New YW Group Names

[ckmcdonald]

As the ward YW Presidencies in our stake implement the more flexible way they are now allowed to group the YW, including naming these groups, they and ward clerks are reporting that LCR is very restrictive in what it will allow the groups to be named. The most troubling to them is the enforcement that the name contain an age-range. Some of our wards are not grouping the girls by age. LCR is forcing them to have group names (ie. Young Women 16-18) with age-ranges which doesn't represent who is in the group and this is causing confusion. Example, one ward is grouping their YW by grade in school. They'd prefer a name such as "Young Women - Juniors" or "Young Women - Seniors" but aren't allowed to name the groups as such.

My question, are we misunderstanding the intent to which the Church is allowing the naming of YW groups, or, has LCR not been updated to allow naming without reference to an age-range?

[davesudweeks]

Our YW organization has not told me how they plan to group them (they are waiting until after the Face to Face broadcast to make their final decision in conference with the Bishop). Once that happens, if LCR won't let me organize them in a flexible manner that works best for our unit (as directed by the Prophet), I will certainly submit that as feedback on LCR.

[jonesrk]

My question, are we misunderstanding the intent to which the Church is allowing the naming of YW groups, or, has LCR not been updated to allow naming without reference to an age-range?

LCR is updated to support the new YW groups. The direction we were given was to allow them to be split by age range and to control the names based on the age range.

[lajackson]

Some of our wards are not grouping the girls by age. . . . Example, one ward is grouping their YW by grade in school. They'd prefer a name such as "Young Women - Juniors" or "Young Women - Seniors" but aren't allowed to name the groups as such [in LCR].

I participated last week in a training session given by a counselor in the General Young Women presidency. She said that to separate YW into groups under any criteria other than age would be a rare exception. There was no intention to "name" them anything other than Young Women, and then to differentiate them by age where local leaders determined that would be best, usually due to the number of YW involved at any particular age.

[scgallafent]

It would probably be good for you and the leaders in your stake to review the attachment to the October 5, 2019, letter that announced these changes.

Some of our wards are not grouping the girls by age.

You should be grouping the classes based on the age of the young women in the class. To be more specific, classes should be grouped based on the birthday that the young women will have during that year.

From the attachment (emphasis mine):

• "The organization of classes should fit the ages of the young women in the ward or branch...."
• "Age-groups may include all young women meeting as one class or divided into multiple classes."
• "A ward with a large number of 12-year-olds and very few of other ages could have two classes, 'Young Women 12' and 'Young Women 13–18.'"
• "If needed, class names may include the specific ages of the young women meeting together in each class—for example,'Young Women 12–14'; 'Young Women 15–18'...."

As the ward YW Presidencies in our stake implement the more flexible way they are now allowed to group the YW, including naming these groups, they and ward clerks are reporting that LCR is very restrictive in what it will allow the groups to be named. The most troubling to them is the enforcement that the name contain an age-range. ... LCR is forcing them to have group names (ie. Young Women 16-18) with age-ranges which doesn't represent who is in the group and this is causing confusion. Example, one ward is grouping their YW by grade in school. They'd prefer a name such as "Young Women - Juniors" or "Young Women - Seniors" but aren't allowed to name the groups as such.

LCR follows the pattern established in the letter and in the instructions that were given to the developers. You can't name a group "Young Women - Juniors" because that doesn't agree with the instructions that were given. The developers were given explicit instructions to follow the naming pattern that LCR enforces.

My question, are we misunderstanding the intent to which the Church is allowing the naming of YW groups, or, has LCR not been updated to allow naming without reference to an age-range?

LCR has been updated and is working as intended. In light of that, you may want to review the instructions and how the work your leaders are doing aligns with those instructions.

[sbradshaw]

Junior, senior, etc. seems reasonable, if names were to be given, but if there were custom name fields I could see some wards having votes among the youth and naming them things like "Team Blue" or "CTR4evr".

[kstone33]

Still seems restrictive to me because it arbitrarily selects January 1 as the breaking point between ranges. You've quoted the letter that the classes should fit the ages, which I agree with, but why is January 1 the separation between one 13 year old born in one year and a 13 year old born in the other? They are both 13. If I have a young woman that was born January 2 and another born December 28, I might want each of those young women in different groups but they both have the same calendar year birthdays and as a result are going to be stuck in the same class. There must be a way of having more flexibility to assign classes still based on age, but not restricted to January 1. The flexibility currently exists within the cub group assignments so I know it's possible. I don't think it's in breach of the October 5 directive either.

Grades are such a significant separation for youth, I think using them to our advantage and allowing the church groups to match social groups will allow for increased fellowship. It pains me when I have one grade 8 girl in the same youth class as all my grade 7'ers and the rest of the grade 8's are together with the 9's. She will naturally be less inclined to participate.

I think the flexibility is what they are trying to allow for but I don't see that in the software.

In addition, maybe there is some way that names could be custom but subject to the review of a bishop or stake president or something.

[jonesrk]

The letter from November 17 has more details and says

Classes are organized by age-group, and young women progress between classes in January of the year they turn the age of the next class. An age-group is all young women who will turn an age during a calendar year.

At this time the software is following the direction that has been given. If there are concerns those could be discussed with priesthood leaders and sent up those channels as appropriate.

[scgallafent]

Still seems restrictive to me because it arbitrarily selects January 1 as the breaking point between ranges. You've quoted the letter that the classes should fit the ages, which I agree with, but why is January 1 the separation between one 13 year old born in one year and a 13 year old born in the other? They are both 13. If I have a young woman that was born January 2 and another born December 28, I might want each of those young women in different groups but they both have the same calendar year birthdays and as a result are going to be stuck in the same class. There must be a way of having more flexibility to assign classes still based on age, but not restricted to January 1. The flexibility currently exists within the cub group assignments so I know it's possible. I don't think it's in breach of the October 5 directive either.

As jonesrk said, the November 17 letter has additional detail and is pretty specific. If you have concerns, the proper course for you would be to discuss it with your stake president. Unless the business rules coming from Priesthood and Family change, the software will continue to work the way it is implemented.

In addition, maybe there is some way that names could be custom but subject to the review of a bishop or stake president or something.

Your stake president can suggest this in a coordinating council meeting if he feels that this should be changed. Again, there was a specific, conscious decision to implement class naming this way. The software will continue to work this way unless the developers get different instructions from the councils responsible for this.

[Albionwa]

I have also been asked to create a “Seniors” class. In effect if we cal that class the “18 YW” class, there will be one YW who is 18 but not a part of the “Seniors” class.

The support for creating it this way was provided as the following:

The support for such a class comes from the last sentence in Handbook 2, section 10.1.4 which reads, “The organization of Young Women classes can be adjusted as the needs and number of young women change.“