Forming Patrols - whose input matters most?

[qwazse]

I wrassled with this issue recently. Wound up soliciting input from other adults, former SPLs and the current SPL.

(52 in the troop - 36 active)

Then i did it like this:

 

Went with 3 patrols, so that we could adhere to patrols on outings. (Wanted to do 4, but then we'd wind up with ad-hoc patrols to keep one or two boys from being solo)

Each grade got split in half.

Then we put the halves into patrols so that there was a grade separating the age groups of the patrols. (Trying avoid only one year separation to reduce bullying, increase respect/mentoring)

 

Alpha has 5th, 7th, and a few 9th graders (Fifth graders were a small class this year.)

Bravo has 6th, 8th, and a few older boys.

Charlie has 6th, 8th, and a few older boys,

 

The older boys are learning to be responsible for the young ones. You don't have to bark at them more than once about setting a good example. They like it.

Sounds like a good plan. Especially since your patrols are letters and not numbers. (My rant to my troop: "Dens have numbers, patrols don't.")

 

Was bullying an issue before? Or was it a hypothetical? (Or something in between. Sometimes you can look at a cluster of boys and think "Oh, this is not gonna turn out good." Happened to me on the bus ride home last night.)

[Eagledad]

Sentine, I believe there is a right and wrong difference between mix-age and same-age patrols, but there are appropriate times for both methods. Most of the time the best method depends on the leadership style of the adults. Sometimes the best method depends on the limitations of the troop. However all things being equal, my experience is the mixed age patrols perform better with scout growth, expecially at the younger ages. Thank goodness for choices because most units are not equal. Barry

 

[JoeBob]

I wrassled with this issue recently. Wound up soliciting input from other adults, former SPLs and the current SPL.

(52 in the troop - 36 active)

Then i did it like this:

 

Went with 3 patrols, so that we could adhere to patrols on outings. (Wanted to do 4, but then we'd wind up with ad-hoc patrols to keep one or two boys from being solo)

Each grade got split in half.

Then we put the halves into patrols so that there was a grade separating the age groups of the patrols. (Trying avoid only one year separation to reduce bullying, increase respect/mentoring)

 

Alpha has 5th, 7th, and a few 9th graders (Fifth graders were a small class this year.)

Bravo has 6th, 8th, and a few older boys.

Charlie has 6th, 8th, and a few older boys,

 

The older boys are learning to be responsible for the young ones. You don't have to bark at them more than once about setting a good example. They like it.

Bullying between adjacent grades was an issue watching them come up in Cub Scouts. They'd build forts and attack each other, sneak attacks, etc. I thought that was a fine use of testosterone until one of the smaller boys threw a cup of pee on one of the biggest meanest older boys. The retribution was justified, and therefore hard to stop. After a couple of months of serious talking, we got it settled down. But I did observe that the boys don't respect the kids one grade up; they're too close. The boys one grade up have no desire to mentor the boys one grade down. (Especially since they getting no respect) They just want to pound them into submission.

 

Single age patrols will be the boys' choice; they get to hang with all their usual friends.

But then you get no knowledge bank, no mentoring, and a bunch of newbies freezing and eating raw food while the older guys caramelize green beans and scallops around their fire. And a fractured troop. Maybe layered would be a better word.

Patrol competitions? Not with age based patrols; the big kids always win and the younger patrols lose interest.

 

Full disclosure: I've only been using this method since March, when I got drafted as SM. I feared I'd lose older boys when I busted up their club. Nope. They like the responsibility, and a chance to show off what they know.

 

Really full disclosure: the pee thrower was my son.

(But Dad, pee-pee is sterile. Should I have thrown dirty lake water on him?)

[MattR]

We just went through figuring out patrols. We also had to add a patrol but we started with 6. Before doing any of this I asked the scouts to write down 3 friends they wanted to be with and I made a big graph of this. The PLC sat down and we talked about servant leadership. Then we talked about what the patrol leaders wanted for support (mostly strong scouts). Then we talked about what the younger scouts needed (friends and wise old scouts). Then we talked about what everyone wanted (friends). Then I gave them limits on the number of scouts (6-9). Then I said "this is your troop, figure it out." Then all I did was keep them focused so it wouldn't take 8 hours. I'm a bit worried about one patrol being the "hooligans" and they will certainly need an adult with patience, but all in all they brought up more details, characteristics, and personalities about the scouts than I knew. It's as good a setup as I've seen. For the most part the old patrols stayed together. One thing great about boy led is it takes the stress off the adults to do it "right" as there is no right.

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Why do the scouts want to spit into two patrols; before anything else is done this questions needs answered. BTW, an earlier post got it backwards. Your scouts are one patrol, that happens to be the only patrol your troop currently has. Patrols should not act as one troop. A troop is made up of patrols, a troop is not divided into patrols.

 

A patrol can function as six scouts, but 100% of those scouts better make every outing. If you elect a SPL & ASPL, how will the patrols have enough scouts to function? Honestly you need 4-6 more scouts to split. The big question remains, why do the scouts want to do this?

[Basementdweller]

A troop with one or two patrols do not need an SPL.

[fred johnson]

If everyone is going to merge patrols because of activity attrition, then one might as well forget about the patrol method.

 

I set patrols at 6-8 boys. They pick and chose who they want. If their buddies don't show up for activities, they need to work that out, that's what small group dynamics require. If one can miss and no one cares because they are going to merge patrols anyway, what's the big deal about skipping. But if my buddies need me there, peer-pressure comes to play.

 

If one is going to use patrol method, then use it. If one is going to go with the troop method, then use it. Mixing and matching, blending and stirring things up, just doesn't pan out in the long run. Either you're going to end up with frustrated patrols or a poorly run troop.

 

I had two boys that wanted to have their own patrol. I advised against it, but being boy-led, I let them. They were unable to recruit any new boys for their patrol, and the day before summer camp one of them broke his leg. The other boy had a pretty miserable time at summer camp doing his own cooking, cleaning and camp chores by himself. By the end of the summer he joined up (his decision) with another patrol. He had to request, on his own, joining another patrol and that patrol didn't have their 8 boys, took him in. His buddy had to request to join another patrol that was also short one member.

 

No one ever asked to try that "experiment" again. The two boys learned a valuable lesson and the others in the troop took notice and learned as well.

 

If one runs a truly patrol-method program, a lot of the "problems" that arise are taken care of by the boys themselves and tend to run quite smoothly once everyone figures out that the SM is going to stick to his guns about the patrol-method and not mess around with the patrol groupings.

 

Stosh

Well said. That's my experience too. I must admit though, we had a patrol of four for years that ran great and the scouts helped the younger scouts. Sometimes only two of them appeared. For them, it worked.

[Eagle92]

Youth decide. Growing up we had 3-4 patrols depending upon size of the troop: 2-3 mixed aged patrols and a Leadership Corps, what would now be called a Venture Patrol. Every six months we got to decide where we would go and elect PLs. Rarely would folks move about, but it occurred. New Scouts would be "buddied up" with a scout an placed in a patrol at the Webelos Overnighter, so when they joined the troop, they joined their buddy most of the time.

 

Leadership Corps got interesting. had to be First Class or higher, served as a PL, and be "elected" by the LC to join them. Very informal election process. Yes or no.

[dfscott]

So, for the curious: here's the result:

 

ASM and I discussed it at summer camp. While he understood what I was getting at, he still said that he didn't think the boys were old enough to make these sorts of decisions (our boys ages range from 10-14, with most being 11 or 12). While I agree that they don't have the experience an more established troop might, they have been doing this for a year and need to start learning. He said we'd have to "agree to disagree".

 

I took that as "I'm not happy, but I'll deal with it." Unfortunately, when we announced the new patrols at the Court of Honor, he exploded on me immediately afterwards (even before the parents had left). He said he told me that he wanted his son in that patrol and I had to make it happen. He said that *his* son had not asked to be in that patrol (untrue) and that I was showing favoritism by putting *my* son in the other patrol (also untrue - my son requested it). I tried to get him to discuss it somewhere else, but he wouldn't. Unfortunately, I got a little upset (as did my other ASM, who rushed to defend me). So while I didn't raise my voice or anything, I did say that "if you don't buy into the idea of a boy-led troop, maybe you need to find another troop." (Argh! I wish I could take it back!) He stormed out.

 

I followed up with a call, which he ignored. Then I sent an e-mail letting him know that I handled it poorly and should've been more clear about how it was doing things. (Wish I'd seen 2CubDads post before.) I also told him that although I still believed in how the patrols were divided, I would move his son to the other patrol if he asked me to. He did not respond.

 

Last night was our first Troop Meeting after the incident. Both he and his son showed up, but neither one in uniform (which never happens). He refused to talk to me during the meeting (understandable since there were lots of adults and scouters around) but told me that he needs more time to reflect before deciding what to do.

[Basementdweller]

So, for the curious: here's the result:

 

ASM and I discussed it at summer camp. While he understood what I was getting at, he still said that he didn't think the boys were old enough to make these sorts of decisions (our boys ages range from 10-14, with most being 11 or 12). While I agree that they don't have the experience an more established troop might, they have been doing this for a year and need to start learning. He said we'd have to "agree to disagree".

 

I took that as "I'm not happy, but I'll deal with it." Unfortunately, when we announced the new patrols at the Court of Honor, he exploded on me immediately afterwards (even before the parents had left). He said he told me that he wanted his son in that patrol and I had to make it happen. He said that *his* son had not asked to be in that patrol (untrue) and that I was showing favoritism by putting *my* son in the other patrol (also untrue - my son requested it). I tried to get him to discuss it somewhere else, but he wouldn't. Unfortunately, I got a little upset (as did my other ASM, who rushed to defend me). So while I didn't raise my voice or anything, I did say that "if you don't buy into the idea of a boy-led troop, maybe you need to find another troop." (Argh! I wish I could take it back!) He stormed out.

 

I followed up with a call, which he ignored. Then I sent an e-mail letting him know that I handled it poorly and should've been more clear about how it was doing things. (Wish I'd seen 2CubDads post before.) I also told him that although I still believed in how the patrols were divided, I would move his son to the other patrol if he asked me to. He did not respond.

 

Last night was our first Troop Meeting after the incident. Both he and his son showed up, but neither one in uniform (which never happens). He refused to talk to me during the meeting (understandable since there were lots of adults and scouters around) but told me that he needs more time to reflect before deciding what to do.

Sorry to hear about your issue....Sounds like he is going to leave.

 

I wouldn't have done the patrols at a court of honor, but at a meeting just prior to a campout.......

 

I still don't see his objection to the way the patrols are set up???????

 

Is it a case of hero's and zero's???????

[qwazse]

So, for the curious: here's the result:

 

ASM and I discussed it at summer camp. While he understood what I was getting at, he still said that he didn't think the boys were old enough to make these sorts of decisions (our boys ages range from 10-14, with most being 11 or 12). While I agree that they don't have the experience an more established troop might, they have been doing this for a year and need to start learning. He said we'd have to "agree to disagree".

 

I took that as "I'm not happy, but I'll deal with it." Unfortunately, when we announced the new patrols at the Court of Honor, he exploded on me immediately afterwards (even before the parents had left). He said he told me that he wanted his son in that patrol and I had to make it happen. He said that *his* son had not asked to be in that patrol (untrue) and that I was showing favoritism by putting *my* son in the other patrol (also untrue - my son requested it). I tried to get him to discuss it somewhere else, but he wouldn't. Unfortunately, I got a little upset (as did my other ASM, who rushed to defend me). So while I didn't raise my voice or anything, I did say that "if you don't buy into the idea of a boy-led troop, maybe you need to find another troop." (Argh! I wish I could take it back!) He stormed out.

 

I followed up with a call, which he ignored. Then I sent an e-mail letting him know that I handled it poorly and should've been more clear about how it was doing things. (Wish I'd seen 2CubDads post before.) I also told him that although I still believed in how the patrols were divided, I would move his son to the other patrol if he asked me to. He did not respond.

 

Last night was our first Troop Meeting after the incident. Both he and his son showed up, but neither one in uniform (which never happens). He refused to talk to me during the meeting (understandable since there were lots of adults and scouters around) but told me that he needs more time to reflect before deciding what to do.

Don't knock yourself, DFS. There is no amount of polite that makes youth-led easier for folks with narrow gullets to swallow. They just have to shape up or ship out.

 

When I started as a crew advisor, I made that very clear by not accepting a youth application if it looked like any part of it besides the signature was completed by a parent. (There were some folks who wanted me to just automatically enroll every eligible scout in the troop!) That was the "yank back" that some folks needed to realize that their meddling hands in the lives of my youth were gonna be slapped if they kept it up.

 

Some left. Never missed them. Other folks who didn't like my approach, told me to my face, but sucked it up and got with the program. I was glad to have them.

 

The same attitude trickled over to our troop, with the dissenters starting new units. I'm fine with that. They get to rule their roost. We're smaller, but our boys are starting to show it's worth it. Compare two recent Eagle Courts of Honor. Theirs, the committee chair MC'd and gave the SPL led the pledge. Ours, the ASPL reviewed our script, recruited and commanded the color guard for the opening and closing, asked the reverend to give the invocation and benediction, introduced four other scouts who had speaking parts, and offered me the floor to be M.C. He then reminded me to arrange a photo opportunity for the Eagle Scout and our state senator who was in attendance.

 

The difference in who "owned" the troop couldn't have been more stark. Made it well worth any sparks that flew over the past few years. Do I wish there were a smoother way? Yes. But lacking that, I have no regrets about the "sanding" that folks may have had to endure on my account.