Scouts is (or always was!) an incredibly middle class activity

[Greatballzoffire]

Just that. Our local one is full of very wealthy families, waiting list are years long & the children that could probably do with & afford scouts can't get in the door.
I always associated scouts as an inexpensive activity that all children can access. Ours seem to be predominantly full of middle class families who travel from other areas to our scout unit.

It does....

Our group expects ALL parents to help in someway unless there are very exceptional circumstances. We do not regard shift work as exceptional. We have tasks that need doing that do not involve being present at meetings. Stuff like looking after admin is just as important for the group.

I said there are many issues and I've mentioned them in previous posts.

And no it's not very very few that are just lazy. I don't read the daily mail.

I'm one of 7 brought up in poverty, DH one of 6. Both parents working, little to no benefits available. I live cheek by jowl with an impoverished estate, many of the kids there were DCs school friends. Some of the lovliest kids around. However, a reasonable proportion of parents couldn't be bothered unless there was literally no effort required.

Believe me, after a full day of stressful work and organising dinner and homework and washing etc there were nights where I could see heading out to take them to scouts/judo/swimming etc etc far enough. No family to help etc. But I did it because I prioritised it over anything else. If DC are shy or reluctant too it doesn't make you want to make the effort. But it's a fact that some parents are lazy and will take the easy option all the time. One friend of DCs could only come for a play date if I went and collected him and took him home, not a car journey, a 5 minute walk but over a main road.

I often wonder at the lost potential hidden in some of these kids, potential Olympic medal winners or leaders never given opportunities to shine. It makes me sad and angry in equal measure.

I have not said that it did. I remember (when my children were much younger), my friend Anne told me that she was going to sign her son up for an activity and there was usually a waiting list. So I did the same - and I told my friend Kate, who also signed up. And on and on.

Within a few weeks, about 15 of us had signed our children up. So, once someone else came to sign up, they found an already quite long waiting list and may have been put off.

Signing up to something and telling your friends about it isn't a bad or unethical thing to do. But it does sometimes mean that the thing ends up colonised by a group of friends and friends-of-friends.

I read Kate & Pippa Middleton did scouting for years. Kate is now a patron for the scouts & has had her kids helping out at scout events.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1457787/kate-middleton-duchess-cambridge-scouts-ceo-royal-family-bear-grylls-spt

They're not going to pick Dave from Lozells/ Mosside/ Tower Hamlets etc to be a figurehead are they. By default they're going to select well-known people with influence and that's going to bias socially upwards.

That doesn't reflect on what's happening in local communities around the country.

My group covers village/ suburb/ ex-council estate, and the district covers a similar range. There are children from all areas participating. How biased it is within that, I don't know. My unit has a spread of our catchment neighbourhoods and a spread of schools which gives a vague indication, but nothing definitive.

My Scouting and Guiding unit both do what we can to optomise experiences on as affordable a budget as possible. My Guiding unit has a smaller catchment, but we don't assume that the postcode = affluence. There is social housing in the neighbourhood, or after paying for a postcode, there's not necessarily much disposable income left.

Both units have at least a fair share of children with additional needs. My son is autistic, and Scouting is good for his social and practical skill development. Sometimes he declines camps. Sometimes he goes but adapts by taking his own tent. We do what we can to work for children with a range of needs and enable them to get a broad range of experiences. Facilities, budget, and training/ experience mean that it can't always be unlimited. Ultimately all children and leaders have to be safe.

Nothing will ever be totally openly accessible to all evenly, and even if it was people have a right to be interested or not. In an imperfect, uneven world, Scouting and Guiding do a pretty good job of being assets to their communities and improving young lives.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g43824947/prince-george-princess-charlotte-prince-louis-volunteer-scouts-photos/

Yes a middle class (one might argue upper middle class) activity in on display right here!
I think many might feel it's "not for people like us" when the royal family get roped in!

well, your obviously a better person than they are aren’t you

it’s just not that easy for some. And you’re so judgemental thinking you did it so they can. Life is so complex.

i agree with you about lost potential. These are children the ones that would benefit from something like scouts the most. It’s also generational. So it wasn’t for my parents, so it wasn’t for me and it wouldn’t have been for my children had I not been harassed by that mum.

@WombatChocolate and @CruCru have already made good points.

This is partly what made Sure Start Children's Centres such an easy target for austerity measures. They were a brilliant service for all parents but became (wrongly) perceived as being dominated by the 'sharp elbowed middle classes'. Whereas the national evaluations (NESS) were very positive and I recall that one finding (amongst many, many other findings) was the positive benefit of a social mix of parents using the centres. A universal service can be of benefit to everyone, including disadvantaged people, whereas a targeted service often fails to reach the people who might benefit the most due to stigma or embarrassment. Where are we now? Sure Start ended, children's centres have dwindled away and the huge benefit of a universal service has been lost.

As CruCru says, the peer effect of social networks is also hard to counteract. I am a bit of an 'organiser' by nature and if I hear of something interesting happening, I often send the link or details to other people I know. All community activities thrive on numbers and having a friend or acquaintance along to a session or event makes it more enjoyable. I remember sending the details of a children's centre postnatal course to my NCT group of 5 or 6 mums (all middle class), so of course they all signed up - perhaps that was the wrong thing to do in hindsight? But then again, we were all new mothers, living in the local area and entitled to attend that children's centre. Later on I became a regular volunteer at that children's centre and also another in the local area.

Coming back to Scouts, somewhere at the heart of this thread are the twin ideas of 'having social awareness' and 'holding back'. One kind of social awareness is having the tact not to bang on about expensive holidays or hobbies in earshot of a mixed group of people! A lot of people hopefully have the social awareness to know how that would make them appear. But should or would any middle-class parent be so acutely aware of their own privilege that they hold back from taking up a space at an activity that might be interesting and socially rewarding for their child? Their child who, like all children, has their areas of strength, weakness and developmental need? Or perhaps SEND, which doesn't discriminate by social class? And even if they do 'hold back', the likelihood is that the place will only be taken up by the another ambitious middle-class parent who has printed out the form and handed it on the very first day of the application period, rather than the stressed out parent who is juggling shift work, illness, housing issues and will only find out six-months later. It's a conundrum and I think it would be a very rare and socially conscious parent who would intentionally disadvantage their own child in that situation.

The only way to resolve the problem (if it is a problem in any particular area) is to have certain places set aside for applicants on FSM or a low income. But implementing these policies can be complicated in itself.

It doesn't matter how lazy or not lazy you were-you couldn't get to our scouts if you were a single parent with more than one child or without a car. Especially if you read Mumsnet and realised that a surprising number of people regard accepting a lift you can't reciprocate as akin to stealing a kidney.

😂😂😂

I don't think I'm a "better person" and I don't think that all those parents don't care either.

But the fact remains that not everyone has unsurmountable barriers, some just can't be bothered unless all effort is removed.

Life is bloody hard most of the time for most people, it's complex, it's hard to engage and motivate people but that doesn't take away responsibility from people to make an effort for their children even if they can't for themselves.

It's failing them and there is only so much that the rest of society can pick up. That help needs to go to those who genuinely can't, not spread thinly including those who just won't. They get a free ride as no-one wants the DC to be excluded.

Anyway, I don't think we are going to agree. I just don't think that everyone needs to be a victim.

@BigBoysDontCry "But the fact remains that not everyone has unsurmountable barriers, some just can't be bothered unless all effort is removed."

Yeah, well. Presumably this mindset exists in all social groups and demographics. How about we stop using it as an excuse to justify ignoring the real barriers many people face? Well done for overcoming the issues you had. Shame it didn't make you more, rather than less willing to offer a hand to others.

How do you know what help I do or don't give to others? 🙄

must be where you live a friend of ours is a scout leader and hes the most down to earth working class yorkshire man i know

No absolutely not.

Traditionally it was a cheap activity that taught useful skills. Lots of working class kids went, especially the children of skilled manual type workers.

It may have been out of reach of those on very low incomes, but when I was a brownie and my friends were cubs subs were 20p which wouldn't have bought you a half of lager, probably about the cost of a mars bar.

Uniform was always handed down and sold second hand.

Probably one of the most accessible hobbies/activities when I was growing up and when my parents were growing up. It is very sad if that has changed.

When i went about 30 years ago, it was expensive. It wasn't trying to be, but it was hard when you were poor. That said, i don't think people got left out of activities because of money.

Herod doesn't appear in the Nativity story.

Sorry-wrong thread!

Both my sons were scouts and eldest one volunteers for Explorers. I wouldn’t say it was exclusively middle class.
My youngest one is nearly 18 now. When they were going through Beavers, cubs and Scouts ( and youngest one with football) I paid in cash weekly.
Now everywhere is cashless and more pertinently paid at least half-termly in advance. I think this puts a lot of pressure on people especially those in non-professional jobs.
My cousin who has younger kids, is really, really middle-class struggles with finding money for extra-curriculars for three kids upfront for a term.

Op, perhaps you could talk to the organizers about prioritizing the local kids, or kids who cannot afford other activities. It sounds like like the area could use another group of scouts, so maybe you could encourage that?

You are mistaken in thinking the middle class wouldn't be interested in scouts though.

By “encourage that”, do you mean set one up herself? I know that this sounds a bit snippy but telling thinly spread scout volunteers that they need to provide another group without offering to make this happen may go down badly.

When I’ve volunteered, one of the things that drove me crackers was people telling me how to volunteer in a more effective / satisfactory way without offering to help in any way. How would you prioritise local children or children who can’t afford other activities? Put in place a cut off distance (like school applications)? Have a maximum parental income? These are hard to do for a volunteer.

But the problem remains this - a lack of leaders and the sheer amount of volunteer hours needed to run a successful group.

The biggest barrier of all is there being no one to run a group. Then no one gets to do scouting at all regardless of class.

If you want to get involved, you'll find a place in Scouting by offering that help.

The truth is we simply couldn't keep the group going if we didn't ask all parents to contribute in some way. We don't expect everyone to become a full on leader.

Asking all parents to contribute is the fairest way to do it - we cant pretend there's no work. And the trouble with making too many exceptions is that the pushy middle class types are the ones who try to take the piss on it most.

To my knowledge there's only been a couple of people who have been problematic with not understanding this issues and refusing to contributr. One I knew well enough to know that the bullshit she was coming out with about having no time was just laziness - she was married, lived two streets away and worked part time. The kid ultimately ended up having his place removed because she kicked off at being asked to do something (she'd been asked multiple times previously and she'd been told that if she didn't make an effort they'd rescind the place).

We've also found that the most affluent parents are also the ones who often emotionally neglect their kids round here and think they can buy their way out of helping. We can't afford to do this, because volunteer time is the most valuable currency to us.

We argue that a single mum with a couple of kids might not be able to run a night. There's no reason they can't help with admin at a time that suits them though. That's how we try to keep it fair and keep the work load down for other group members who do more directly with the kids. We are willing to give to those who struggle and we do financially help some who attend.

We try and help out other groups which aren't as well off too. It's good for all the kids - they get to mix and get to share equipment.

There is no simple solution to this. Since Covid ALL scout groups have struggled for volunteers and cash. A lot of the old leaders used the opportunity to finally give it up. And Covid financially screwed everyone - Scouting UK was forced to sell off assets and some groups folded. Then there was the great debacle of last year in South Korea.

Groups have to be financially viable and sustainable. They also have to have enough volunteers to keep going.

A couple of hundred pounds to fly to Poland?!

I don't think so.....