Single age vs mixed age patrols

[Eagledad]

>>My point is just because it's in the text, does not mean it should work?

 

But Since you have the responsibility to deliver the BSA scouting program shouldn't you make an attempt to know, understand, and use the program you were given to deliver?

[OldGreyEagle]

Thats right, thank you Bob, Scouting is a "game with a purpose" spoken by the founder himself. And yet no phrases about scouting being about teaching and learning. Bob, what did Lord Baden-Powell say about boys and their peers ?

[Bob White]

New Scout Patrol is hardly a "flavor of the day", it has been a part of troop operations for 14 years! And it's not age based it is experienced based.

 

Eagledad if you train thena you have to train basewd on the methods described in today's scouting program and today's scouting resources. Today's SM Handbook describes the Patrol Method as "often made up of boys of similar age and experience". That's all those of who "crow" about retaining more scouts for longer tenure are saying, and thats all the program recommends.

 

Why would anyone be against a method that has proven over a decade to retain more scouts. There are leaders on this board who claim an average drop out rate among new scouts in excess of 50%. That's disgusting. I have visited over a hundred troops and can honestly say that the troops who follow the recommended program with the new Scout Patrol, Troop Guides, First Class Emphasis, and boys choosing their own patrol destinys do not see antwhere near those kinds numbers.

 

So follow the program or don't, that is between you and the scouts you serve. I hope you will choose to deliver today's scouting to today's scout's rather than a different program in a Boy scout Uniform.

 

Bob White

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"Let me get this straight FOG, You have kept 6 scouts who have completed everything for 18 ramk advxncements waiting because some aqdults haven't found the time to do the only parts of the advancement they are responsible for, and your bragging about this?"

 

I guess that your troop runs differently than mine. We expect the Scouts to schedule their Scoutmaster conferences. It is a pretty simple process, all they have to do is call the SM or speak to him at a troop meeting and say, "When can we do a Scoutmaster conference for xxxx?" These guys just haven't done it. Many other Scouts have advanced and none have required adult intervention.

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"fun with a purpose"

 

The purpose is learning.

[dan]

A good patrol is a gang of good FRIENDS, standing together shoulder to to shoulder whatever comes. All for one-one for all'-that's the spirit of a a Scout Patrol. From the Scout Handbook, 1950 and 1998.

 

Scouting is a game with a purpose.

FUN is the GAME.

VALUES are the PURPOSE.

LEARNING is the PROCESS.

The SM Handbook 1998.

[sst3rd]

After reading all of these "points" and "counterpoints," I truly believe I'm hearing agreements all across the board, with the flexibility to apply it on a Troop by Troop basis. The ONE clear disagreement, is in reference to the New Scout Patrol. I agree with Bob, that if a Troop has the resources for a New Scout Patrol (trained Troop Guide, trained Assistant Scoutmaster) and gets a regular and steady stream of graduating Webolos Scouts and some of their friends, and executes the NSP program as prescribed, it could work. Unfortunately, there are too many variables, and most Troops I'm aware of can't run a successful NSP.

For our Troop, we have no graduating Webolos Scouts. Our Pack is inactive, and has been for over five years. Our COR is working with me and others, to re-establish the Pack. Yes, in the meantime, our Troop is actively trying to recruit Webolos graduates from other Packs, using all of the appropriate methods, but it ain't making our Troop too popular. We also continue to pick up new Scouts, as our current Scouts invite them into an excellent and active program.

So, to hear all of the debates about how to organize these new and experienced Scouts, we'd like to have those problems.

 

sst3rd

[Fat Old Guy]

Can one say "values are the purpose"? That's like saying "a car is the purpose of working." It makes little sense.

 

I would be better stated that "learning values is the purpose of Scouting."

 

BUT since BSA said "values are the purpose" it must be correct. Right, Bob?

[Bob White]

FOG, I would say that the mission of scouting is the purpose would you agree?

 

If so, the mission as defined by the BSA is "to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

 

So Am I willing to accept that the purpose of scouting is values. YES, I choose to accept the BSA's explaination of what the BSA is. It would seem pretty odd to make up one myself. (How can you possibly be involved in training and not know the mission of the program, and how could you know the misson, and not know that it involved values?)

 

And whatever you do, don't make a move to do your part for those 18 advancements that the boys didn't get, because when any of the boys quit they'll look back fondly on the scouting program and the lesson of life you taught them, and so what if they quit before they turn 13, that's not your problem.

 

Best of luck,

Bob White

 

My apologies to all for my typos, I often dash off a post and dash out to do my life, and don't always spell check. Thanks for your patience.

[purcelce]

SST3RD has hit the nail on the head! NSP should be done on the needs and wants of the troop.

I don't see how a NSP can work with a troop of 6 boys.

NSP and Venture Patrols only work with troops that have the boys and resources.

I know of several small troops that in our council that put on a great program without NSP/Venture Patrols. How do they do this? They are flexible.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

YIS

Cary P

Camp Commish, Camp Joy 2003

 

[saltheart]

I'd agree that the NSP practice is one that should be particular to the needs and size of the troop. It works in some circumstances, in others it might not.

 

The NSP may be, as Bob said, some 14 years old as a BSA standard. But I'd bet there are others out there for whom the practice goes back much further. Our troop started using the idea back in the very early 80's. That would make it over 20 years old with our troop. And, as I said above about it working sometimes and sometimes not, it came and went along the way. Currently, the troop still uses the practice as we set it out way back when.

 

In the early days, when the troop was still made up of mixed age Scouts, the NSP (we didn't call it that back then) was a haven for new scouts to learn all they could about the troop and the other boys in the troop between the time they crossed over and the 'start' of the new school/scout year the following September. At that time, those boys in the NSP were to choose which of the existing and constant 9 patrols in the troop. Their choices would be a culmination of their working with the Scouts older than themselves in the preceding months, finding where they would feel most comfortable. To the extent possible, their choices were honored, excepting when a patrol size exceeded the maximum. Then a second choice would be sought.

 

This worked fine for some time. And the ideas of both the haven (NSP) for new scouts to get comfortable with the troop, and the mixed age patrols where the time honored and tested methods of older and wiser leading and teaching the younger sat very well with both the adult leadership and committee, and the PLC (or Leadership Corps). Then, we began to wonder if allowing the younger (NSP) Scouts to stay together as a patrol, thereby requiring reorganization of the entire troop to single (more or less) single age patrols would be of some benefit to all. Subsequent discussion lead us to doing just that to see if the troop and program would gain in some fashion.

 

What we found was that in the long run, the single age patrols were much harder to maintain as a unit for a variety of reasons. The lack of experienced Scouts within the unit framework made for difficulties when setting examples, leading, and teaching. Replacing the infrequent boy who left the program became difficult when trying to maintain patrol size and strength. And the rotation of scouts into and out of troop leadership positions, bringing their new found talents and experience back to the patrol, upon relinquishing their positions to others at election time, was missing. So, by common agreement between all parties (adult leaders, committee, and PLC, we went back to what became most comfortable and workable for us, the mixed age patrol with the NSP in place as the temporary and welcoming haven for the incoming Scouts.

 

Our experience shows us that the NSP idea is valuable, but how it works depends on the make-up of the troop, mixed or single age patrols. For us, the mixed age patrol is the standard, and unless some future leaders take it upon themselves to reorganize yet again, it will likely stay that way.

[acco40]

Tailor the process to your needs (from my ISO training, yeech!). In our troop we have a "newer" scout patrol. It consists of three first year (2 crossed over in February, one in April) and 4 boys with a little over a year of experience. A patrol of three makes no sense (to me) and I strongly agree that a patrol should be of ones peers (or buds as some have described it). I also believe, that the boys should be able to choose (within practical reason) the patrol that they reside in. What I don't like is continual reshuffling of the patrol membership. No esprit de corps develops. The number one identifier that the youth shouldhave is not his troop, but his patrol. Patrols make up a troop, not vice versa.

[Eagledad]

>>I'd agree that the NSP practice is one that should be particular to the needs and size of the troop. It works in some circumstances, in others it might not.