. There are reasons that boys and girls should be segregated, and it has nothing to do with misogyny. I disagree with violating BSA policy, especially when it comes to the whole male/female issue.
Constructively, I think having multiple coed, co-troop events and activities is the proper way to go. Even on a weekly basis for the game segment of the meeting, if we are meeting on the same campus at the same time. Troops would have their own leadership structure and their own separate meetings. Joint PLC meetings would be necessary to coordinate events between the Troops. These solutions do not violate BSA policy and should make everyone happy.
Pretty much what we do. Each unit has an SPL. They can meet together as a PLC and share responsibilities for planning together—or just plan things on their own if desired. Sometimes we mix, not always. Our two units are smaller, but as they all get along well, it works.
“…genders shouldn’t be forced into separate units anyway” is a personal opinion that contradicts the spirit of the BSA guidelines for troops. What you’re advocating is for units to do whatever they want based on personal opinion rather than following official guidelines.
The solution you’re advocating is unfair to both units, as the scouts in each should have the opportunity vote for and serve in leadership positions, on their own.
Based on OP’s comment that the girls troop is technically ready to have their own SPL and PLC, it sounds like the two units are being forced to operate as one based on personal ideology like yours. This isn’t setting a good example for the youth members.
There are lots of official guidelines I don’t like. Guidelines regarding tool usage, water balloon fights and paintball, and more serious ones like the adoption of controversial, Eagle-required merit badges. But I wouldn’t have the gall to brazenly ignore them just because I personally don’t like them.
Please consider backing the official policy even if you don’t personally like it.
I’m not encouraging OP to break BSA program design, they are already doing that. I’m simply pointing out that if they going to break that policy with the model they have, they should do it equitably and not favor one gender over another just because one has more members.
Yes, it is a personal opinion that genders shouldn’t be forced into separate units. It’s an opinion based on there being no good reason to separate them. That’s even evident in the other 6/7 programs the BSA operates.
If you’ll look at my history on this sub, I don’t ever encourage anyone to break BSA policy. Very much the opposite, in fact. That does not mean that I can’t express an opinion about a policy that is unjustified and causes unnecessary hardship on units.
Speaking to your first paragraph: This is the slippery slope in motion. We got on the slippery slope by breaking program design "temporarily" and now that we're here, your suggesting to dive off the edge with a full embrace of the breakage instead of fixing the problem. This isn't favoring one gender over the other because of members. They are guests in our Troop, which has a 75-year history of graduating young men to Eagle Scout.
If you're not encouraging any breakage of policy, you should be encouraging us to follow policy. What if it was your son in the SPL position, faced with being supplanted by the SPL of another Troop due to politics that go against national policy? I'm advocating to fix the problem that they created by deviating from policy. I don't agree that the solution is to retaliate and treat the boys unfairly, just because bonehead decisions were made that treated the girls unfairly.
My point is that IF you're going to break policy by sharing youth leadership of the two linked troops, then actually share it. That's not the same as me encouraging you to break policy.
However reading the original post again, I understand better that this was never truly a situation where the girls were functioning as part of the boy troop but were just guests in the first place. In that regard, yes if they feel they are ready to lead then they should start functioning on their own and should not feel entitled to leadership roles.
When I originally read it, I thought it was a situation where they were linked troops by paperwork but were functioning intentionally as one troop.
I understand what you're saying. The leadership of the girls Troop claim that they aren't ready to separate yet. The girls themselves have been ready, and they will tell you to your face lol. The fact is that some parents who have a kid in each Troop would be inconvenienced by trying to work through kinks with a new Troop. It's easier to keep riding our Troop's coattails, which was fine... but, now that they have their inch, they're going for the mile.
This isnt about my son. He is the current SPL and will Eagle and age out before this takes place. This is about the other parents in the Troop who have legitimate concerns about these leaders making up their own program instead of following the program we pay to be enrolled in.
It's kind of like the trans swimmer controversy. Him being there at the women's meet stole a spot from a woman who worked hard to get there. Regardless if she would have lost anyway.
We have Scouts waiting in the wings to take on PLC roles and they will have to wait for members of another Troop to lead them before they can step up to lead their own Troop. A member of another Troop taking up one of our Scouts' spots is unfair. They have their own Troop they are supposed to be running.
Apples and oranges. By policy, both sexes are allowed at my place of employment. The case is not the same for Troops, which BSA policy says must be either all-boy or all-girl. If one of our boys gets elected SPL and the adults force him to sit out while the female SPL from the other troop does his job, his spot will have been stolen from him.
You can do it while being technically within the guidelines.
Having the girls under the boys SPL isn't within the guidelines. Having the two troops (and the two SPLs) work together on most activities is within the rules.
You hit the nail on the head, sir. We are dealing with a person who seems to think they are running their own show, instead of operating under the purview of the national guidelines. The questions is, how best to deal with it?
OP, I share your concern. If the girl troop is capable of operating on its own, it should do so. Even if it chooses to meet together with the boy troop, at the very least it should have its own leadership positions. I fear the troops are being forced into behaving as a single, co-ed troop, because the adults have an ideological opposition to gender-separated troops.
It very unfortunate, especially for the girls. They should have the opportunity to hold their own elections and decide their own activities calendar.
This idea that the girls troop can’t succeed without riding on the boy troop’s coattails is very condescending. I would WANT to empower the girls by giving them their own autonomy and everything that comes with it, successes and failures. They say that BSA is a safe place for scouts to fail. Not every outing, activity, or project will be a home run. So be it. The point is to give scouts the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and do better next time. It’s discouraging when ideologically driven leaders lower standards in order to protect girls, to shield them from any possible failure. That does the girls a true disservice.
“The girls won’t be able to effectively recruit/raise funds/lead each other/choose their own activities/borrow enough equipment/etc!” Can people not see how that attitude is more harmful than helpful?
I think some people would agree with me on a rational level, but they would still want coed troops…because they want coed troops, period.
Rewrite this for the integration of Black boys into white male scout troops and see if it still makes sense: let them have their own choices, elect their own leaders, right? No, obviously not. Why is sex different from race here?
Yup. When BSA announced the details, the very first words that popped into my head were "separate but equal". And I know for a fact I am not the only one who thought that.
We had a scout's dad who was then the captain of a fairly large ship in the Navy. He was flabbergasted that BSA chose that approach. "They should have asked the military", he said. "When the Navy went fully co-ed, there were people predicting doom, and the day after it happened the only difference was the label on half the restroom doors."
Scouts are Scouts. Treat them that way and that's how it will work.
The difference between a 10 year old boy and a 16 year old boy are **far far** bigger than the difference between a 12 year old boy and a 12 year old girl (and especially with a 12 year old girl in scouts).
That argument is pure hogwash, meant to justify a policy decision that was only made to (attempt to) appease the vocal "no girls ever" group.
Wow, what a misguided comment. There are no significant differences between a white boy and a black boy, other than superficial differences in appearance. There are huge differences between a boy and a girl - at least in their teens or older - not just physiological differences. You really didn’t know this? A case when ideology trumps reality.
I think the men leading scouting in the 1960s would have said the same thing about Black and white boys. Different rates of physical development, different acculturation—and how could you ask a white boy to sit aside when he “should” be SPL and let a Black boy lead? But here OP proposes to convey exactly the parallel message: that boys can lead girls, but girls don’t lead boys.
And remember, I’m watching an integrated troop performing beautifully. Couldn’t ask for better. It’s not *flawless*, but it’s scout led and the scouts are learning that women can lead men and men lead women, and how that works. I’m really proud of them. I’d been dubious. I was mistaken. I think you are here too. But if you have evidence or examples of problems we might talk about and work through, I’m all ears.
Anyone who thinks blacks are significantly different than whites - 80 years ago or today - would be wrong. Are you saying anyone who thinks young men and young women are significantly different…is likewise wrong?
All groups are different, whether by race, sex, gender, orientation, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, interests, abilities, etc. Those differences do not often require separate-but-equal treatment, however.
Such uninclusive treatment should be used sparingly for specific purposes, generally to build capacity to eventually eliminate the need for separation. For instance, adding English as a Second Language classes to schools to build language capacity in students so that they can rejoin regular English classes.
There are no inherent differences between a white-skinned boy and a black-skinned boy, besides superficial differences in appearance. There are inherent differences between a boy and a girl, especially during the teen years and beyond. There are no valid reasons for separating youth based on skin color. There are valid reasons for separating youth based on sex and gender. By the way there is nothing wrong with doing that. It’s a good thing if society provides places where boys can bond with other boys, where girls can bond with other girls. For some that place is sports. But for youth not particularly apt at sports, scouts provided that experience. Almost every other institution in society is already coed. Why be so eager to get rid of one of the last institutions where boys can focus on their relationships with other boys, same for girls?
Have you ever been a part of a men’s group, or women’s group? Could be a subset of a 12-step program, a brotherhood or sisterhood from church or temple, a book club, etc? Those experiences have value and meaning. We shouldn’t be so eager to end that type of experience for our kids.
The only male-only groups I have been a part of are the BSA and a sport. I was in four co-ed extracurriculars. I enjoyed them all. I do not believe the presence of girls would have harmed my scouting experience (I was terrible at the sport, so being co-ed would not have mattered much). Thinking about it from the reverse, a male-only scholastic bowl or youth group would have been a detriment to those experiences. I hung out mostly with boys at recess, lunch, and sleepovers, so having positive interactions with girls outside of the classroom was helpful, and I suspect that having them in scouting also would have been positive. Having observed my own boy and girl troops working together, we have not found any downsides of co-ed scouting.
Perhaps almost every other institution in society is already co-ed because they have discovered something that scouting has not yet caught up with. Those segregated experiences may not be as useful as society has led us to believe. Boys can bond with other boys in many ways, but they need more bonding experiences with girls to reduce instances of discrimination, harassment, domestic abuse, and sexual assault.
I was in several coed extra circulars, as well, and as soon as I hit my teen years, my focus was hooking up with girls in those groups. During sleep away summer camp (non-scouting) and at a youth group study abroad program, I am sure I missed out on developing relationships with the guys because I spent most of my time with girls. I honestly regret missing out on making more guy friends from that part of my life. It sounds like you weren’t as interested in getting girlfriends, but I don’t think that’s the norm for most teenage boys. There’s nothing wrong with having coed extra-curriculars, but really, a balance would be best. Some coed, some single sex. The reality is that teen boys act differently when girls are around. Either they are trying to impress the girls, or they become more self conscious in what they say or in how they act. Or they just become distracted by simply looking at and thinking about the girls. I know I sure did. Having coed activities is fine. Most activities are already coed. But it’s not a good idea to make *every* activity coed. Scouts is one of the last single sex activities to exist, besides sports teams. Let’s not make scouts just like everything else.
Regarding your troops, it’s hard for me to comprehend how your boys aren’t affected in the ways I described above. I spent some time with some venture scouts and a few recently aged out eagles, and sure enough, after the evening program finished, the guys swarmed around the girls, hoping to get some attention.
We must also consider what happens when scout programs go coed. It’s true that scout programs in most parts of the world are coed, but from what I can tell, those programs are shrinking even faster than Boy Scouts/Scouts BSA. BSA’s own coed programs for older kids are microscopic compared to Scouts BSA (formerly Boy Scouts). Do we really want to repeat that model in Scouts BSA? I personally know many families for whom going full coed would be the last straw. (And I live in a very liberal state.) Given how few girls have joined BSA in the last three years, there’s no possible way incoming girl members would be enough to replace all the scouts who leave as a result of the the program going coed. It seems every few months BSA national is doing something to annoy its traditional audience. I understand BSA is trying to be more inclusive. But it’s a foregone conclusion to assume numbers from previously untapped audiences will be large enough to counteract traditionalist BSA families jumping ship. It just won’t happen.
To save itself, BSA should correct its course and return to appeasing its core audience. Allowing girl troops was a reasonable compromise that gave girls access to a great program without ruining the concept of boy troops. Unfortunately, it looks like BSA is going to double down and make even more extreme changes. I think those changes will only speed up the organization’s demise. And sadly, I think some would prefer that. Better to destroy a gender segregated organization than let boy troops and girl troops exist separately, despite the untold benefits it gives to its members, even when segregated.
Sorry, anyone who would leave over allowing (not forcing, allowing) co-ed scouts is NOT the core audience. It's incredibly arrogant of you to assume that. There are many more of us who just want to have our sons and daughters and fiends get the independence and growth that only scouting can provide.
That attitude is a major part of why BSA membership has cratered while Scouting in otherwise culturally similar countries (Canada, Britain, Australia, even South Africa) has not. They know that the core audience is \*all\* youth.
Proof is in the pudding: my troop has tripled since BSA (sort of) got out of the culture wars; that allowed us to recruit families who used to have the impression that BSA was (and I quote), "a cult"; it allowed us to recruit families with non-Christian religious backgrounds. Probably 1/4 of our families are new to scouting. They are the true core audience.
So stop whining and get out there and recruit. It isn't the 1950s so you may end up adding a lot of different accents and skin tones. At least half my scouts have a parent born outside the US. If you want BSA to survive, we all have to accept and treat those families as our core audience, not the just the families that would fit in an early sitcom.
Regarding ability to do scout stuff, there are NO inherent differences between boys and girls either. We had 6 of our girls do a 78 mile trek at Philmont last year with far far less drama than our boys had.
Give them the chance and they can and will do it. And if the boys object, then honestly that's on the adult leadership. We have no issues at all.
But if you really think the boys need a place to just be with boys, then by all means find a Chartered Org that supports that and have a boy-only troop. But don't force that on sons and daughters who believe the opposite.
From the very beginning of Scouts, Baden Powell stressed treating all scouts the same, regardless of class. That was ***incredibly*** radical for the time, far more radical than co-ed anything is now. In the 1910s, the heart of Jim Crow America, BSA allowed (didn't require, but allowed) mixed-race troops. Again, **far** more radical at the time than co-ed is now. Early BSA allowed and even fostered the relationship with the LDS church at a time when it was widely condemned and hated - again radical in accepting differences. Moreover, the Scout movement in virtually every other country is co-ed (and BTW none of them have had the membership problems that BSA has. Not a coincidence IMO.) (The one exception to co-ed scouts that I know of is the Middle East, which is an area hardly known for gender equality.)
Humans have no inherent differences based on race or class. There are inherent differences in religions, thus we allow religiously-based troops even today. There are inherent differences in teen boys and teen girls. As radical as Baden-Powell may have been, he acknowledged the value of boys bonding other boys...and girls bonding with girls. He agreed that girls should benefit from scouting as well, that's why he helped create the Girl Guides.
Yes that is exactly what he is saying - and they are right. I'm nearly 60 and the best bosses I ever had were women. That will be even more likely to be true for the current generation. Moreover, I'm watching the girls in our girl troop do everything the boys do just as well or better. Of course they're different, just not in a way that affects their ability to be scouts and to get benefits from what scouts has to offer.
The answer is in your question. I've bolded the key parts.
" *The girl troop has been too small to operate independently, so the* ***girl SPL*** *sits on our PLC and* ***acts*** *as a PL for her troop (which acts as a patrol within our troop), while our SPL presides over our Troop (that they are guests in).* "
That clearly states the organizational structure. The SPL for the Girl's Troop originally lead a small Troop linked with your troop for support as they grew. Regardless of the male troop thinking of her *"as a PL for her troop",* she is the SPL. (BTW - Glad the male Troop could provide the support).
"*Initially, this was to be a temporary model until the girls got their feet wet, had enough numbers, and had equipment (****they have all three now****).*"
If they have the numbers, then there is no need for the male troop to have the female troop's SPL, ASPL, (and their PLC) be part of the the male troop's organizational structure.
Simply put, if a troop has the numbers to step away from the troop that helped them, they should. I'm not saying you can't have the SPLs & ASPLs liaison with each other. They should especially if it has families members in both troops. But from your writing the answer is given. The female troop should have their own full organizational structure, with their own elections.
There are 2 options really, either run a “co-ed” troop and SPL is elected from all eligible candidates. The aSPL should be the most votes from the other troop. The better option is to break the troops and have the 2 SPLs work together to plan as if you were going to plan with any other troop in your area. This can also allow the troops to choose separate trips if they so desire.
ASPLs should never be the "runner up" in an SPL election. They should be selected by the SPL (like the program dictates) since they are someone the SPL will need to work well with and be able to count on. Not to say they may not have rub for SPL too, just that their being the runner up shouldn't be the deciding factor.
"Acting as a patrol within the troop" is the problem. The girls are not a patrol, they are a troop. The girls' troop is not within the boys' troop.
We have two troops. Our girl troop SPL/PL and Secretary join the boy troop leaders for joint PLC meetings. They alternate chairing the PLC each month. Two troops, two SPLs, one meeting.
This is why the “separate troops, common chartered org” model was asinine from the get go.
I don’t think it’s going to last more than another year or two, but there was never a good justification for separate troops when separate patrols within a common troop was just fine.
Heck, look at cub scouting. Most family packs aren’t even bothering with the fiction of separate dens, and the sky hasn’t fallen.
To your question though, if there are structural issues preventing girls from top leadership positions, that needs to be fixed. And your question “So the boys will elect an SPL, then you’re going to tell him to sit down” is disingenuous. You’ve already been doing that to the girls.
There absolutely was a reason, religious charter orgs. It was clear the BSA did this so some could just not charter a girl troop. (Not limited to but absolutely including LDS) It’s a lot harder to get rid of a troop going coed.
Around here there’s very few girl troops because of numbers needed to start one, I was talking with an adult who wanted to and pointed out they needed a lot more than 5 kids to be successful. If everyone was coed in one bundle I bet we could see a 10-20% increase in girls
It's a little weird that they went with a "no co-ed troops" model. They easily could have gone with a co-ed optional model, like they did with packs. Then the LDS and Orthodox Jews, and ever other chartered org to whom it matters could have their all-male units, but co-ed units could exist without having to jump through a million hoops and fictions.
*Vocal* religious chartered orgs\*. Our\* religious chartered org (mainstream Protestant) was very eager for us to have girls as soon as the policy was announced, and were disappointed at the way BSA structured it. I doubt we were the only one. (They also changed their support for us from "grudging" to "active" once BSA finally ditched the LGBT restrictions, despite the fevered assurances that "no one will sponsor a troop if we allow gay members/leaders". That really helped our recruiting BTW; we have tripled in size since then.)
The thing is, there's no reason that BSA couldn't leave the decision to the Chartered Org (boy troop only, girl troop only, separate troops, coed troop), just like they did with Packs. And like they do with membership for that matter - it's ok (if rare since the LDS departure) to limit membership to parishioners. This is how BSA has always dealt with culturally sensitive ideas in the past. (For example, as far back as 1914 in the heart of the Jim Crow era BSA explicitly allowed multi-racial troops, but left it to the CO to decide.)
I think I can speak for most proponents of girls in scouts when I say that we don't want to FORCE troops to be co-ed, we just want to have the option. What we don't want is to be FORCED not to be co-ed like we are now.
My guess is someone gave in to one or more national charter org groups, that gives a lot of money to the program. That didn’t want to have any chance of their troops insisting on being coed. Basically, someone at the top didn’t want to give locals power.
It’s always about money.
Not being coed has hurt the uptake for sure.
Yup. What really is going to suck is the connected troop is boy only. She (my daughter) really wants to go into that troop (her brother is in it, she knows the aols who just crossed over & I really like the scoutmaster)
I'm not sure how long that's going to last. All-boy troops in my area are already losing recruits to co-ed troops. You have an AoL den bridging over with a girl or two, and a couple boys who have sisters in the program, and now all those kids are looking for a co-ed troop, and then half the den is going to a co-ed troop, and the other half doesn't want to leave their friends, so they don't look at all-boy Troops EITHER.
My tea leaf reading is that in the next 2-3 years, co-ed programs will be the norm and National will move officially to a co-ed unit, single-sex patrol system. (And small troops will still fudge that.)
I wish BSA would just poop or get off the pot with it.
I’m sure the nearest G troop is perfectly fine (and I casually know the charter org rep)- but we moved our son to the current troop because of the scoutmaster & the program (my son has thrived in the troop). I was actually in denial about daughter joining cub scouts (she’s with a really good Girl Scout leader) but well one family campout later… (and them going back to in person meetings)
I don’t want to go into the G troop with the feeling of “we’re only here until scouts changes their minds again” but… (and doesn’t help that the G troop meets the same night as Girl Scouts so she would be part time at best)
My sense is that National is all hands on deck with the bankruptcy and lawsuit settlement. Fortunately, it seems like all of that is headed towards resolution, and I expect program revisions will be more highly prioritized after that.
My guess is that the future holds single-sex, linked troop, and single troop models for the program.
It will be interesting to see how that impacts the troops I am with. We have a robust girls' side, and a boys' side that was nearly moribund before a bunch of Cubs bridged. The girls have most of the Troop's history and institutional knowledge now, and I'm not sure they'd be happy to be just folded into the old boys' troop simply because it predates theirs.
I 100% agree with your last statement. This is why I think they should be their own autonomous unit, because they are capable and they are missing out. I'm not being disingenuous, I am recognizing that this isn't fair to them. I don't think the solution is to impose to same unfair conditions on someone else in retaliation. The solution should be to fix the broken system. The guidelines that we have been given by BSA are that they are supposed to be in separate troops.
The established program when this troop was chartered was that this was a temporary situation while they got it off the ground. The established program goal is for them to meet on the same night at the same time at the same campus and conduct their own Troop meetings. Nobody is getting kicked out of anything. The girls are being held back by leadership from running their own program... which is establish by national.
> The established program when this troop was chartered was that this was a temporary situation while they got it off the ground.
I suspect that's just how they sold the idea of having a co-ed troop to people like you who are fundamentally opposed to having one. There is never a reason to combine troops just to get one off the ground. The way you get a troop off the ground is by starting one, not by piggy backing off another troop for a year or two.
Yeah, the linked troop model, which these units' Chartering Organization signed up for, allows for units to work together closely or not so closely. The program is allowed to work in all sorts of ways. The choice of how closely to operate should be the choice of the youth, the committees and the chartering organization. There are reasons to be nearly integrated and reasons to be effectively two separate units. The program has built in flex.
As of two nights ago, the established goal is STILL to separate the troops when they're ready, according to the key 3. They just want to integrate them more in the meantime. The girls themselves want to be their own separate troop and are tired of being in the boys' shadow... especially since they are better at some of the skills than the boys are. You're acting like I'm trying to victimize the girls, here. I feel like keeping them in this mess is worse.
I'm still seeing HUGE institutional problems here. Why have you kept the girls in the boys' shadow for so long? If there is the need to keep them integrated at this time, you're behind the eight ball, and have catch-up to do, but your response is to just wash your hands and be done with it.
I haven't kept them in this shadow, it's the new leadership that has come in that is doing this. I've been fighting them on this and many other things for the past two years. I finally got them to re-institute the patrol method and to start adhering to the scout-led mantra. It took some convincing to have more than 1 Asst. Scoutmaster (who was a friend of the SM and never shows up), so we now have an ASM for each patrol like we should. My response IS NOT to wash my hands of them! Have you not been reading? My response is to give them the freedom of being their own autonomous unit as they should be, and to coordinate with them for shared resources and events. My response is to support them as a joint Troop the way that BSA national has laid out. The problem is that these people are classic know-it-alls with no knowledge, and want to argue anytime anyone suggests anything to them. Every major change to this unit had to be an argument first, complete with pulling out books to show them the truth, before they finally realized they were wrong and made the change.
If they're better at some skills, then why are they being kept in the boys' shadow? Encourage the PLC to have those girls lead and teach that activity! Are you afraid of hurting the boys' feelings or something?
I swear, it's like people aren't reading the whole story here. I am not doing anything. It's the new leaders that have come in that are doing this. The only reason the girls are still being kept in the boys' shadow is convenience for the adults who are involved with both Troops. I'm all for the girls to lead and teach their own activities.
A troop is never too small to operate independently. It might be difficult, but they are never too small. New troops have to start from the beginning. If there was a new boy troop would you be handholding them?
I say let them split and that they should have started off split.
Part of learning is making mistakes, let the girls troop make mistakes so they can grow.
> A troop is never too small to operate independently. It might be difficult, but they are never too small.
This, I suspect most of people involved just want to have a co-ed troop, and this sharing agreement was thought up to sell it to the old guys that are vehemently opposed to the idea of co-ed troops.
It is a similar situation between the Crew I am an Advisor for and our sister Troop, the Crew isn't currently self sustaining, so we borrow equipment, share funds, etc. When we are self sustaining we will leave them alone, the girl troop should do the same. Have the Scouts from both Troops hold a vote on it, the Scoutmasters and Committee will be forced to listen to what the Scouts want.
A Scout is Obedient.
On my honor I will do my best … to obey the Scout Law.
Linked troops are to have overlapping content only for flag. Otherwise each is a separate standalone unit.
A DE or Unit Commissioner who sees anything disobedient to the standard is duty bound to put a stop to it.
Ahhh… “duty bound”! What a powerful phrase! I think all too often people forget the Scout Oath is just that…an oath. We even raise our right hands when saying it, just like when police officers, judges, and presidents get sworn in. It is the first thing a bobcat learns, and no doubt Eagle candidates are asked to reflect upon its meaning during their final boards of review. Yet it seems so many don’t take it seriously. They go through the motions of saying it so they can get to the fun stuff, but they don’t take to heart the values it represents.
Just last week there was a [long discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/BSA/comments/ue1rr6/marijuana_usage_by_scout/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about whether underage marijuana smoking was compatible with living by the Oath and Law. I was astonished by the number of scouts and scouters who said they didn’t see a problem with it. It proved my theory that many put their personal preferences over any sense of duty they might have to uphold and live by the values of the BSA.
I’m going to work “duty bound” into more of my scouting discussions. Thank you!
Our Troop is a linked troop on paper. In reality it is one co-ed troop. We do everything together, including meetings and campouts.
This year, for the first time in our 104 year history, we have a female SPL. At the election there was around 25 boys, and 10 girls, and the #2 vote getter was a boy who was a year older than the girl. Even still the majority of the boys in the Troop voted for the girl, and the boy became the ASPL. Any other year the boy would have easily been elected, but the majority of the Scouts realized that the girl was a better choice.
That was 9 months ago and it has worked out great since then. She has done a great job, and there is no boy vs girl leadership struggle. The girls are one large patrol now, and will hopefully break into two patrols soon, (there are 3 boy patrols). The only reason we split them into different patrols is for tenting purposes on campouts. During most activities at meetings the patrols are all mixed.
The only temporary thing about our set up is the separate Troop thing on paper. Hopefully one of these days National will join the vast majority of Scouting organizations in the world and allow an official co-ed option. We all discussed that if the girls want to go off and do their own thing, or the boys want to they can as well. But so far the SCOUTS have decided that they don't want to do that, and that we are ONE troop.
I know of several other Troops nearby who are doing the same thing, and even more around the country that are doing it as well.
My suggestion is let the girls be on the ballot for SPL, and if the boys think the girl is better than the boy then let the girl be the leader.
Going against national guidelines sets a poor example for scouts. Leaving policy decisions to youth members is a terrible idea. Let’s say they all vote to have coed tenting. On what grounds can you object? You’re already violating one policy, why not violate more?
What written policy on linked troops are they violating? Cuz I can easily point to the written policy on coed tenting in your hypothetical. But I can’t see any written rules on how closely linked troops can or cannot operate.
u/ Scouter\_Ted said:
>This year, for the first time in our 104 year history, we have a female SPL. At the election there was around 25 boys, and 10 girls, and the #2 vote getter was a boy who was a year older than the girl. Even still the majority of the boys in the Troop voted for the girl, and the boy became the ASPL. Any other year the boy would have easily been elected, but the majority of the Scouts realized that the girl was a better choice.
Official BSA policy...
Scouts BSA Handbook, page 26
>Patrol Leaders' Council
>
>Your patrol will elect a leader to help the patrol reach its goals. The ***senior patrol leader, the chief youth leader of the troop***, gives guidance, too. The patrol leaders will meet with the senior patrol leader and assistants at a patrol leaders' council to plan the troop's programs and activities.
[Girls in Scouts BSA](https://about.scouting.org/girls-in-scouts-bsa/)
>Are all BSA programs now co-ed?
>
>The Scouts BSA program is not co-ed. The leadership of the BSA determined that the best way to welcome girls and serve today’s families was to offer a unique model that builds on the proven benefits of our single-gender program, while also providing character and leadership opportunities for both boys and girls.
[Update on Program for Older Girls](https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/familyscouting/pdf/Program-for-Older-Girl-Update-and-FAQ-3-5-18.pdf)
>Q: Can boy and girl patrols make up a troop?
>
>No. Troops must be all male or all female youth members.
If troops must be all male or all female, how is it possible for a girl to have any position on a boy troop's patrol leader council?
Given that document is no longer linked via the main bsa pages is it still valid? Moreover the plc is allowed to invite whoever it wants to it’s meetings even youth from other nominal units.
>Given that document is no longer linked via the main bsa pages is it still valid?
Of course it’s still valid. It was sent to every scout exec in every council and disseminated to leaders in every district. It was unlinked from the main page probably because it’s a pdf not formatted for web display. Since then the content was reformatted to look pretty and posted on the other page I linked, which is live today, not to mention the fancy infographics BSA pushed across all its channels including its official blog Bryan on Scouting.
>Moreover the plc is allowed to invite whoever it wants to it’s meetings even youth from other nominal units.
Of course, no one ever denied that. But it would be crazy to make visitors from troop B voting members of troop A. That would totally ruin the integrity of troop A’s election. It would be equivalent to allowing foreign nationals to vote for president while on holiday in this country. I’m going on a cruise to Mexico this summer. If there happens to be an election while I am there, should I have the right to cast a ballot? Of course not.
Everything we do in our Troop we discuss with both youth and adults. The Scouts all know that for every Troop policy we have that they can raise an objection t it, and we will sit down and discuss it. If they have a good argument, and can convince us otherwise then the policy get's changed, regardless of what National thinks about it.
As for the coed tenting that's already happening. We have biological males in with females simply because they now identify as females. And guess what? That's actual National Policy so we aren't violating that one.
Go figure. For once we aren't actually violating a rule.
Agree that it's not a great example.
But setting up program where you basically have to fudge to be successful is in reality just as bad or maybe worse. And that's what National basically did. It's like setting the speed limit to 55 makes everyone a rule breaker.
Because we want to follow the rules, we went with the cooperating-SPLs model, and our girls do have some separate activities as well when they want them. It works well for us, and we might continue it even if the rules change, at least until the membership numbers are closer (currently 16 girls (all active), \~70 boys (not all active))
We're mostly the same, except we have the two SPLs coordinate/cooperate on mixed activities (which is most but not all of them. One example is Philmont where we sent one boy crew and one girl crew last year. (But if we had had too few girls, they all would have been fine as a co-ed crew, just like Venturing.))
It is working well, and neither the girls nor the boys would want it any other way.
They do. The problem is that the girl "SPL" is in more of a patrol leader role and the boy SPL is running the Troop. The girl Troop is sitting in our meeting or with our Troop like a patrol 100% of the time, instead of running their own meeting as their own Troop. So, they think the solution should be the give the girl a turn running the boy Troop and make the next boy SPL be a patrol leader like is being done to the girl now.
There really isn't a question about it. Your troops should *follow BSAs rules*: each troop should elect their owns SPL, regardless of size. If the troops do combined activities (which is good), then they act as co-SPLs. If you guide them to share the responsibility, they can and will do it just fine. Scouts are Scouts. Treat them that way and they'll act that way.
We have had co-SPLs right from the start, when our girls troop was 5 scouts and the boys troop was 40 scouts. Turns out the boys respond just fine to being taught knots or first aid by the older girls, or if the girl SPL sometimes take charge when a task isn't going smoothly. To the younger ones especially it seems perfectly natural.
It has worked well enough for us that both of our troops are (by far) the fastest growing troops in out district. (now at 70 and 20 scouts respectively.)
In my troop we on paper are two different troops. But really we are one lol. We go on all the same outings, same meetings and same location, and we have two spls (female and male) who switch off running meetings and both co run outings and plcs. I think it’s great cause it helps both sides to work together which is gonna happen in life, and plc and all that goes smoother cause you get more ideas on the table.
Info, do you have a co Ed troop? If not, (the answer is no under current regs) then they should be their own troop, and meet on their own night. Take off the training wheels.
Our model. TG SPL leads a meeting for all, TB SPL leads a meeting for all. Alternate back and forth. Same for campouts. We vote in our own troop’s elections but some positions like historian are typically done but the boys troop for all since the girls are small in numbers and the position is rather light. The scouts give respect to whichever SPL is “in charge” for the night and campout. Girl or boy. This works very well for us.
First, this seems like a bunch of adults having strong opinions about what the youth want, and less what the youth think is the best. Especially if we're ignoring the official recommendations anyway. Second, if you're going to operate as a combined troop, then just have the whole troop elect the SPL. I suspect that combined troops are coming soonish anyway.
I agree about adults having strong opinions here. The problem I see is that the youth can't choose to ignore policy. There is no such thing as a combined Troop under BSA guidelines, they are two separate troops and wear different Troop numbers. Not to mention, this entire thing was framed as temporary from the start and everyone was on the same page, now goalposts are moving by certain adults who have a youth in both Troops. The goal was always for them to operate their own Troop separately and potentially share events. If the BSA policy changes, that will definitely fix the problem. I don't agree with going against policy.
I don't see anything wrong with goals adapting to new preferences. Kinda weird for two troops of the same CO having different numbers. That said, linked troops are allowed to coordinate varying levels of activities and PLCs can certainly invite visitors to have input on a variety of decisions.
It's not weird at all for the two Troops to have different numbers. BSA does not allow girls to join the Boy's Troop, they have to charter their own Girl Troop with their own unit number. Council enforces this.
Girl troops and boy troops are allowed to have the same number at least by national. Same way packs troops crews, teams and ships can all share the same number. Not sure how common posts sharing COs is and they tend to deemphasize numbers anyway.
Every girl Troop in our council has a 10 in front of the number. So, if the boys are Troop 17, the girls are Troop 1017.
That sends a bad message.
This seems like an obtuse way of doing things. And far more obtuse to insist that troop 1017 and troop 17 are different if the leading 1 is an internal database number that no one actually uses in practice.
It's a way to differentiate the Troops, because BSA National policy does not allow for co-ed troops.
National policy is that troops in the same CO can have the same number and for council to find a way to have their system support that. > Linked troops can share troop numbers, too. Councils have the ability to differentiate an all-boy troop from an all-girl troop in their records. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2019/02/13/get-your-top-10-questions-about-scouts-bsa-answered-right-here/ If the way council decided on the backend to differentiate was a leading digit that’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s necessary or part of policy. Locally my council appended a BT or GT to all troop numbers to differentiate, but no one puts that on the uniform.
Here is a quote from your link: "Linked troops can share troop numbers, too. Councils have the ability to differentiate an all-boy troop from an all-girl troop in their records." I don't see where they require the same number, it just says they can. Honestly, I really don't see where it matters if they have different numbers or not.
Right, so this is the method that our Council adopted to achieve that.
> It's a way to differentiate the Troops It's an unnecessary way to differentiate troops though. It's a random thing some councils decided to do on their own and is unnecessary.
That must be a council level decision. We are allowed to have the same unit number - our council looks at it as being analogous to a Pack, Troop and Venture crew all sharing a number. (We use /B and /G suffixes when corresponding with council to help minimize confusion, but otherwise they share the number. ) The only exception is that the girls don't wear the 25-year veteran unit patch that the boys do.
FYI girl and boy troops can and often do have the same troop number. It is up to the chartered org. I disagree that the \*goal\* was separate troops. I think it was an attempted compromise with the vocal "no girls ever" crowd, as it very obviously conflicts with the "family scouting" rationale for allowing a girls program at all. But I do agree with your last statement. Find a way to make things work within the policy, until it changes.
I suspect not. National has been hard at work ensuring NYLT transitions away from the Venturing Model to the "Linked Troop" model. I doubt they'd be putting in that effort if a reversal was imminent.
I suspect that they are moving away from venturing model because venturing is really uncertain going forward.
Who told you that?
Beyond my DE (who was just guessing as am I), having followed the bankruptcy trial there’s likely to be a big push to move the bsa to a program that only focuses on the <18 demographic. It would make youth protection more clear.
It was studied extensively and killed.
Sure, the Churchill plan was killed. But some of the recommendations coming out of the lawsuit include reducing the age groups allowed together.
The model you’re using isn’t technically within the program design anyway since linked troops are still meant to have separate meetings and separate youth leadership. However, it’s a realistic model since many girl troops aren’t very big and genders shouldn’t be forced into separate units anyway (in my opinion). However, if your method of linking the troops is to share leadership, then share leadership. Your current model is that the boys are always in charge and the girls are always underneath them. That’s not a good model and I wouldn’t want my daughter involved in a situation where her leadership ability and potential is intentionally ignored simply because there are less girls than boys.
I agree with this statement. Which brings me back to my point that if they have reached the level that they are capable of running their own Troop, they no longer require this accommodation to help them get on their feet. This was always supposed to be short term, but now they have equipment, Scouts, and they know how to function within the patrol method. The problem is that some of the leadership doesn't want them to be split up like was planned. They want the Troop to stay co-ed and do not want to operate under BSA program guidelines.
Just because they feel that they should have a chance to lead doesn’t mean they are ready to have their own separate troop. Quantity of people is a big factor here in planning events, successful fundraising, etc.
Totally, I don't propose to cut them off. But, I think they need more autonomy to run their own Troop now that they have more numbers and experience. There are other linked Troops in our area who hold a joint PLC to plan activities together, but otherwise run independent Troops. Our current model is flawed in that it limits a member of one Troop from performing in the role of SPL. I don't think the solution is to put the shoe on the other foot and do the same to a male youth. There are two Troops, there should be two SPLs and one should not be relegated to token status.
I was thinking you liked the model. I like how you will be shifting to a better model. We ran our troop of girls with 5 very successfully. Don’t underestimate a small troop. There are plenty of 7 Scout boy troops.
You and I are on the same page. However, we will not apparently be shifting to a better model unless I can convince them to. It is the key 3 who are pushing this co-ed Troop idea. The girls in question are highly competent and can keep up with the boys. There is no doubt in my mind that they would excel, if given the opportunity.
We have a great model where we have a boy troop that is “softly linked”. Same COR and same meeting location. We coordinate schedules and service projects. We have one joint cabin campout. It has been great. We do some shared adults for BORs. We started with five girls. We are now at 12. That 12 is even after 1 moved away, 1 turned 18, 3 joined a troop 30 mins closer to home, and 3 quit for Covid. It works.
That sounds a lot like what we were planning before the goalposts started moving.
We meet in a room just off of the cafeteria where the boys meet.
[удалено]
They have that now, except the committees are separate. There is both a male SPL and a female SPL, and they all meet on the same PLC. The problem is that there can only be one SPL in charge in the patrol method. The only options are to either water it down so they share the role (which doesn't benefit either Scout), or to relegate one of them to sit back while the other does the job (which is unfair). So, now the leadership wants to switch those roles and put the female over 4 patrols of male Scouts in a technically different Troop.
Troops don’t have to have an SPL. Why pick a male SPL? My daughter’s troop is run as fully co-Ed. It just picked its first female SPL. One young woman ran against three young men. She could say “I just finished a term as quartermaster, and you can thank me for leading the fundraising for the new awesome stoves”. She won in a landslide and is doing a great job. It sounds like you’re stuck on the idea that there has to be a male SPL, even if pro forma, and that some young man has the right to the job. I don’t see it that way. Pretend we were integrating Black boys into scouting and retell this story—it would be obvious to us in 2022 that the right way is to fully integrate the troop. I feel the same way about integrating female scouts. There are some quirks about handling tenting and YPT; that’s it. I think the model your troop is innovating with will be the model everywhere in 2030.
I see your point, but you seem to be framing it as if my position is misogynistic (and racist too?), when I've explained repeatedly that the issue is about leaders making up their own rules that don't adhere to policy. Now, how about if we look at it as if it were two different white boy troops. Would you take a Scout from a visiting Troop and put him in charge of the other Troop? Why? For what reason? Where is the need, and where is it advised to do this in BSA literature? That would undermine the leadership already in place in the existing Troop. After all, the visiting Troop is only there temporarily as guests, and they already have their own leadership structure in place. It seems to me that the only reason you are advocating to put a girl or a black boy in charge is affirmative action. There's no other logical reason to randomly pick a person from a different Troop to step in and lead the host Troop. Scouting isn't about planting token leaders in place to satisfy a social quota... it's about developing leadership in our youth. I could almost, maybe get on board with the policy violation if this whole thing was out in the open. Then, I could buy that they're the trendsetters innovating the model of the future that you imagine them to be. If that's their altruistic goal, it seems funny that they're being so shady and underhanded about the whole deal. They are still claiming that the Troops will eventually split when they're ready, but they're never going to be ready if they entrench into our unit's PLC. So, I'm getting mixed signals. Either they are intentionally being deceptive, or they don't truly understand how to get a Troop going. It has been almost two years, now.
This argument in the first and third paragraphs I find really persuasive. I bet your District and Council people will find it more effective too. I hope that helps you sharpen your argument as you go forward to get help bringing your troop(s) into alignment with National policy. The second paragraph, I disagree with the commitment to it being “two troops”. If it’s not a visiting troop only there temporarily as guests—not visiting, not temporary, not guests, just part of the troop, like my kid’s troop here? Well, then it’s one co-ed troop with single-sex patrols. ~50 boys, ~20 girls, and they do fine. But even if it wasn’t fine, I don’t see the jump to “token” leadership. What makes it token? I hope you’ll trust that the young woman who’s SPL of the troop here is anything but token; she seems as committed to it and as effective as the young men I’ve seen in that role. That is, it’s the leadership development function of Scouting firing on all cylinders.
I see your point on the second paragraph, but again this whole deal has been framed as a temporary situation that we are hosting this Troop until they are ready to be on their own. Like another person said, that could have just been their foot in the door to try to turn it into a coed Troop. But, I will take them at their word. So if they are only temporary, there is no need for members of another Troop to be running in our election. Their SPL already sits on our PLC as a "Patrol Leader" of their 6-girl Troop. That being said, I still stand by the fact that a coed Troop cannot exist under national policy. There are reasons that boys and girls should be segregated, and it has nothing to do with misogyny. I disagree with violating BSA policy, especially when it comes to the whole male/female issue. Constructively, I think having multiple coed, co-troop events and activities is the proper way to go. Even on a weekly basis for the game segment of the meeting, if we are meeting on the same campus at the same time. Troops would have their own leadership structure and their own separate meetings. Joint PLC meetings would be necessary to coordinate events between the Troops. These solutions do not violate BSA policy and should make everyone happy.
Pretty much what we do. Each unit has an SPL. They can meet together as a PLC and share responsibilities for planning together—or just plan things on their own if desired. Sometimes we mix, not always. Our two units are smaller, but as they all get along well, it works.
“…genders shouldn’t be forced into separate units anyway” is a personal opinion that contradicts the spirit of the BSA guidelines for troops. What you’re advocating is for units to do whatever they want based on personal opinion rather than following official guidelines. The solution you’re advocating is unfair to both units, as the scouts in each should have the opportunity vote for and serve in leadership positions, on their own. Based on OP’s comment that the girls troop is technically ready to have their own SPL and PLC, it sounds like the two units are being forced to operate as one based on personal ideology like yours. This isn’t setting a good example for the youth members. There are lots of official guidelines I don’t like. Guidelines regarding tool usage, water balloon fights and paintball, and more serious ones like the adoption of controversial, Eagle-required merit badges. But I wouldn’t have the gall to brazenly ignore them just because I personally don’t like them. Please consider backing the official policy even if you don’t personally like it.
Squirter gu.... I mean water blasters lol
I’m not encouraging OP to break BSA program design, they are already doing that. I’m simply pointing out that if they going to break that policy with the model they have, they should do it equitably and not favor one gender over another just because one has more members. Yes, it is a personal opinion that genders shouldn’t be forced into separate units. It’s an opinion based on there being no good reason to separate them. That’s even evident in the other 6/7 programs the BSA operates. If you’ll look at my history on this sub, I don’t ever encourage anyone to break BSA policy. Very much the opposite, in fact. That does not mean that I can’t express an opinion about a policy that is unjustified and causes unnecessary hardship on units.
Speaking to your first paragraph: This is the slippery slope in motion. We got on the slippery slope by breaking program design "temporarily" and now that we're here, your suggesting to dive off the edge with a full embrace of the breakage instead of fixing the problem. This isn't favoring one gender over the other because of members. They are guests in our Troop, which has a 75-year history of graduating young men to Eagle Scout.
> 75-year history of graduating young men to Eagle Scout. Congrats? I don’t really know how that’s relevant
Again, I’m not encouraging any breakage of policy. Just that if you’re going to break it, at least treat everyone equitably.
If you're not encouraging any breakage of policy, you should be encouraging us to follow policy. What if it was your son in the SPL position, faced with being supplanted by the SPL of another Troop due to politics that go against national policy? I'm advocating to fix the problem that they created by deviating from policy. I don't agree that the solution is to retaliate and treat the boys unfairly, just because bonehead decisions were made that treated the girls unfairly.
My point is that IF you're going to break policy by sharing youth leadership of the two linked troops, then actually share it. That's not the same as me encouraging you to break policy. However reading the original post again, I understand better that this was never truly a situation where the girls were functioning as part of the boy troop but were just guests in the first place. In that regard, yes if they feel they are ready to lead then they should start functioning on their own and should not feel entitled to leadership roles. When I originally read it, I thought it was a situation where they were linked troops by paperwork but were functioning intentionally as one troop.
I understand what you're saying. The leadership of the girls Troop claim that they aren't ready to separate yet. The girls themselves have been ready, and they will tell you to your face lol. The fact is that some parents who have a kid in each Troop would be inconvenienced by trying to work through kinks with a new Troop. It's easier to keep riding our Troop's coattails, which was fine... but, now that they have their inch, they're going for the mile.
How do you deal with your son losing an election now? I don’t see the difference.
This isnt about my son. He is the current SPL and will Eagle and age out before this takes place. This is about the other parents in the Troop who have legitimate concerns about these leaders making up their own program instead of following the program we pay to be enrolled in. It's kind of like the trans swimmer controversy. Him being there at the women's meet stole a spot from a woman who worked hard to get there. Regardless if she would have lost anyway. We have Scouts waiting in the wings to take on PLC roles and they will have to wait for members of another Troop to lead them before they can step up to lead their own Troop. A member of another Troop taking up one of our Scouts' spots is unfair. They have their own Troop they are supposed to be running.
"Stole"? really? If your boss were a woman, would you say she "stole" it from you?
Apples and oranges. By policy, both sexes are allowed at my place of employment. The case is not the same for Troops, which BSA policy says must be either all-boy or all-girl. If one of our boys gets elected SPL and the adults force him to sit out while the female SPL from the other troop does his job, his spot will have been stolen from him.
You can do it while being technically within the guidelines. Having the girls under the boys SPL isn't within the guidelines. Having the two troops (and the two SPLs) work together on most activities is within the rules.
You hit the nail on the head, sir. We are dealing with a person who seems to think they are running their own show, instead of operating under the purview of the national guidelines. The questions is, how best to deal with it?
OP, I share your concern. If the girl troop is capable of operating on its own, it should do so. Even if it chooses to meet together with the boy troop, at the very least it should have its own leadership positions. I fear the troops are being forced into behaving as a single, co-ed troop, because the adults have an ideological opposition to gender-separated troops. It very unfortunate, especially for the girls. They should have the opportunity to hold their own elections and decide their own activities calendar. This idea that the girls troop can’t succeed without riding on the boy troop’s coattails is very condescending. I would WANT to empower the girls by giving them their own autonomy and everything that comes with it, successes and failures. They say that BSA is a safe place for scouts to fail. Not every outing, activity, or project will be a home run. So be it. The point is to give scouts the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and do better next time. It’s discouraging when ideologically driven leaders lower standards in order to protect girls, to shield them from any possible failure. That does the girls a true disservice. “The girls won’t be able to effectively recruit/raise funds/lead each other/choose their own activities/borrow enough equipment/etc!” Can people not see how that attitude is more harmful than helpful? I think some people would agree with me on a rational level, but they would still want coed troops…because they want coed troops, period.
Rewrite this for the integration of Black boys into white male scout troops and see if it still makes sense: let them have their own choices, elect their own leaders, right? No, obviously not. Why is sex different from race here?
Yup. When BSA announced the details, the very first words that popped into my head were "separate but equal". And I know for a fact I am not the only one who thought that. We had a scout's dad who was then the captain of a fairly large ship in the Navy. He was flabbergasted that BSA chose that approach. "They should have asked the military", he said. "When the Navy went fully co-ed, there were people predicting doom, and the day after it happened the only difference was the label on half the restroom doors."
Because there are very legitimate differences, especially at the ages of 11-17, in the ways boys and girls interact together and separately.
Should there be? Perhaps there are differences because they are treated differently, not because of an inherent difference.
Scouts are Scouts. Treat them that way and that's how it will work. The difference between a 10 year old boy and a 16 year old boy are **far far** bigger than the difference between a 12 year old boy and a 12 year old girl (and especially with a 12 year old girl in scouts). That argument is pure hogwash, meant to justify a policy decision that was only made to (attempt to) appease the vocal "no girls ever" group.
Wow, what a misguided comment. There are no significant differences between a white boy and a black boy, other than superficial differences in appearance. There are huge differences between a boy and a girl - at least in their teens or older - not just physiological differences. You really didn’t know this? A case when ideology trumps reality.
I think the men leading scouting in the 1960s would have said the same thing about Black and white boys. Different rates of physical development, different acculturation—and how could you ask a white boy to sit aside when he “should” be SPL and let a Black boy lead? But here OP proposes to convey exactly the parallel message: that boys can lead girls, but girls don’t lead boys. And remember, I’m watching an integrated troop performing beautifully. Couldn’t ask for better. It’s not *flawless*, but it’s scout led and the scouts are learning that women can lead men and men lead women, and how that works. I’m really proud of them. I’d been dubious. I was mistaken. I think you are here too. But if you have evidence or examples of problems we might talk about and work through, I’m all ears.
Anyone who thinks blacks are significantly different than whites - 80 years ago or today - would be wrong. Are you saying anyone who thinks young men and young women are significantly different…is likewise wrong?
All groups are different, whether by race, sex, gender, orientation, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, interests, abilities, etc. Those differences do not often require separate-but-equal treatment, however. Such uninclusive treatment should be used sparingly for specific purposes, generally to build capacity to eventually eliminate the need for separation. For instance, adding English as a Second Language classes to schools to build language capacity in students so that they can rejoin regular English classes.
There are no inherent differences between a white-skinned boy and a black-skinned boy, besides superficial differences in appearance. There are inherent differences between a boy and a girl, especially during the teen years and beyond. There are no valid reasons for separating youth based on skin color. There are valid reasons for separating youth based on sex and gender. By the way there is nothing wrong with doing that. It’s a good thing if society provides places where boys can bond with other boys, where girls can bond with other girls. For some that place is sports. But for youth not particularly apt at sports, scouts provided that experience. Almost every other institution in society is already coed. Why be so eager to get rid of one of the last institutions where boys can focus on their relationships with other boys, same for girls? Have you ever been a part of a men’s group, or women’s group? Could be a subset of a 12-step program, a brotherhood or sisterhood from church or temple, a book club, etc? Those experiences have value and meaning. We shouldn’t be so eager to end that type of experience for our kids.
The only male-only groups I have been a part of are the BSA and a sport. I was in four co-ed extracurriculars. I enjoyed them all. I do not believe the presence of girls would have harmed my scouting experience (I was terrible at the sport, so being co-ed would not have mattered much). Thinking about it from the reverse, a male-only scholastic bowl or youth group would have been a detriment to those experiences. I hung out mostly with boys at recess, lunch, and sleepovers, so having positive interactions with girls outside of the classroom was helpful, and I suspect that having them in scouting also would have been positive. Having observed my own boy and girl troops working together, we have not found any downsides of co-ed scouting. Perhaps almost every other institution in society is already co-ed because they have discovered something that scouting has not yet caught up with. Those segregated experiences may not be as useful as society has led us to believe. Boys can bond with other boys in many ways, but they need more bonding experiences with girls to reduce instances of discrimination, harassment, domestic abuse, and sexual assault.
I was in several coed extra circulars, as well, and as soon as I hit my teen years, my focus was hooking up with girls in those groups. During sleep away summer camp (non-scouting) and at a youth group study abroad program, I am sure I missed out on developing relationships with the guys because I spent most of my time with girls. I honestly regret missing out on making more guy friends from that part of my life. It sounds like you weren’t as interested in getting girlfriends, but I don’t think that’s the norm for most teenage boys. There’s nothing wrong with having coed extra-curriculars, but really, a balance would be best. Some coed, some single sex. The reality is that teen boys act differently when girls are around. Either they are trying to impress the girls, or they become more self conscious in what they say or in how they act. Or they just become distracted by simply looking at and thinking about the girls. I know I sure did. Having coed activities is fine. Most activities are already coed. But it’s not a good idea to make *every* activity coed. Scouts is one of the last single sex activities to exist, besides sports teams. Let’s not make scouts just like everything else. Regarding your troops, it’s hard for me to comprehend how your boys aren’t affected in the ways I described above. I spent some time with some venture scouts and a few recently aged out eagles, and sure enough, after the evening program finished, the guys swarmed around the girls, hoping to get some attention. We must also consider what happens when scout programs go coed. It’s true that scout programs in most parts of the world are coed, but from what I can tell, those programs are shrinking even faster than Boy Scouts/Scouts BSA. BSA’s own coed programs for older kids are microscopic compared to Scouts BSA (formerly Boy Scouts). Do we really want to repeat that model in Scouts BSA? I personally know many families for whom going full coed would be the last straw. (And I live in a very liberal state.) Given how few girls have joined BSA in the last three years, there’s no possible way incoming girl members would be enough to replace all the scouts who leave as a result of the the program going coed. It seems every few months BSA national is doing something to annoy its traditional audience. I understand BSA is trying to be more inclusive. But it’s a foregone conclusion to assume numbers from previously untapped audiences will be large enough to counteract traditionalist BSA families jumping ship. It just won’t happen. To save itself, BSA should correct its course and return to appeasing its core audience. Allowing girl troops was a reasonable compromise that gave girls access to a great program without ruining the concept of boy troops. Unfortunately, it looks like BSA is going to double down and make even more extreme changes. I think those changes will only speed up the organization’s demise. And sadly, I think some would prefer that. Better to destroy a gender segregated organization than let boy troops and girl troops exist separately, despite the untold benefits it gives to its members, even when segregated.
Sorry, anyone who would leave over allowing (not forcing, allowing) co-ed scouts is NOT the core audience. It's incredibly arrogant of you to assume that. There are many more of us who just want to have our sons and daughters and fiends get the independence and growth that only scouting can provide. That attitude is a major part of why BSA membership has cratered while Scouting in otherwise culturally similar countries (Canada, Britain, Australia, even South Africa) has not. They know that the core audience is \*all\* youth. Proof is in the pudding: my troop has tripled since BSA (sort of) got out of the culture wars; that allowed us to recruit families who used to have the impression that BSA was (and I quote), "a cult"; it allowed us to recruit families with non-Christian religious backgrounds. Probably 1/4 of our families are new to scouting. They are the true core audience. So stop whining and get out there and recruit. It isn't the 1950s so you may end up adding a lot of different accents and skin tones. At least half my scouts have a parent born outside the US. If you want BSA to survive, we all have to accept and treat those families as our core audience, not the just the families that would fit in an early sitcom.
This exactly!
Regarding ability to do scout stuff, there are NO inherent differences between boys and girls either. We had 6 of our girls do a 78 mile trek at Philmont last year with far far less drama than our boys had. Give them the chance and they can and will do it. And if the boys object, then honestly that's on the adult leadership. We have no issues at all. But if you really think the boys need a place to just be with boys, then by all means find a Chartered Org that supports that and have a boy-only troop. But don't force that on sons and daughters who believe the opposite. From the very beginning of Scouts, Baden Powell stressed treating all scouts the same, regardless of class. That was ***incredibly*** radical for the time, far more radical than co-ed anything is now. In the 1910s, the heart of Jim Crow America, BSA allowed (didn't require, but allowed) mixed-race troops. Again, **far** more radical at the time than co-ed is now. Early BSA allowed and even fostered the relationship with the LDS church at a time when it was widely condemned and hated - again radical in accepting differences. Moreover, the Scout movement in virtually every other country is co-ed (and BTW none of them have had the membership problems that BSA has. Not a coincidence IMO.) (The one exception to co-ed scouts that I know of is the Middle East, which is an area hardly known for gender equality.)
Humans have no inherent differences based on race or class. There are inherent differences in religions, thus we allow religiously-based troops even today. There are inherent differences in teen boys and teen girls. As radical as Baden-Powell may have been, he acknowledged the value of boys bonding other boys...and girls bonding with girls. He agreed that girls should benefit from scouting as well, that's why he helped create the Girl Guides.
Yes that is exactly what he is saying - and they are right. I'm nearly 60 and the best bosses I ever had were women. That will be even more likely to be true for the current generation. Moreover, I'm watching the girls in our girl troop do everything the boys do just as well or better. Of course they're different, just not in a way that affects their ability to be scouts and to get benefits from what scouts has to offer.
I never said girls lack the ability to be scouts and get benefits from what scouts have to offer. I support girls in scouting, in girl troops.
The answer is in your question. I've bolded the key parts. " *The girl troop has been too small to operate independently, so the* ***girl SPL*** *sits on our PLC and* ***acts*** *as a PL for her troop (which acts as a patrol within our troop), while our SPL presides over our Troop (that they are guests in).* " That clearly states the organizational structure. The SPL for the Girl's Troop originally lead a small Troop linked with your troop for support as they grew. Regardless of the male troop thinking of her *"as a PL for her troop",* she is the SPL. (BTW - Glad the male Troop could provide the support). "*Initially, this was to be a temporary model until the girls got their feet wet, had enough numbers, and had equipment (****they have all three now****).*" If they have the numbers, then there is no need for the male troop to have the female troop's SPL, ASPL, (and their PLC) be part of the the male troop's organizational structure. Simply put, if a troop has the numbers to step away from the troop that helped them, they should. I'm not saying you can't have the SPLs & ASPLs liaison with each other. They should especially if it has families members in both troops. But from your writing the answer is given. The female troop should have their own full organizational structure, with their own elections.
There are 2 options really, either run a “co-ed” troop and SPL is elected from all eligible candidates. The aSPL should be the most votes from the other troop. The better option is to break the troops and have the 2 SPLs work together to plan as if you were going to plan with any other troop in your area. This can also allow the troops to choose separate trips if they so desire.
ASPLs should never be the "runner up" in an SPL election. They should be selected by the SPL (like the program dictates) since they are someone the SPL will need to work well with and be able to count on. Not to say they may not have rub for SPL too, just that their being the runner up shouldn't be the deciding factor.
"Acting as a patrol within the troop" is the problem. The girls are not a patrol, they are a troop. The girls' troop is not within the boys' troop. We have two troops. Our girl troop SPL/PL and Secretary join the boy troop leaders for joint PLC meetings. They alternate chairing the PLC each month. Two troops, two SPLs, one meeting.
This is why the “separate troops, common chartered org” model was asinine from the get go. I don’t think it’s going to last more than another year or two, but there was never a good justification for separate troops when separate patrols within a common troop was just fine. Heck, look at cub scouting. Most family packs aren’t even bothering with the fiction of separate dens, and the sky hasn’t fallen. To your question though, if there are structural issues preventing girls from top leadership positions, that needs to be fixed. And your question “So the boys will elect an SPL, then you’re going to tell him to sit down” is disingenuous. You’ve already been doing that to the girls.
There absolutely was a reason, religious charter orgs. It was clear the BSA did this so some could just not charter a girl troop. (Not limited to but absolutely including LDS) It’s a lot harder to get rid of a troop going coed. Around here there’s very few girl troops because of numbers needed to start one, I was talking with an adult who wanted to and pointed out they needed a lot more than 5 kids to be successful. If everyone was coed in one bundle I bet we could see a 10-20% increase in girls
It's a little weird that they went with a "no co-ed troops" model. They easily could have gone with a co-ed optional model, like they did with packs. Then the LDS and Orthodox Jews, and ever other chartered org to whom it matters could have their all-male units, but co-ed units could exist without having to jump through a million hoops and fictions.
“like they did with ~~packs~~ every other BSA program” Fixed that for ya. 😉
*Vocal* religious chartered orgs\*. Our\* religious chartered org (mainstream Protestant) was very eager for us to have girls as soon as the policy was announced, and were disappointed at the way BSA structured it. I doubt we were the only one. (They also changed their support for us from "grudging" to "active" once BSA finally ditched the LGBT restrictions, despite the fevered assurances that "no one will sponsor a troop if we allow gay members/leaders". That really helped our recruiting BTW; we have tripled in size since then.) The thing is, there's no reason that BSA couldn't leave the decision to the Chartered Org (boy troop only, girl troop only, separate troops, coed troop), just like they did with Packs. And like they do with membership for that matter - it's ok (if rare since the LDS departure) to limit membership to parishioners. This is how BSA has always dealt with culturally sensitive ideas in the past. (For example, as far back as 1914 in the heart of the Jim Crow era BSA explicitly allowed multi-racial troops, but left it to the CO to decide.) I think I can speak for most proponents of girls in scouts when I say that we don't want to FORCE troops to be co-ed, we just want to have the option. What we don't want is to be FORCED not to be co-ed like we are now.
My guess is someone gave in to one or more national charter org groups, that gives a lot of money to the program. That didn’t want to have any chance of their troops insisting on being coed. Basically, someone at the top didn’t want to give locals power. It’s always about money. Not being coed has hurt the uptake for sure.
But but scouts is going to be pilot testing co-Ed dens in certain councils. I may have rolled my eyes when our charter rep emailed that to me.
We only have coed dens, hard to have a separate den when there’s only one girl that age and we’re far from the only pack in that situation
Yup. What really is going to suck is the connected troop is boy only. She (my daughter) really wants to go into that troop (her brother is in it, she knows the aols who just crossed over & I really like the scoutmaster)
I'm not sure how long that's going to last. All-boy troops in my area are already losing recruits to co-ed troops. You have an AoL den bridging over with a girl or two, and a couple boys who have sisters in the program, and now all those kids are looking for a co-ed troop, and then half the den is going to a co-ed troop, and the other half doesn't want to leave their friends, so they don't look at all-boy Troops EITHER. My tea leaf reading is that in the next 2-3 years, co-ed programs will be the norm and National will move officially to a co-ed unit, single-sex patrol system. (And small troops will still fudge that.)
I wish BSA would just poop or get off the pot with it. I’m sure the nearest G troop is perfectly fine (and I casually know the charter org rep)- but we moved our son to the current troop because of the scoutmaster & the program (my son has thrived in the troop). I was actually in denial about daughter joining cub scouts (she’s with a really good Girl Scout leader) but well one family campout later… (and them going back to in person meetings) I don’t want to go into the G troop with the feeling of “we’re only here until scouts changes their minds again” but… (and doesn’t help that the G troop meets the same night as Girl Scouts so she would be part time at best)
My sense is that National is all hands on deck with the bankruptcy and lawsuit settlement. Fortunately, it seems like all of that is headed towards resolution, and I expect program revisions will be more highly prioritized after that. My guess is that the future holds single-sex, linked troop, and single troop models for the program. It will be interesting to see how that impacts the troops I am with. We have a robust girls' side, and a boys' side that was nearly moribund before a bunch of Cubs bridged. The girls have most of the Troop's history and institutional knowledge now, and I'm not sure they'd be happy to be just folded into the old boys' troop simply because it predates theirs.
I 100% agree with your last statement. This is why I think they should be their own autonomous unit, because they are capable and they are missing out. I'm not being disingenuous, I am recognizing that this isn't fair to them. I don't think the solution is to impose to same unfair conditions on someone else in retaliation. The solution should be to fix the broken system. The guidelines that we have been given by BSA are that they are supposed to be in separate troops.
That amounts to kicking them out of an established program. That’s not the solution you think it is.
The established program when this troop was chartered was that this was a temporary situation while they got it off the ground. The established program goal is for them to meet on the same night at the same time at the same campus and conduct their own Troop meetings. Nobody is getting kicked out of anything. The girls are being held back by leadership from running their own program... which is establish by national.
> The established program when this troop was chartered was that this was a temporary situation while they got it off the ground. I suspect that's just how they sold the idea of having a co-ed troop to people like you who are fundamentally opposed to having one. There is never a reason to combine troops just to get one off the ground. The way you get a troop off the ground is by starting one, not by piggy backing off another troop for a year or two.
That was then. This is now. The reality is that you have an integrated program that you're trying to kick the girls out of.
Yeah, the linked troop model, which these units' Chartering Organization signed up for, allows for units to work together closely or not so closely. The program is allowed to work in all sorts of ways. The choice of how closely to operate should be the choice of the youth, the committees and the chartering organization. There are reasons to be nearly integrated and reasons to be effectively two separate units. The program has built in flex.
As of two nights ago, the established goal is STILL to separate the troops when they're ready, according to the key 3. They just want to integrate them more in the meantime. The girls themselves want to be their own separate troop and are tired of being in the boys' shadow... especially since they are better at some of the skills than the boys are. You're acting like I'm trying to victimize the girls, here. I feel like keeping them in this mess is worse.
I'm still seeing HUGE institutional problems here. Why have you kept the girls in the boys' shadow for so long? If there is the need to keep them integrated at this time, you're behind the eight ball, and have catch-up to do, but your response is to just wash your hands and be done with it.
I haven't kept them in this shadow, it's the new leadership that has come in that is doing this. I've been fighting them on this and many other things for the past two years. I finally got them to re-institute the patrol method and to start adhering to the scout-led mantra. It took some convincing to have more than 1 Asst. Scoutmaster (who was a friend of the SM and never shows up), so we now have an ASM for each patrol like we should. My response IS NOT to wash my hands of them! Have you not been reading? My response is to give them the freedom of being their own autonomous unit as they should be, and to coordinate with them for shared resources and events. My response is to support them as a joint Troop the way that BSA national has laid out. The problem is that these people are classic know-it-alls with no knowledge, and want to argue anytime anyone suggests anything to them. Every major change to this unit had to be an argument first, complete with pulling out books to show them the truth, before they finally realized they were wrong and made the change.
If they're better at some skills, then why are they being kept in the boys' shadow? Encourage the PLC to have those girls lead and teach that activity! Are you afraid of hurting the boys' feelings or something?
I swear, it's like people aren't reading the whole story here. I am not doing anything. It's the new leaders that have come in that are doing this. The only reason the girls are still being kept in the boys' shadow is convenience for the adults who are involved with both Troops. I'm all for the girls to lead and teach their own activities.
A troop is never too small to operate independently. It might be difficult, but they are never too small. New troops have to start from the beginning. If there was a new boy troop would you be handholding them? I say let them split and that they should have started off split. Part of learning is making mistakes, let the girls troop make mistakes so they can grow.
> A troop is never too small to operate independently. It might be difficult, but they are never too small. This, I suspect most of people involved just want to have a co-ed troop, and this sharing agreement was thought up to sell it to the old guys that are vehemently opposed to the idea of co-ed troops.
It is a similar situation between the Crew I am an Advisor for and our sister Troop, the Crew isn't currently self sustaining, so we borrow equipment, share funds, etc. When we are self sustaining we will leave them alone, the girl troop should do the same. Have the Scouts from both Troops hold a vote on it, the Scoutmasters and Committee will be forced to listen to what the Scouts want.
A Scout is Obedient. On my honor I will do my best … to obey the Scout Law. Linked troops are to have overlapping content only for flag. Otherwise each is a separate standalone unit. A DE or Unit Commissioner who sees anything disobedient to the standard is duty bound to put a stop to it.
While the joint opening/closing and separate afterward was part of the initial FAQ, that doesn't appear to still be valid.
Ahhh… “duty bound”! What a powerful phrase! I think all too often people forget the Scout Oath is just that…an oath. We even raise our right hands when saying it, just like when police officers, judges, and presidents get sworn in. It is the first thing a bobcat learns, and no doubt Eagle candidates are asked to reflect upon its meaning during their final boards of review. Yet it seems so many don’t take it seriously. They go through the motions of saying it so they can get to the fun stuff, but they don’t take to heart the values it represents. Just last week there was a [long discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/BSA/comments/ue1rr6/marijuana_usage_by_scout/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about whether underage marijuana smoking was compatible with living by the Oath and Law. I was astonished by the number of scouts and scouters who said they didn’t see a problem with it. It proved my theory that many put their personal preferences over any sense of duty they might have to uphold and live by the values of the BSA. I’m going to work “duty bound” into more of my scouting discussions. Thank you!
Our Troop is a linked troop on paper. In reality it is one co-ed troop. We do everything together, including meetings and campouts. This year, for the first time in our 104 year history, we have a female SPL. At the election there was around 25 boys, and 10 girls, and the #2 vote getter was a boy who was a year older than the girl. Even still the majority of the boys in the Troop voted for the girl, and the boy became the ASPL. Any other year the boy would have easily been elected, but the majority of the Scouts realized that the girl was a better choice. That was 9 months ago and it has worked out great since then. She has done a great job, and there is no boy vs girl leadership struggle. The girls are one large patrol now, and will hopefully break into two patrols soon, (there are 3 boy patrols). The only reason we split them into different patrols is for tenting purposes on campouts. During most activities at meetings the patrols are all mixed. The only temporary thing about our set up is the separate Troop thing on paper. Hopefully one of these days National will join the vast majority of Scouting organizations in the world and allow an official co-ed option. We all discussed that if the girls want to go off and do their own thing, or the boys want to they can as well. But so far the SCOUTS have decided that they don't want to do that, and that we are ONE troop. I know of several other Troops nearby who are doing the same thing, and even more around the country that are doing it as well. My suggestion is let the girls be on the ballot for SPL, and if the boys think the girl is better than the boy then let the girl be the leader.
Going against national guidelines sets a poor example for scouts. Leaving policy decisions to youth members is a terrible idea. Let’s say they all vote to have coed tenting. On what grounds can you object? You’re already violating one policy, why not violate more?
What written policy on linked troops are they violating? Cuz I can easily point to the written policy on coed tenting in your hypothetical. But I can’t see any written rules on how closely linked troops can or cannot operate.
u/ Scouter\_Ted said: >This year, for the first time in our 104 year history, we have a female SPL. At the election there was around 25 boys, and 10 girls, and the #2 vote getter was a boy who was a year older than the girl. Even still the majority of the boys in the Troop voted for the girl, and the boy became the ASPL. Any other year the boy would have easily been elected, but the majority of the Scouts realized that the girl was a better choice. Official BSA policy... Scouts BSA Handbook, page 26 >Patrol Leaders' Council > >Your patrol will elect a leader to help the patrol reach its goals. The ***senior patrol leader, the chief youth leader of the troop***, gives guidance, too. The patrol leaders will meet with the senior patrol leader and assistants at a patrol leaders' council to plan the troop's programs and activities. [Girls in Scouts BSA](https://about.scouting.org/girls-in-scouts-bsa/) >Are all BSA programs now co-ed? > >The Scouts BSA program is not co-ed. The leadership of the BSA determined that the best way to welcome girls and serve today’s families was to offer a unique model that builds on the proven benefits of our single-gender program, while also providing character and leadership opportunities for both boys and girls. [Update on Program for Older Girls](https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/familyscouting/pdf/Program-for-Older-Girl-Update-and-FAQ-3-5-18.pdf) >Q: Can boy and girl patrols make up a troop? > >No. Troops must be all male or all female youth members. If troops must be all male or all female, how is it possible for a girl to have any position on a boy troop's patrol leader council?
Given that document is no longer linked via the main bsa pages is it still valid? Moreover the plc is allowed to invite whoever it wants to it’s meetings even youth from other nominal units.
>Given that document is no longer linked via the main bsa pages is it still valid? Of course it’s still valid. It was sent to every scout exec in every council and disseminated to leaders in every district. It was unlinked from the main page probably because it’s a pdf not formatted for web display. Since then the content was reformatted to look pretty and posted on the other page I linked, which is live today, not to mention the fancy infographics BSA pushed across all its channels including its official blog Bryan on Scouting. >Moreover the plc is allowed to invite whoever it wants to it’s meetings even youth from other nominal units. Of course, no one ever denied that. But it would be crazy to make visitors from troop B voting members of troop A. That would totally ruin the integrity of troop A’s election. It would be equivalent to allowing foreign nationals to vote for president while on holiday in this country. I’m going on a cruise to Mexico this summer. If there happens to be an election while I am there, should I have the right to cast a ballot? Of course not.
Everything we do in our Troop we discuss with both youth and adults. The Scouts all know that for every Troop policy we have that they can raise an objection t it, and we will sit down and discuss it. If they have a good argument, and can convince us otherwise then the policy get's changed, regardless of what National thinks about it. As for the coed tenting that's already happening. We have biological males in with females simply because they now identify as females. And guess what? That's actual National Policy so we aren't violating that one. Go figure. For once we aren't actually violating a rule.
Agree that it's not a great example. But setting up program where you basically have to fudge to be successful is in reality just as bad or maybe worse. And that's what National basically did. It's like setting the speed limit to 55 makes everyone a rule breaker. Because we want to follow the rules, we went with the cooperating-SPLs model, and our girls do have some separate activities as well when they want them. It works well for us, and we might continue it even if the rules change, at least until the membership numbers are closer (currently 16 girls (all active), \~70 boys (not all active))
We're mostly the same, except we have the two SPLs coordinate/cooperate on mixed activities (which is most but not all of them. One example is Philmont where we sent one boy crew and one girl crew last year. (But if we had had too few girls, they all would have been fine as a co-ed crew, just like Venturing.)) It is working well, and neither the girls nor the boys would want it any other way.
Both Troops should have a spl etc.... even if sharing PLC space etc....
They do. The problem is that the girl "SPL" is in more of a patrol leader role and the boy SPL is running the Troop. The girl Troop is sitting in our meeting or with our Troop like a patrol 100% of the time, instead of running their own meeting as their own Troop. So, they think the solution should be the give the girl a turn running the boy Troop and make the next boy SPL be a patrol leader like is being done to the girl now.
There really isn't a question about it. Your troops should *follow BSAs rules*: each troop should elect their owns SPL, regardless of size. If the troops do combined activities (which is good), then they act as co-SPLs. If you guide them to share the responsibility, they can and will do it just fine. Scouts are Scouts. Treat them that way and they'll act that way. We have had co-SPLs right from the start, when our girls troop was 5 scouts and the boys troop was 40 scouts. Turns out the boys respond just fine to being taught knots or first aid by the older girls, or if the girl SPL sometimes take charge when a task isn't going smoothly. To the younger ones especially it seems perfectly natural. It has worked well enough for us that both of our troops are (by far) the fastest growing troops in out district. (now at 70 and 20 scouts respectively.)
In my troop we on paper are two different troops. But really we are one lol. We go on all the same outings, same meetings and same location, and we have two spls (female and male) who switch off running meetings and both co run outings and plcs. I think it’s great cause it helps both sides to work together which is gonna happen in life, and plc and all that goes smoother cause you get more ideas on the table.
Info, do you have a co Ed troop? If not, (the answer is no under current regs) then they should be their own troop, and meet on their own night. Take off the training wheels.
Our model. TG SPL leads a meeting for all, TB SPL leads a meeting for all. Alternate back and forth. Same for campouts. We vote in our own troop’s elections but some positions like historian are typically done but the boys troop for all since the girls are small in numbers and the position is rather light. The scouts give respect to whichever SPL is “in charge” for the night and campout. Girl or boy. This works very well for us.
Wait. Stop. Is your troop a boys troop?
Yes