Scouting Magazine: Splitting Friendships When Forming Patrols?

[LeCastor]

http://scoutingmagazine.org/2012/04/how-scouts-friendships-strengthen-patrols/

 

Not our business as Scoutmasters, right?

 

Personally, I think Scouts are more likely to still it out longer if they are in a Patrol with a friend. When I was a youth I was in one Patrol for the entire time, staying until I turned 18, and I know it was because my buddies were there...

[KenDavis500]

Concur. Patrols should be a group of friends. The Scouts can typically sort it out themselves.

[fred johnson]

Fully agree. I've seen three of my sons in Boy Scouts. The one I was most impressed was the patrol that formed by my son and his friends and stayed together for seven years. That's how it should be.

[Eagle94-A1]

HMM I'm mixed on this. On one hand, you got friends together, but if even with a TG, it is challenging at times to teach them.

 

My troop growing up tried the NSP twice: once when National was trying out the process with some units prior to 1989, and once when a brand new troop asked to hang with us until they got on their feet. In the first instance, after 6 months we went to mixed aged patrols, and in the second instance within a year, the two troops merged and we went to the mixed aged patrol.

 

Now my son's troop has 2 patrols: NSP and "expereinced" Scouts. Since has only recently only had enough to split into two patrols, that is what they did. So essentially the Scouts have not had any expereince in a mixed age patrol. Going to get real interesting when all the new Cubs cross over as we will be moving some to the "expereinced" patrol who are still Tenderfoot.

 

One thing that made my troop growing up successful with mixed aged patrols was that when they visited the troop as Webelos, heck when anyone visited the troop, we assigned a Scout to be their buddy and work with them for that meeting. Ditto when they went on their first campout. Usually when they joined the troop, they wanted to be with their buddy and join his patrol.

[TAHAWK]

According to current BSA policy, a “patrol†is a “small group of . . . friends."

[LeCastor]

According to current BSA policy' date=' a “patrol†is a “small group of . . . friends." [/quote']

 

 

Imagine that!

 

"​HMM I'm mixed on this. On one hand, you got friends together, but if even with a TG, it is challenging at times to teach them."

 

Eagle, personally I think being in Scouting with your friends is very important. My Troop has two patrols: one of mixed experiences with friends and another with more experienced Scouts who are also friends and go to the same school.

 

I don't really care for the idea of the New Scout Patrol unless there is a dedicated guide (whether you want to call him a Troop Guide, JASM, Instructor...). The problem I've seen with an NSP sans older Scout is it becomes a--and I loathe the expression--"Webelos III" group.

 

[Sentinel947]

 

 

Imagine that!

 

"​HMM I'm mixed on this. On one hand, you got friends together, but if even with a TG, it is challenging at times to teach them."

 

Eagle, personally I think being in Scouting with your friends is very important. My Troop has two patrols: one of mixed experiences with friends and another with more experienced Scouts who are also friends and go to the same school.

 

I don't really care for the idea of the New Scout Patrol unless there is a dedicated guide (whether you want to call him a Troop Guide, JASM, Instructor...). The problem I've seen with an NSP sans older Scout is it becomes a--and I loathe the expression--"Webelos III" group.

 

Scouts should absolutely be in a patrol with their friends.

 

As to the debate between New Scout Patrols vs Mixed Age patrols, there are some pro's and cons to both. As a disclaimer, my troop has used NSP for the last 10 years I've been with the Troop.

 

New Scout patrols can ease the transition for new Scouts, as they get to be in a patrol with buddies from their dens. It can also protect new boys from being bullied/neglected by older boys in the patrol who don't want to work with new Scouts. If you have a big troop and strong guides, new Scout patrols can work well.

 

Mixed age patrols work really well when a troop is smaller, and can't afford to spin off a handful of older boys to be troop guides for the new Scouts. There is huge benefit to the younger guys learning from the older guys and the older guys taking care of the younger ones.

 

With both NSP's or mixed age patrols with new boys the trick is older boys who (as Stosh always puts it) "take care of their guys." My troop favors NSP's because in a troop so large, we have the boys to have Troop Guides for the New Scout patrols who can teach, mentor and coach the new Scouts. The older boys who want to work with new scouts get the opportunity to, and take that responsibility from other older boys who may not want to.

 

That being said, after that first year, the now second year Scouts may desire to join some of the other patrols. That's fine and just as good as if all the second year scouts stay in their original NSP. The key is for Scouts to be in the patrols they want to be, with their friends. If they aren't, they will naturally form those groups regardless of what "patrol" they are assigned to.

 

I know some here will say "Well we should force the older boys to work with the younger boys." Just like creating patrols on the Scoutmasters whim instead of what the boys want, the older boys who are forced to work with the new guys can end up voting with their feet.

 

I've seen both approaches work, and both fail. The kicker is having a strong patrol method troop with a servant leadership culture. If you do, I doubt it matters much which approach you use.

 

Sentinel947

[LeCastor]

Thanks for that, Sentinel. I guess I've only ever been in small, close-knit Troops. We each have our own experiences and it's always great to hear what has worked for other units. Love the forum for that great exchange.

[scoutergipper]

We use the NSP, but only from April through Summer Camp. In the Fall, all the Scouts are free to re-form Patrols in whatever way they see fit. The NSP tends to split up at that point (in September, the 9 boys went to 4 different Patrols).

[Sentinel947]

Thanks for that' date=' Sentinel. I guess I've only ever been in small, close-knit Troops. We each have our own experiences and it's always great to hear what has worked for other units. Love the forum for that great exchange.[/quote']

 

Yea, my troop has about 70 Scouts.

[Stosh]

Gee, I've promoted this for some time on the forum, but everyone seems to be in a big hurry to mix the patrols so the older boys have a chance to mentor the younger boys. Now maybe the will see the value in doing it as it should be. Maybe these are the kinds of things that solve the older boys leaving, older boys being bored, older boys getting their Eagle and taking off, older boys not wanting to go the same summer camp for the 7th straight year problems. And just maybe, it is the "fumes", exhaust fumes?, perfumes? or maybe it's just that the adults are stinking up the program because they have some idealized concept of how a scout troop should be run. I think some of the things SM's complain about on this forum just might be of their own creation. Not everything we see happening on this form is a result of the boy's misbehaving, sometime it's the adults messing where they don't belong.

 

Leave the boys alone, let them choose their own patrols, it's boy led, adults, myob. Patrol membership is not an adult task to perform in the troop.

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

+10

[DuctTape]

One must remember that same age is not equivalent to friends. The (old) literature refers to similar age, interests etc..., as mentioned earlier. In most areas of life adults separate kids into age-based groups. When left to their own devices, this is not always the case. Unfortunately due to so many adult controlled environments, kids never interact with other ages so even in scouts when allowed the option since they have little experience, nor friendships with any other ages they still gravitate to same age. This was not always the case, similar age is close in age but not same. A few years difference is not really noticeable.

 

Also, often forgotten in all this is the need for these guys to be friends with similar interests. Just because they are the same age doesn't mean they want to do the same thing, nor like hanging out with each other. Thus IMO, we should not refer to patrols age same-age, or mixed age, but just patrols in whatever form they happen to be. Language matters, and when we categorize, it shows not only what we perceive, but also our preference of the controlling variable(s). So, I do not like "new scout patrols", or "same age patrols", or "mixed-age patrols" or any term which focuses on the age of the scout. It should be the "otter patrol" because those boys like to hang out in the water. The should name their patrol based on their interest and the makeup should be based on that interest and the fact they like to do those types of activities together. and we should focus on the boys' friendships and their interest regardless of the ages of the boys in the patrols.

[Stosh]

DuctTape,

 

When I refer to age based patrols, it is a combination of boys of similar ages that want to be together. If left to identify their own membership, not many patrols of 16-17 year olds want 11-12 year olds in their group. What I have seen, however, is the NSP hanging together, getting to know each other, building relationships and then scattered throughout the other existing patrols by adults. The new boys don't like it any better than the older boys. When it comes to activities, if the ages are mixed, then the patrols need to be broken up in order for some of the boys to attend. It's awkward and does a real number on the patrol's esprit-de-corps.

 

Age based patrols is NOT an 11 year olds patrol, 12 year olds patrol, etc. that have to progress to the next patrol on their birthday. Instead it is a patrol of similiar aged boys that want to hang together. They can attend high adventure as a group, they can do what they want as a group.

 

As a boy-led, patrol-method program, the boys can determine their patrol membership at any point in time. If one boy moves out of the area and now the patrol is down to 7 boys, they can recruit anywhere they want to come up with their 8th person. It could be a boy in another patrol, another troop, or someone who's interested in joining scouting. I don't care, but the boys do, so that's fine with me. It's always interesting how patrols campaign for new members when they are short members. The competition is really intense. I even had one boy that needed a POR so he announced he was a PL and started to recruit from other patrols. He didn't pull it off and when all was said and done he still needed a POR. Even the NSP preferred one of their own over the boy recruiting.

 

Ever hear about PL's where the boys don't listen to him? Probably because he shouldn't be the PL. Then to make it more difficult, the adults make that person stay for 6 months and make the boys in the patrol suffer. Then they have to deal with the discipline problems that arise from such a situation. There are no term limits, nor terms in my troop. If there are elections, it's at the boys' discretion. And these selection processes can happen at any time if at all.

 

The SPL is supposed to be elected by the troop. I have never done that. I just have the PL's come up with the person they want to have as their mentor. Usually it's one of their own or someone who has had a lot of experience as PL and has stepped down to let a patrol member be the PL. 99.9% of the time they choose well.

 

In any case, all this is hearsay observations on my part. I usually get someone saying, Johnny is now our PL and that's the end of it for adult participation in the process. I can usually tell the patrol realignments at flag ceremony when the boy is standing in a new spot with a new patrol.

 

Stosh

[DuctTape]

Stosh,

 

I understand what you meant. My point was how important the language we use is. Our word choice illuminates our biases and pre-conceived notions. More importantly, it influences our other words and deeds. These in turn affect others (the scouts) decisions. As I mentioned, many scouts will choose to be with similar ages, but often that is a result of their entire life being force-separated from other aged kids. You were careful to say most 16-17 y/o etc... and not all. This acknowledges that some (albeit few) might enjoy a patrol with different ages. My entire point can be condensed down to not calling patrols age-based or mixed-age or anything which even refers to their age. When we do, we influence our own decisions by focusing on the ages and not the other attributes of the scouts who make up the patrol. Since you acknowledge that some scouts may choose to be in patrols regardless of age, then what purpose does it serve to say "age-based patrols" why not just say "patrols" or "friend-based patrols" or "interest-based patrols"? The way we describe our system, does influence it. Just something to think about.