Leadership training that worked

[Eagledad]

But getting to your growth theme' date=' I have a couple of 13 year olds that are ready to be PL and some 16 year olds that shouldn't be PL or just need a break. But I don't want to let a high school drama case in with a 13 year old PL. It would probably be easier on the young PL if he is one of the older scouts or the older scout is an exceptional scout that understands the dynamics. This likely means there are some youngish patrols and some patrols that are either completely mixed or the higher age range. Did you have something like this?[/quote']

 

Yes, this happens a lot. Our troop has a culture of everyone taking responsibility for everyone progressing and growing including leadership. The older scouts many times encourage the patrol to consider a younger scout to give them the experience, partially to help give the younger scout experience and partially to take a break. I don’t ever recall that it became an issue, and I think the reason is because we expect the older scouts to take on a mentoring role, whether or not they do. I like the way it works in our troop because everyone is looking out for everyone, but sometimes I think the older scouts don’t make the younger scouts work hard enough to earn a chance for leadership. I want leaders pushed up because they have earned the respect to be given a chance. We have some of the best senior youth leaders I have ever seen because they had to work to get there.

 

Once in a while we have younger ambitious scouts who want to try their hand and ask to start a new patrol. In fact that is generally how we start new patrols. They will work with the SPL to insure that they recruit a mixed age group so that the younger scouts have role models. That is one way a lot of new scouts can start in a patrol.

 

I'd like to let the scouts figure out their own patrols and give them the opportunity to fix their mistakes. If there's a younger patrol that likes camporees and some scout grows to the point where the rock climbing/shotgun patrol looks like more of a challenge then he can try and move up. Or maybe there's a patrol that likes doing OA stuff. I suppose this is like the venture patrol idea but my troop had one once and it was a disaster. Talk about a group of lazy kids.

 

We started using a method I learned from another Scouter who taught me a lot about boy run scouting to use what we call adventure crews. Now he actually does use Venture Crews in his troop, but we discussed a way of using his method without our troop needing to start a crew. The way it works is that any scout or adult can start an adventure patrol for the purpose of doing a single activity. Once the activity is through, the crew dissolves. This is how we organize our High Adventure Crews, but adventure patrols can be used for anything. We had one scout organize a crew to do a service project for a nursing home. We had another one for spending a weekend at Six flags. There are no age requirements other than the restrictions set by the BSA like a Philmont crew, so most of our crews are mixed age with all ages. There must be scout crew leader and he must present to the committee a description of the activity with a list of adults who will be part of the crew. We found that getting adults first separates dreamers from those who will actually move forward with the activity. Scouts stay in the regular patrols and must have crew meetings outside their patrol activities. Works very well and we averaged about four crews a year when I was SM. I’m not sure how many they average now.

 

As for OA, our troop had the most active scouts of any troop in the OA. I’m not sure why because I didn’t push it at all. But I can say our most active older scout leadership generally were the active scouts in OA. My last SPL was at the same time in some leadership on a Venturing Crew and also in OA all at the same time. And to top that off, he planned a week long back packing trip for his crew in Montana, which had always been a dream of his. He was an amazing scout, but I shouldn’t have been surprised, he went to MIT the next year on a full scholarship.

 

But what if the scouts get an opportunity for more growth at a younger age so when they're older they can create a calendar of more challenging events. There'd be a NSP' date=' then the "camporee" patrols and finally the patrols where the dads can barely keep up. Isn't that the type of growth you're talking about? [/quote']

 

Do what it takes for program to promote growth in your scouts. I am not a big fan of mixed age patrols because of some egotistical theory I need to prove. I’m just not that smart. We were forced toward mixed age patrols for the reasons the Stosh explained in his previous post. We had certain expectations of growth and saw the performance of different style patrols side by side. We basically started our young troop by doing what the BSA manuals suggested but gradually made modifications for better performance. If you see a style or technique where your scouts clearly mature and grow faster (and have more fun), then don’t limit your program to some mold set by someone else, do what you need to reach your vision. Give it a try. Make your program better. Likely it will be a lot more fun as well because most of our changes took away restrictions and protocols like age and rank barriers.

 

Different strokes for different folks, but that you want growth in your scouts sets you apart from most leaders who spend most of their efforts just making sure their scouts just learn the usual skills and rank advancement.

 

Your leadership training weekend is so cool and you started a seed there that will affect the whole troop and maybe all the campouts from here on out. Why can’t every campout be that much fun? I took a lot of pride that our scouts were exhausted by lights out time and couldn’t wait to hit the sack. Once your scouts figure out how to have more fun, they will build on it and your stars will stand out with more creative ideas. That is some of the growth I’m talking about.

 

It sounds kind of hard from the adults point of view at first, but once the ball gets going, the scouts do all the hard work and the adults just need to keep up. I’ve always enjoyed reading your post about your troop, it looks like they are going to get even more exciting now.

 

I love this scouting stuff.

 

Barry

 

[qwazse]

... I suppose this is like the venture patrol idea but my troop had one once and it was a disaster. Talk about a group of lazy kids. But what if the scouts get an opportunity for more growth at a younger age so when they're older they can create a calendar of more challenging events. There'd be a NSP' date=' then the "camporee" patrols and finally the patrols where the dads can barely keep up. Isn't that the type of growth you're talking about? ... [/quote']

 

IMHO, the old term "Leadership Corps" resonated so much better than "venture patrol". The current term just sounds a little selfish. "We're big boys now, so we are going off to big boy challenges, see ya suckas!!!" Every patrol should be challenging itself. That starts with the PL becoming qualified to take his boys hiking and camping. Then, through hiking and camping independently at a level appropriate for that patrol, they help other boys to become first class scouts (the concept not the patch).

 

At a certain age, having attained that balance of skill and discipline, they are ready to step out from their patrol and form these ad hoc contingents -- be they in the troop with other like-minded boys from other patrols or with boys from other troops next door or across the nation. Those contingents can be doing a couple of extra weekends camping, helping coordinate a district camporee, helping with an Eagle project in rugged terrain, or going on a super-activity together. Then they come back and add what they gained from those experiences to the life of their patrol and troop.

 

This seems to be the more common trajectory of the scouts I've known. It does put an older boy in the position of asking himself (or being asked) how much of his time scouting belongs to his patrol vs. how much belongs to all of the opportunities outside of his patrol. I don't think that's a bad thing.

[Stosh]

If patrols need to be broken up to form high adventure ad-hoc patrols, how is the leadership and organization determined for those patrols? What happens to the leadership structure of the left behind boys? Why do I get the feeling this is a real morale buster for the younger boys?

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

If patrols need to be broken up to form high adventure ad-hoc patrols' date=' how is the leadership and organization determined for those patrols? What happens to the leadership structure of the left behind boys? Stosh[/quote'] Leadership is not broken up. Other activities are outside the patrol structure. Barry

[Stosh]

Boy led leadership is only half the equation for Boy-Led, Patrol-Method. I'm thinking ad hoc patrols at the drop of a hat may mean patrol method for some but doesn't bode well for morale building, team work when half the boys get left out. .... and yes I have had boys opt out of high adventure because their buddies couldn't go or participate.

 

Stosh

[MattR]

This seems to be the more common trajectory of the scouts I've known. It does put an older boy in the position of asking himself (or being asked) how much of his time scouting belongs to his patrol vs. how much belongs to all of the opportunities outside of his patrol. I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

And this is why I'm leaning towards having patrols for younger scouts and older scouts. It's not just time outside their patrol but time outside of scouts. Most scouts have a limit as to how many campout they can go on a year. I have some older scouts that won't touch another camporee but they really enjoy the high adventure. I don't want single age patrols, but breaking 11-17 into two groups that roughly reflect junior high and high school makes some sense to me. I'd still want interaction between the younger and older scouts (instructors, troop guides, training)

 

Edit: I don't want to specify age ranges, I just want to let the scouts figure out their own patrols and I suspect they'll go by junior high/high school.

[Eagledad]

Boy led leadership is only half the equation for Boy-Led' date=' Patrol-Method. I'm thinking ad hoc patrols at the drop of a hat may mean patrol method for some but doesn't bode well for morale building, team work when half the boys get left out. .... and yes I have had boys opt out of high adventure because their buddies couldn't go or participate. Stosh[/quote'] Help me out with your theory here stosh, what do you as the SM do when one patrol member is in football, another in band and the another civil war reenactment? What do you say to the scouts who want to go to join OA when the one wasn't invited? Then there is the patrol member who joins ROTC, and the one who just might be good enough to take state on the swim team. These are all so called "ad hoc" patrols. What is the boy run SM going to tell these scouts? No? For me boy run isn't 50% about leadership, it's 100% about "giving" boys the freedom to make individual decisions without intimidation from adults and feeling safe to learn from the experience of those decisions. We had another forum member here a few years ago who also wouldn't allow his scouts to organize outside "ad hoc" patrols because he was afraid the scouts would leave the patrols for something more fun. My suggestion to him was strive to make the patrol as rewarding of an experience as the football team so that the scout will be as loyal to the patrol as the team. If you can't do that, then the young man deserves to set priorities. Stosh, adults can't make boys like scouting, only the program can do that. Each boy is different with "different" dreams. Don't tell each boy what his dream should be, help him reach his own dream. Barry

[Stosh]

Wouldn't allow ad hoc patrols? Once again, when one takes comments under their own agenda the results are often different than what was originally said. So be it. Not my problem.

 

I have ad hoc patrols being generated all the time. It can happen at any time any place. And they are not really "ad hoc". All patrols are free to reorganize into new semi-permanent patrols on the fly. What I find interesting is that if the older boys get together for their high adventure event, then they would want to stay as a patrol afterwards if the trip is successful for everyone in the group. The younger left behind boys ad hoc their remnants and they become a new patrol. Then at the patrol campfires the older boys can reminisce about their adventure and the younger boys can discuss the new plans they will need to be making as a new patrol.

 

The point being boys will naturally congregate by age, interest and friendships. The ad hoc patrols being discussed here is not a natural progression of events for the boys, but an adult contrived mixed group that is expected to function according to a set of assumptions on the part of the adults. When they can't function under those assumptions, ad hoc patrols are arranged, again by adult intervention.

 

NSP never gets a chance to bond as a group, but they may have been together since Tigers. Their first experience in disruption is 6 months into a new 7 year program. Sorry, I don't make up the rules, the boys do. If they want the same group from Tigers to Eagles, more power to them.

 

People who feel it is important to have mixed patrols are actively pursuing a course of action that if left to the boys would not last as designed. Individual scouts who wish to pursue PL leadership may have to find a new patrol if they wish to lead, but it's the boy's decision not some arbitrary 6 month reorganization process because someone needs a POR patch on their uniform.

 

This is why high adventure activities need to have ad hoc patrols, because the regular contrived patrol structure isn't flexible enough to meet the needs of the boys. My age based patrols didn't need ad hoc status, they were already organized that way by the boys themselves.

 

Idealistically older boys mentor younger boys.... That's all fine and dandy in an idealistic world. But unless a boys makes a decision to lead younger boys, it's pretty much a tooth-pulling experience for everyone concerned. MattR started out this thread very obviously pointing this out. The older boys had a great leadership experience and would prefer not to have to mess with the younger boys. Go back and read about now how are they going to take what they learned back to the troop? OMG, the boys balked at it! And now the adult pressure begins. My point being, why in the world wouldn't one take the younger boys on a leadership training weekend too and then we wouldn't be having to worry about older boys needing to mentor younger boys. THEY WOULD ALL BE LEADER TRAINED! and the younger boys could lead themselves. Then the older boys could be left alone to do their thing, HA, patrol camping, etc. and the younger boys would learn right from the beginning what leadership is all about.

 

And then they accuse me of pie-in-the-sky idealism when I simply let the boys have at it and then in the real world find myself with no where near the problems identified by people on this forum.

 

It's not an issue of what's right and what's wrong, the only goal I have is what's working. At age 64 with 40+ years of scouting under my belt, holding 2 positions in scouting currently, started a brand new unit, District Commish is my ASM, and no where near burning out. I gotta be doing something right.

 

Stosh

 

[Eagledad]

Why can't your younger scouts go on high adventure with the older scouts like in our troop? You keep presenting mixed age patrols as if they don't work. They have been working very well for over a hundred years. Same age patrols came as a result of Webelos crossing over in groups. The BSA only started that about 30 years ago. The only way same age patrol can mature is with outside patrol influence as you showed in your examples of summer camp. Growth comes from the more experienced members in mixed age patrols. It's pretty simple. All the scouts in the same age patrol have the same experience, more importantly, lack of experience. So growth generallycomes from outside the patrol in a more instructional teaching style. Growth in mixed age comes more by observing, which is less intrusive to the scouting experience. This is not to say there isn't a place for same age patrols. Your troop of first year scouts is an example of no choice in styles. Your scouts are forced to seek outside instruction for them to grow as your summer camp post proved. There are also times when NSPs function better as same age as well. But most unknowingly controlling adult also favor same age patrols because it keeps them closer to the scouts and their activities. Same age allows them influence their activities with their instruction and reflections. Most Eagle mills are same age patrols for this very reason. Control.

[SSScout]

A Troop that has a goodly mix of ages will operate better if the Patrols are of mixed ages too. A "good Scout" will operate as a Big Brother to the younger Scouts in his Patrol, who will automatically look to him (them) for example and advice and instruction. You can then have real Patrol competition, as the EAGLE Patrol will have no real advantage over the TENDERFOOT Patrol. The PLs and such will have their outlet and can form up occasionally as the PLC Patrol, and take that 3 day hike on the Pacific Rim Trail. The PLs leave the Patrols in the (capable) hands of their APLs, if needed.

'Course, now, if the Older Scouts act as elitists and bullies to the younger Scouts, this won't work. But that's not Scouty of them , is it? Does that behavior (elitism, "look at the tendyfeets", etc.) look like the Scout Promise and Law? How do we encourage the older Scout to help the younger one over that log in the trail, rather than laughing at his attempt to get over it?

You can encourage the NSP to Boy Up and get with the program and learn in a class (sounds like school to me...) or maybe watch and learn from his "family" his older Scout in the Patrol, like any lil' brother does watching his big brother or dad (or mom?), just by 'osmosis', which is often the REAL way we learn anything important.

[qwazse]

... What I find interesting is that if the older boys get together for their high adventure event' date=' then they would want to stay as a patrol afterwards if the trip is successful for everyone in the group. ...[/quote']

 

I haven't seen that happen. But then, our HA's, being with the crew, were mixed age, just skewed toward the 14-20 year old range. If boys like working with youth, they'll make mixed age patrols work. If not, they'll ask to segregate by age. How well mixed aged patrols work with this kind of stuff going has as much to do with the personality of the boys as it does anything else.

 

Regardless, the SM needs to expect the highest character from each patrol. A patrol of older boys, is not off the hook. If they've got skills to help the troop, they need to contribute AND serve their patrol.

[Stosh]

Why can't your younger scouts go on high adventure with the older scouts like in our troop?

 

I find it difficult to believe that the 11 and 12 year old boys in your troop go to Philmont and Sea Base, BWCA and have full access to all programs of the local scout camp.

 

You keep presenting mixed age patrols as if they don't work.

 

Never said they didn't work, just said it was my experience that high school boys really don't want to hang out with 6th graders and if forced to do so, will either go through the motions just to get their Eagle or simply drop out. This is why SM's are pulling their hair out trying to get the older scouts to function in their POR's. Not all older scouts will idealistically follow along with what the adults think is correct. Ask them and they will tell you they would rather be doing something with their buddies than hanging out with "the kids".

 

They have been working very well for over a hundred years. Same age patrols came as a result of Webelos crossing over in groups. The BSA only started that about 30 years ago. The only way same age patrol can mature is with outside patrol influence as you showed in your examples of summer camp.

 

Gee, my patrol 50 years ago consisted of all my buddies the same age as me. We must have been 20 years ahead of our time as were all the other scouts in my troop. What you describe may have been what was normal for your part of the country, but not mine.

 

My first year boys did very well at summer camp without outside patrol influence of older boys. Now if you count attendance at first year instruction by camp staff, MB counseling sessions, and the occasional question they might have asked an adult during the week as outside patrol influence, then yes they got wood craft skills, but the the leadership "training" they picked up on their own by working it out on their own. The boy who went to the SPL meetings learned by doing, not by watching someone else.

 

Growth comes from the more experienced members in mixed age patrols. It's pretty simple. All the scouts in the same age patrol have the same experience' date=' more importantly, lack of experience. So growth generallycomes from outside the patrol in a more instructional teaching style. Growth in mixed age comes more by observing, which is less intrusive to the scouting experience. This is not to say there isn't a place for same age patrols[/quote'].,

 

And as I have commented before, boys of mixed aged patrols may learn by osmosis and watching others, it has been my experience that boys that are put in a position of doing leadership tend to learn it a lot quicker. A 13 year old in your troop has 2-3 years experience of observing leadership and in my troop a 13 year old boy has 2-3 years experience of doing leadership. A mixed aged patrol does not offer that option to the younger boys, only observation. What you are also describing can be handled by the TG. One boy can do what takes a whole patrol in a mixed age patrol.

 

Your troop of first year scouts is an example of no choice in styles. Your scouts are forced to seek outside instruction for them to grow as your summer camp post proved.

 

Yep they sought out the same outside instruction for their growth just like any other mixed age patrol member in any other troop in the country at any summer camp. And when the instruction was done for the day, they went back to camp and figured out the next step on their own without having to rely on some older scout to tell them what to do next. They figured out how to lead rather than just follow.

 

There are also times when NSPs function better as same age as well. But most unknowingly controlling adult also favor same age patrols because it keeps them closer to the scouts and their activities. Same age allows them influence their activities with their instruction and refleouctions. Most Eagle mills are same age patrols for this very reason. Control.

 

That assumption seems to be a personal bias that I don't seem to experience in my troop. But then again, I insist on boy-led with the patrol-method of scouting. Maybe if one had a adult-led troop to begin with it wouldn't make any difference if it was same age or mixed. I'm thinking that might be more the case. And like you said, there are times when NSP's function better as same age. I just offer the boys the option of doing that for as long as they want rather than having the adults step in and insist on mixing everything up.

 

This is why my older scouts can plan high adventure and not disrupt the troop. Their patrol just goes and the younger scouts in their patrol, just plan more age appropriate activities. No ad hoc patrols necessary and no one gets left behind and patrol integrity is maintained.

 

Mixed patrols don't have that flexibility, and need to break out of the patrol-method, re-organize patrols in order to handle a single activity. That seems like a whole lot of wasted time, energy, and effort that doesn't need to be there.

 

Stosh