Important Ideas About The Patrol Method

[Stosh]

@@DuctTape

 

Okay, we'll take your example for a spin.

 

Age mix is of no consequence.  A mixed patrol for me is kind of a perpetual NSP because some of the boys are always quite green.

 

Patrol A's member gets flagged out to be the Troop QM.  He steps out of his role as QM for his patrol and is now TROOP QM.  He is a member of the Leadership Corp and falls in with that "patrol".

 

First of all his job is pretty much management in nature.  Get the right equipment to the right patrols at the right time.  Pretty much laid out for him.  But if one is going to expect some leadership out of him, he has to "take care of his boys!"  So who now are "his boys"?  Yep the patrol QM's.  They may or may not know the new ropes for the new Troop QM.  His system is not going to be the same as the previous QM.  So the Troop QM immediately starts working with his patrol QM's to make sure things are running smoothly.  The NSP QM is way in over his head.  Who's going to teach him the ropes?  His PL who may not know much about how the new Troop QM wants to operate or the Troop QM himself.  For me it's a no-brainer.  The Troop QM takes care of his boys and supports, leads, helps the patrol QM's be successful.  Along with advancement the NSP QM has his patrol job, the Instructor works with him on his advancement skills and the QM works with him on his QM job for the patrol.  Now you have a number of different older boys doing the "teaching" of the younger boys all of which theoretically have the expertise to do so.  Of course the TG is behind the scenes making sure all these connections are being met.  How is this a problem?  And I gave a full explanation without ever mentioning an adult in the process because they aren't needed.  Now, one also has a Troop Scribe working with the patrol Scribes, the SPL working with the PL and APL's.  This could get really complicated if the only one doing the training for the patrol was the PL, and training doesn't even have to be part of his job description, that's what the Leadership Corp group is for.  Everyone wants older boys to teach and lead the younger boys?  For me, this is how it works and one does not need to break up friendships to accomplish it.  For 6 months someone might need to step out of his patrol to take on a Troop position, but he's right back into his patrol when it's done.  Age based or mixed, makes no difference, but as has been commented on by others, boys naturally want to be with their friends and this system will accommodate that.

[TAHAWK]

"Adult association does not describe how important it is to not be around at times."

 

True becasue Adult Association refers exclusively to adults being examples of living Scouting values whenever they are "around."

[DuctTape]

Stosh,

 

My point was not that it cannot be done with same age patrols, or nsp, just that all you describe can also be done with mixed age patrols as well. In your paradigm, the troop QM is in a separate patrol with other older boys. Why must his role as troop QM be any different if he is in a patrol which happens to also have some t-fc scouts in it? It doesnt.

[Eagledad]

Ken, you beat me to it.

 

@@Eagledad, while I'm learning to see what you mean by the aims and methods cover a lot, I have to say it's all hindsight. When I started as SM and said I wanted the older scouts to teach the younger scouts I just about had a mutiny from the adults. When I asked some older scouts why they liked working at summer camp so much better than in the troop they said it was because they knew it was important and nothing in the troop was important -- because the adults would cover for them.

Only Seven percent of all ASMs I polled at Wood Badges admitted they had read the whole Scoutmaster Handbook. Sadly the truth is most adults don't really care about the details of building character, they just know it's part of scouting and would rather leave the details to the SM. When you explain it, they start to fall asleep. Character is the SMs job, the rest are fine with the SM telling them what to do.

 

But, it is important that the SM be able explain why they are doing what they're doing so that there is buy in to the SMs program. Does that make sense? That is why the SM is the gatekeeper of the vision. As long as the SM can consistently repeat the same vision and explain how what they are doing it is going in a positive direction toward the vision, the other 95% are perfectly happy to follow the plan.

 

The reason for knowing and understanding the Aims and Methods is so the SM can explain the roles of scouts and adults in a scout run troop. After every election, I explained to both the PLC and ASMs that the adults were responsible for: scouts fitness, citizenship and character (three aims). The way the adults achieve the Aims is by the scouts actively: using the the Scout Oath and Law, using patrols, camping outdoors, advancing, a mature relationship with adults, reflecting on personal performance of Doing A Good Turn, leadership and uniform. In other words the "Eight Methods". As long as the scouts take personal responsibility for the Eight Methods, the adults will not interfere with their program. Pretty simple really.

 

That is how I taught and defined the roles for the adults in the boy run troop. The adults are supposed to be passive to the scouts actions as long as the scouts are working toward "growth" in the Fitness, Citizenship, and Character. "Passive"means stand back and stay out of the scouts way. The scouts are on the other hand working "actively" with the Eight Methods. That is where the line is drawn. But, for that to work successfully, the SM has to be able to define how each of the eight methods work toward any or all of the three aims because many challenges will come up In the grey area. In fact I challenged each PLC that if I (SM) couldn't explain how a scout activity or action worked toward any Aim, I would let them take it out of the program. It also protects the scouts from the adults. If the troop has a low performing SPL and the adults start bulking, the wise Scoutmaster points out that character spawns from adversity, not prosperity.

 

The other thing not being discussed here is the factor of maturity. It doesn't take much reasoning to understand that a 17 year old Scout is more capable of making decisions because they have more experience and wisdom. So the responsibilities or roles of the adults and scouts boy changes as a scout grows from his experiences. A responsible adult isn't going to drop off a new NSP by themselves without training, but a patrol with scouts of several years experience in most cases shouldn't be a problem.

 

But boy constant growth and maturity "requires" that the adults grow and mature with their responsibilities well or they will find themselves in the way and restricting scout growth. Just like we wouldn't give an 11 year old SPL the same responsibilties we give a 17 year old, we also wouldn't restrict the 17 year old SPL with the same independence we gave the 11 year old. The adults have to continually grow and adapt to the scouts growth. I've said before, as adults we screwed up a lot, but we were humble And made adjustments so as not to keep repeating those mistakes. Guiding the adults to change and adapt along with the scouts can be a difficult responsibility for a shy SM who struggles with directing adults. But the SM is the guard of the vision, he/she must keep that in mind.

 

I've gone way too long, hope this helps.

 

Barry

Edited May 24, 2015 by Eagledad

[Stosh]

Stosh,

 

My point was not that it cannot be done with same age patrols, or nsp, just that all you describe can also be done with mixed age patrols as well. In your paradigm, the troop QM is in a separate patrol with other older boys. Why must his role as troop QM be any different if he is in a patrol which happens to also have some t-fc scouts in it? It doesnt.

 

Every year the patrol has to teach the new scouts T-FC.  I would assume during that time, the older scouts are not anticipating the next step in their development.  The focus of the patrol is constantly T-FC.  One would think that would get rather old the third or fourth time around.  That would put the boys at say about 14 or 15 years of age.  And surprisingly that's about the same time the older boys are getting bored and dropping out until they come back and push for Eagle after a 2 -3 year hiatus.  

 

I guess I would prefer my older boys to be setting their sights on something a bit more challenging and leave the Instruction of the new scouts to someone who is given that responsibility, i.e. the Troop Instructors.  That pretty much leaves the older boys more opportunity to move beyond the annual rehash of T-FC skill review/instruction.  At any given time, how many boys are in need of a POR for advancement?  Probably quite a few.  Leave the 12-14 year olds to handle the new boys and give the older boys something of a challenge that will hold their interest in scouting.  It makes it a bit more difficult to maintain patrol unity if the older boys are leaving after 3-4 years anyway because  

 

By the time a boy is 14 he's half way through his Scouting career.  What if the second half looks like it's going to be the same as the first.  Does any one ever do an exit interview with these boys or once they quit one just forgets about them?

 

My 13-14 year old scouts are the ones who are teaching the new boys.  The material is still fresh and they need the POR credit for their Star Life and Eagle requirements.  Once they turn 15, those patrols are opened up for a more age appropriate role in scouting.  Is it any wonder the Venturing is so popular, but it's for the boys who have basically given up on Eagle and are  just out looking for the next adventure.

 

How would I know this?  I've more years as a Crew Adviser than as a SM.  They really don't want to be hanging around Junior High aged youth anymore.  I believe the 14 year minimum age for Venturing coincides rather well with, say, maybe, freshman year of high school?  

 

I can at least speak from my own personal perspective on tihis.  When I was in high school, I for one didn't want to hang out with 6th graders.

[DuctTape]

Only if the focus is on training and skills instead of adventure. I see the "teaching" and advancement happening on the adventure. A patrol with a wider range of ages than just a single year can go on more than a beginner trip and on that trip use their skills and pass along their knowledge to their patrol mates who may not havecas much experience or knowledge. This moves the teaching, learning and advancement into the adventure in a real life experience instead of the classroom. I have no "preference" between age based or mixed age; to me the most important characteristic is the common type of adventure. THe Otter Patrol likes to do adventures on the water while the Moose Patrol likes to go deep into the woods. The Fir Tree patrol likes to plop camp and cook amazing things on the fire. I guess I see the slightly older patrol mates providing and passing along their expertise to their patrol mates while also growing themselves via the merit badge program. Some of the merit badge requirements can be done on these adventures too.

Edited May 24, 2015 by DuctTape

[Stosh]

 There's a wide difference between a mixed aged patrol where all of the boys ages range from 10 to 17.  Then there are aged based patrols which can range from all the same age.

 

It has been my experience that the boys, if left alone fall into some sort of clique type of somewhere in between those two extremes.  

 

1) NSP (Elementary School aged boys)

2) Younger boys, Junior High/Middle School aged boys.

3) Older boys, High School aged

 

Of course that can be broken down further to say younger high school and older high school.

 

There's going to be attrition going on in all the patrols.  Somewhere in the NSP/Younger boys ages there's are those that find scouting just isn't for them.  The high school aged boys have trouble with sports and other activities competition.  So, who do the upper high school aged boys want in their ranks to fill up their numbers, Yep, that's right, A sixth grader.  Every high school junior wants to hang out with a sixth grader or two. Now if anyone doesn't see the sarcasm in that, they need to get a reality check on life.  I'm sure they are going to look for a younger high school scouts and raid or merge with those patrols..

 

So lets assume  that for the moment we have a patrol that consists of 2 - 6th graders, two 8th graders, 2 sophomores and 2 seniors.  So you really think they are going to bond together as a patrol and hang out together?  Even I'm not so stupid to think that.

 

If on the off chance a group of boys were together as friends back in the Tiger Cub days and have come up together in the same dens each year.  Now they get to boy scouts and whatever bonding they may have acquired along the way is gone because some adult in a scout troop says you have to make new friends with these kids from junior and senior high school.  Then we can  start a long thread about how difficult to retain our cross-over Webelos boys and lose them after just a couple of months.

 

Now we come to some really fun activity, let's say canoeing.  The patrol of older senior high scouts want to do one of the local white-water rivers, but 2/3rds of their patrol mates say no because they aren't experienced enough for such an adventure.  So, then what's the alternative?  A bunch of one's buddies that aren't scouts are heading out for a white-water canoe trip through the YMCA.  What's it gonna be boys?  Whatever the rest of the patrol is going to do, they're going to be short 1/3rd of their members, and they are going to be the older boys. This game is going to be played out over and over again during the time the boy is in such a troop.  Gee, we're losing our Webelos cross-overs within their first year or two and the older boys get into sports and school activities, what's a person to do?  Oh my!

 

My older boys want to do white-water canoeing?  They just go as a whole patrol.  The NSP boys want to go on a hike and identify 10 plants and animals, no problem they just go, too.

 

BSA spends a lot of time designing the Cub program to be age appropriate and Tigers are doing things that the Wolves are and the Bears are doing things the Webelos aren't, and that's over a 4-5 year time span.  Well, Boy Scouts is 7 years and immediately after joining, those carefully designed dynamics are tossed out the window and we are expecting to have a mix of all ages.

 

Peer groups are especially powerful during the junior and senior high school years.  The age difference between a Tiger Cub and a second year Boy scout is the same as between a new scout and a scout in his last year as a Boy Scout.

 

I find that boys may hang out with a younger or older scout that is within a year of their age, but really don't want a 4-7 year difference. 

 

Like I said, there's a good reason why if left alone, the boys will generally pick patrols that are age appropriately based.  My retention of new scouts and older scouts remains quite high and when I do lose boys, it's because of other issues than I don't like the group of boys I'm hanging with.

 

Like I said, when I left scouts, I left with the rest of my patrol, and we were aged-based, it was just that we as a group decided there were other things that were far more interesting than what we had.in our adult-led troop.  There was no attrition in my patrol, it was a decision we all made together.  Did we still camp and hang out together, yep.  Had the troop been better run, we would never have left.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Stosh

[DuctTape]

I think we agree more than we disagree. When I speak of mixed age, it is left up to the boys and the range is never 10-17. But usually a 3 or 4 year range max. Same age is what? 1 year range, the same as cubs? I, and I doubt others are saying that there will ever be a 7 year span which you keep alluding to. The boys wouldnt choose it. Whatever they choose is fine, but in my mind a 2-3 year span of ages IS a mixed age patrol.

Edited May 24, 2015 by DuctTape

[Stosh]

Gee, boys could conceivably be 2 years apart and in the same grade of school.  At least 1 year part is rather normal.  If we get a group of Webelos cross-overs and a brand new non-Cub recruit that's a year or two older, in my mind they are pretty much all the same NSP "age".    That boy might work better going immediately into the patrol of the boy that recruited him rather than an established Webelos group of boys that have been together for many years.  He'd be odd-man out and his buddy would be in another patrol.  Not a good fit at all.

 

Basically what I am trying to avoid is the redundant orientation every year in all the patrols.  Put the new guys together in a patrol of their own, Do the orientation, the advancement, the bonding going with the help of a good TG and knowledgeable Instructors who focus on just their needs and then if THEY wish, they can either elect a PL from the others in the troop, or develop one from inside the group.  If they don't have strong bonds to each other, i.e. all recruited from multiple feeder packs, then I would just let them go up in the "draft" and if the other patrols want to take them on fine.  If not, the TG, SPL, Instructors, etc. will need to nurse them along the first year until more boys come in the next year to fill their ranks.  It's not a big deal, functionally operating Leadership Corp scouts should be able to handle that just fine.  These boys will take on new members rather quickly, knowing the feeling of what it's like to be left out in the cold.

 

Basically I want my new boys to get a good orientation, advancement training and leadership training ASAP.  I don't want that to be left to chance as some sort of undesigned osmosis approach of "hanging around the older boys" and hopefully something happens curriculum.  And I don't want my older boys held back by boys who don't age qualify for a more challenging adventure experience.  The middle aged boys can do the heavy lifting of the "older boy" training associations because they need that for advancement anyway.  

 

At least this is the basic observations I have made over the years by leaving the boys alone to figure it out on their own which they do with remarkably little hassle.

 

Right now with new boys and a new troop, the tried and true procedures I was used to are not there and so I have to sit back and trust my boys to figure it out on their own, which they are doing surprisingly well.  Small, single patrol, one new Webelos cross-over, and he fits in really well in spite of his being behind in his advancement.  I think summer camp will iron out any of the differences.

[Stosh]

Oh, by the way, if a patrol of "same" aged boys loses half it's membership over the years and the next patrol younger than them has the same problem and so they merge, to me they are still really a "same-aged" patrol.  A year difference shouldn't make much difference in their interests.  Like @@DuctTape mentions, 2-3 years out is beginning to stretch the point a bit.

[eagle77]

   The first thing I did when I became SM was to completely revamp or reform the patrols. I did this by allowing the scouts to actually select who they wanted in their patrols. I did this like a school yard choose up or draft. Selected a boy from each age group 15 - 17, 13 - 15, and 11 - 12. Yes there is an over lap that just fit with the ages of scouts in the troop. Each group would take a turn selecting from those not chosen. Did not tell them they could only select from certain boys, but from any scout in the troop. Low and behold the biggest age difference was 2 year difference and that was in the two middle age patrols. Our first year saw better advancement more participation and down right friendlier troop program. Only complaint came from adults both ASM's and some CM. Even after sittting and explaining why I did it this way, I just could not sell all of them on this. Well after a year the few hold outs finally admitted that maybe I was right.

   The problem I see today is that unlike the old days when for the most part scouts was maybe 1st or a 2nd activity that most boys did today it is just one of many. The stronger commitments required today for athletic, school, and other make the patrol method a very hard to run or maintain type of program. The parents who insist their kids try to do everything and not actually choose a couple really hurts the way that a patrol should actually function. Tried to introduce patrol meetings and patrol outings (before National discontinued them) but many boys simply said it was hard enough getting together for troop meetings and campouts.

[Stosh]

   The first thing I did when I became SM was to completely revamp or reform the patrols. I did this by allowing the scouts to actually select who they wanted in their patrols. I did this like a school yard choose up or draft. Selected a boy from each age group 15 - 17, 13 - 15, and 11 - 12.

 

Just curious... what was the rationale as to the adult (?) selection of 3 boys of differing age?

 

Yes there is an over lap that just fit with the ages of scouts in the troop. Each group would take a turn selecting from those not chosen.

 

How many boys were in each patrol?  Did any complain they weren't with at least one buddy?

 

Did not tell them they could only select from certain boys, but from any scout in the troop. Low and behold the biggest age difference was 2 year difference and that was in the two middle age patrols. Our first year saw better advancement more participation and down right friendlier troop program. 

 

What were the issues that went away and made it friendlier?

 

Only complaint came from adults both ASM's and some CM.

 

What was their beef and why did  they think they even had a say so in the process?

 

Even after sittting and explaining why I did it this way, I just could not sell all of them on this. Well after a year the few hold outs finally admitted that maybe I was right.

   The problem I see today is that unlike the old days when for the most part scouts was maybe 1st or a 2nd activity that most boys did today it is just one of many. The stronger commitments required today for athletic, school, and other make the patrol method a very hard to run or maintain type of program. The parents who insist their kids try to do everything and not actually choose a couple really hurts the way that a patrol should actually function. Tried to introduce patrol meetings and patrol outings (before National discontinued them) but many boys simply said it was hard enough getting together for troop meetings and campouts.

 

Is it fair to assume that even after they selected patrols, they really didn't function as patrols?  Did they plan any patrol activities, even if just a day hike?  Did they camp and cook apart from each other's patrols?  

 

My original troop with the "my way or the highway" SM attitude towards running a Boy Scout unit, he did the same thing.  Just so it looked good on paper, the boys selected "patrols" but never did anything as a patrol.  Always camped, cooked and did activities as a troop.  If you didn't like that you stayed home and the patrols were ad hoc reconfigured for such things as camporee competitions, etc. where patrols were "important" enough along the way.  I tried hard to establish functional patrols, but when it became apparent that the SM wasn't interested in such things, I left the troop. 

 

Now my "troop" meetings consist of patrol meetings,  Most rooms have four corners so I can have 4 patrols working in the same room at the same time.  If my current troop grows to 5 patrols, I could be in trouble.  They do opening and closing flags as a troop event, but they stand in a formation of patrols.  

 

As far as competitive activities, I would let the problem pinch a bit before saying anything.  Patrol A had 4 boys missing fall camporee because of football.  Okay, the other 2-4 boys would have to pick up the slack in the meantime.  If the boys were just slacking off and not really in other sports, and attendance was off, peer pressure and/or threats of "if you aren't going to hold up your end of the bargain, we'll find someone who will", goes a long way towards correcting it.

 

In any case, our troop policy is: Church, family and school are higher priorities than Scouts.  Learn to work around it.  At our first summer camp since chartering this new unit, we had one boy that had 4-H and needed to be at the fair through the first weekend of going to summer camp.  He would have missed the orientation sessions but could have made it the whole week.  4-H is not Church, family or school.  We offered to pick him up Sunday evening and he could have spent the week at camp.  Nope.  This year the boys switched weeks so it wouldn't conflict at all with the fair, but he's still not going.  Twice burned, they are planning on going back to the original week next summer.   Another boy earned his black belt and advanced in Karate, The boys switched meeting nights from Mondays to Tuesdays to accommodate him and his new karate schedule.  He's still active in the troop.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  

 

The reason why this explanation is all over the place is because this is what the boys decided they wanted to do.  

Edited May 24, 2015 by Stosh

[eagle77]

Stosh,

   I had 26 boys and selected 1 from each of the age groups. From what I saw as ASM I selected 3 boys that I thought really liked doing scouts. As they chose they would discuss with each other who the next selection would be. Two patrols would have 9 members and the one would have 8. That worked well because the ones with 9 were the 2 older patrols. There was 1 switch or trade but other then that all boys were happy with the selection. This was also done away from the adults, including me. We met inside while I explained what was happening the boys were outside. The former scoutmaster would assign boys to patrols and many boys were not in a patrol with his buddy or friends. He would say this will make them more friendlier with the rest of the troop. Don't know where he got that from. The other leaders were under the belief that you had to have older boys mixed with younger so they could teach and help them advance in scouts. The main reason that I was asked to be SM was because the former was more a part timer then full time leader. To me having patrol meetings at troop meetings is really patrol corners. As a scout I attended patrol meetings at others houses or even in the park when the weather was right. Each patrol was given their equipment and shown where they could store it. On campouts they would be assigned their own area of the camp and would then set up camp. Mind you all of this was done via the SPL and Pls. Some of the parents actually thought I was being lazy because I allowed the boys to do this, they all believed it was my job to do.I even went so far one time to reserve 4 sites at a camp for one of our weekend trips, one for each patrol and one for the adults. Only problem was the campmasters at said camp told me BSA policy said I had to have 2 deep leadership in each site (never heard of that before) I thought it was 2 deep just to be in camp. Their schedule or itinerary was of their choosing. Tried to get the boys to do things together outside of troop for hikes and things, just couldn't make it happen on a regular basis. Only time we did troop type cooking was on cabin trips, here each patrol would take care of (prepare and cleanup) from the meals that they selected to do.

   Need to explain something here too, the former SM was a PRO (God I hate that expression for a paid scouter) and this was his little camping club. Other then some of the basic leader training he did not push the ASM's to get further training, no one would attend RT, boys were leaders by patch only, and had little or no say about any part of the program. Same trips year after year at the same place. I guess because he was a PRO the others believed what he was doing was just what BSA wanted. I was the only leader who had been a Boy Scout. As time went on the friction between him and I got to be too much so I decided to resign and go to another troop. When a couple of the boys got wind of this they told the others and on one of our campouts came to me at the campfire and asked me to be their SM.  Even earning Eagle did surpass how honored  I was for these boys to ask this. The CM also told me he wanted and asked me to attend a committee meeting and explain to the committee what would I do as SM. The troop's IR was there and said that whatever the committee decided the CO would have no problem with it. By the end of the meeting i was the new SM.

[Stosh]

Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on what has to be done, but the traditional resistance seems quite strong but dissipating.

 

I guess the only thing I would have done a bit differently was let the boys select 4 leaders to do the picking and have 6 boys in each patrol.  Why, because it gives yet one more boy a chance to function in a leadership role and it give the patrols a chance to absorb the new guys when they come in.   The oldest boys will "steal" from the next level down to replace their exiting boys and that will drop down the "seniority" scale until the NSP boys either form their own patrol or join up with a younger boy patrol.  Also 4 patrols is about the time one needs to maybe introduce the PLC to the mix and this will give 4 boys and an SPL a chance to establish that part of the program.

 

Well done

[eagle77]

Actually 4 patrols is what I was looking at first, but in my area the boys are really loaded up with other things to do and would then have to do the ad hoc type of patrol camping and really did not want to do that. With the 8 boy patrol even half of them could be absent and it could still function as a patrol. Believe me the first two years I had at least two ASM's that would question anything and everything that I allowed or expected the scouts to do. I was constantly being told they can't do this they can't do that. Finally I just told them it was not a matter of what they can do but a matter of actually letting them try.