Important Ideas About The Patrol Method

[Stosh]

Adult run programs will always appear to be more "successful".   But that's not what scouting is all about.  We already have covered the fact that boy-run, patrol-method is tantamount to semi-organized chaos.  

[Stosh]

Stosh, believe me, everything about that disaster of a patrol falls in the category of "not a good example"!   Bad description/label on my part. Should have just let "holding pen" suffice.

 

And this is the problem with not running a troop with the patrol-method correctly.  If ignored, this group of fledgling leaders is basically going to sit around getting their requirements done, hanging out at events and not really doing much exciting because they are too young.  Your example isn't too far off from the reality of how it's done

 

TG:   has to be the right senior scout if the NSP benefits.   Be it the TG of today, or a member of the Leadership Corps of old, they can either be a big help or just a bunch of senior scouts sitting around shooting the breeze.

 

Here again we have the results of an adult-run unit.  Where's the leadership coming from and in terms of functionality who's doing the work?  Whenevery I speak of the patrol-method, one of the major "assumptions" is that the boys have been trained and expected to do their job.  More often than not, the  troop officers are the patch wearers that as you say sit around and shoot the breeze.  This is the result of adult lead (the boys don't need to do the work, they just need to sit around and shoot the breeze until some adult does it for them)  

 

And yet, you fully understand the solution as well.  These officers of the leadership corps need to be a big help!  Yep, that's the servant leadership/support system necessary to make the patrol-method work.  Obviously if these older boys are just sitting around shooting the breeze they are definitely NOT taking care of their boys.  In my troop, the PL's would put up with this for maybe a few weeks, and then replace them all starting with the SPL.    If you ain't helpin', you ain't much good.  

 

 

yes, ok true enough.  Makes sense.... but how does a patrol of green horns have any depth of experience or leadership?  Seems like a military platoon of all buck privates.

 

On day one, that is exactly what you have, and if you don't want them to stay that way, the focus of training is to turn them into PFC's.  TG takes the lead and coordinates the efforts for the boys.  He may give instruction himself or he may rely on a good PL showing the boys the ropes of being a good PL, The TG watches over the QM to make sure the boys get what they need because at first they don't even know what to ask for, but the QM teaches them how to be a good QM, and this progresses throughout all the POR's.  In a year or two, they will know what needs to be done and can then serve in those positions for rank advancement in Star, Life and Eagle.  If the military doesn't put their recruits in a "holding pen" for 6 weeks of basic training, why do we?  This is a problem of our own creation.

 

There are those that feel that the interaction of the boys with older boys and the association with adults implies that is where the leadership resides.  That's not true, it only originates as learning from them.  The old Leadership Corp of scouts consisted of older boys NOT OF THE PATROL that assisted the growth and development of leadership within the patrols.  They did not need to be in the patrols.  When a boy wears the Instructor patch, where is is major focus?  On the new scouts and getting them through T-FC.  The SPL works with the fledgling NSP PL and APL.  The QM works with the boy in the patrol who will be focused on the equipment, Same for the Scribe and any of the other troop officers.  If the Patrol-Method is the goal of scouting for the boys, the leadership corp doesn't run the troop, they assist and develop boys in the patrols to function as a patrol.  This is the older boy association everyone gets so excited about needing.  No, they need only a handful of the best to work with the younger boys and the rest of the older boys are doing their older boy focused activities.  Time for Philmont, what happens to the leadership corps of older scouts?  are they pulled out of the patrols?  Nope, they never were part of the patrols, they simply go as a patrol of their own.  The patrol of the mixed aged patrols is not disrupted to accommodate the needs and interests of the older boys.

[blw2]

stosh

I think what you are saying makes sense.  There is a lot I have yet to experience.... this concept of troop guide is one.

 

I just wonder if my son will ever benefit form this ideal of a troop.

[Stosh]

stosh

I think what you are saying makes sense.  There is a lot I have yet to experience.... this concept of troop guide is one.

 

I just wonder if my son will ever benefit form this ideal of a troop.

 

Like a scout in the NSP, he may not even know the alternatives at first, but maybe your son is destined to turn his troop into a more idealized patrol-method troop down the road.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  If it is broke, don't stand around waiting for someone to come along and fix it, fix it yourself.  (Lesson #1 in leadership, take some responsibility for making it better.)

[qwazse]

There are those that feel that the interaction of the boys with older boys and the association with adults implies that is where the leadership resides.  That's not true, it only originates as learning from them.  The old Leadership Corp of scouts consisted of older boys NOT OF THE PATROL that assisted the growth and development of leadership within the patrols ....  Time for Philmont, what happens to the leadership corps of older scouts?  are they pulled out of the patrols?  Nope, they never were part of the patrols, they simply go as a patrol of their own.  The patrol of the mixed aged patrols is not disrupted to accommodate the needs and interests of the older boys.

 

That was the best part of my experience in my troop's Leadership Corp (aside from the honking big red patch with the oil lamp on it). I had no interest in the local explorer post (which some of the girls in band mates were in): everything I needed in terms of adventure was with the LC on a ridge-top in the middle of winter making pizzas from scratch with an improvised patrol mess kit. Then, I could pass down those stealth-acquired skills to any PL or other scout who would listen.

 

Reflecting on my sons' troop, I think that was one of the reasons some older scouts told me they didn't like the patrol method. They kinda grew out of it, yet they really did not want to bother committing to the crew. None of our boys like the idea of forming a "Venturing Patrol" because to them it felt like they're being snooty. They like the younger scouts, and don't like feeling "above and apart", except maybe after lights out when they want to hang out and finish a game of cards, reflect on life, etc ...

 

So, letting boys establish their own patrols won't necessarily lead to age-based. And being flexible with the older scouts won't necessarily undermine your patrols.  Trying to micromanage both just seems to make for ephmeral partrols from my observations.

[MattR]

Following on to qwazse's comment, and also trying to get this back on the rails: Different scouts want different things and they have no idea it's okay to seek that. So another responsibility of the adults is to get the scouts to open up, find out what they're thinking, and give them some feedback at a wider level. It's not thinking outside the box, it's realizing how big the box is. In the case of patrol makeup some scouts think whatever is being done is the only way to do it. When it comes to campouts many scouts don't know what they don't know about what could be done.

 

Unrelated to this but related to the OP, I looked up Hillcourt's Page 9 (mentioned in that video on another thread) and it describes exactly what I meant by the promise of scouting. Outdoors with your friends, wielding an axe, tracking a deer. And that's only the beginning. This was on page 9 of the old scout handbooks and was written directly to the scout. The equivalent in the current book is a disaster written by a committee and has a lot of baggage that no kid will understand or wade through.

[TAHAWK]

Not addressing objectives but technique, questions are a great way to open up vistas for young people:  "Have you considered . . .;"  "Did you know that . . .."

Stories are another technique:  something you just read today; something someone told you once; something you saw on television; something you saw done once that worked/looked like fun;- somewhere you went.

 

Also, the attraction of Scouting - the promise of adventure with your friends - has to be understood in light of what we are trying to accomplish through Scouting.  The "why" and the "how" have to interact.

 

Your last observation reminds me of a common element in the tidal wave of criticism of the new rule banning "shooting" each other with squirt guns; namely; rules are being written by folks who have little or no contact with the Scouts.

[Eagledad]

yes, ok true enough.  Makes sense.... but how does a patrol of green horns have any depth of experience or leadership?  Seems like a military platoon of all buck privates.

No way around it, NSP has to be more adult run for the scouts to grow. The BSA added troop guides to help the problem, but they don't make up for experienced patrol mates. Adults have to step in our the boys quit. Even stosh admitted this as he talked about working with his four scouts the last year.

 

Barry

[TAHAWK]

My troop from 1987-2001 had 75% retention to age 16 and used Boy Scouting.  

 

Adult influence? Sure.  The TGs met with the PLs at least once a week to coach and teach and were there during activities to coach.  The TGs met with the SA-New Scouts every week for the same. If the TGs saw something that the PL should be doing, he would take the PL aside and influence the PL to take care of the problem. All that was withing the ambit of the BSA language.

 

Our Troop Guides were Scouts regarded as  PL or SPL material.  Most had been successful PLs or very active APLs..  Two had been SPL.  (To BSA, that's "spl" as they are not into English.)

 

Amazing what troop or patrol tent-camping every single month ( three via backpacking) does for retention, especially when combined with a high adventure trip every year and our own summer camp every other year.  Good food.  Great campfires.  Active, patrol-centered "troop" meetings.

 

Would it have been "easier" to have adults run the NSP?  Sure.  We were simply OK with what a 11-year-old PL "looks" like and focused on the process.

 

The troop I try to help now has 25% retention to age 16, but boy are they adult-run, to they extent they are run at all.  

 

 

It took me some time to wrap my head around NSPs.  It was different from the mixed-age patrols I had experienced as a Scout and young Scouter.

 

(BP was apparently against mixed-age patrols because he said older Scouts would never take care of younger Scouts.  He was wrong in a couple of respects.  What has to be learned - and can be taught and learned - is taking care of any other person.  We are born selfish.  Part of becoming a good person and good citizen is learning to care for others.  I can attest to the fact that older boys, at least a good many, will faithfully take care of younguns'.)

Edited May 21, 2015 by TAHAWK

[pargolf44067]

As I mentioned in a post a couple of days ago, the boys were finally split into patrols.  I wasn't around for it, the former SM that I took over for was watching/leading the meeting.  Although he didn't do it the way I would have, at least we have patrols again.  The one thing that was interesting about it was when he asked the boys how they wanted to form patrols.  Every one of them said that they thought it should be mixed age patrols so older scouts are teaching younger scouts as part of it.  I have had it both ways same age and mixed age and there have been pros and cons to each.

 

Even though I didn't agree 100% with the method, the boys seemed happy at the end of the meeting, and we are going to let these patrols operate as such.  I have mentioned to the former SM that I think we need to go back to menu planning and eating by patrol (they had gone away from that after I left) and he agreed and said he told the boys that and they were excited about that opportunity.  We used to have a Leadership Patrol, but the other patrols really found the boys distracting and not helpful, so the boys themselves asked to disband the Leadership Patrol.  So, instead, once an SPL or ASPL has served his role, he will go back into the patrol that he came from.  Again these were decisions by the boys, and facilitated by the adults.

 

So, we may not be perfect, but the boys had a say in how the patrols were made up and how they will perform going forward.

[TAHAWK]

"we are going to let these patrol operate"

 

I hope, someday, you come to believe, with Bill Hillcourt, it is not up to "we" but is up to "them."

 

The Patrol method flies in the face of the "normal" way adults deal with youth.  It takes a big adjustment in behavior and is only initially comfortable with experience or a lot of faith.  Adults want to be "helpful," especially those who give their precious time to be Scouters.  They easily fall into thinking it's all about attaining efficiency, like the author of that awful and embarrassing article in January, 2015, Scouting.   

 

I had twelve years continuous experience with the same, Patrol Method troop, so it was easy for me.  It was all the Boy Scouting that I had directly experienced.  Oh, I knew there were a couple of adult-run troops, but I had been socialized within my troop to pity them.  Even then some of the dad's would flinch over such trivial matters as burnt pancakes or a patrol setting off late Saturday morning on the backpacker to Dollar Lake.  "Ready yet?"  "Ready?"  "Ready to go?"  "We're going to go; can you catch up?"   (The satisfaction of bandaging their blisters at the top of Poop-out Hill

could hardly be measured  Do  NOT gloat .  A scout is . . . .)

[pargolf44067]

@@TAHAWK,

 

I misspoke when I said "we are going to let them operate".  What my intention was meant to indicate was that I don't believe in the Patrol Shuffle as was discussed earlier, so the patrols were going to be left as they were.  Trust me, I am in agreement on the Patrol Method, but it is going to take a little time to help the boys unlearn what they have been taught the last couple of years!

[Eagledad]

 

(BP was apparently against mixed-age patrols because he said older Scouts would never take care of younger Scouts.  He was wrong in a couple of respects.  What has to be learned - and can be taught and learned - is taking care of any other person.  We are born selfish.  Part of becoming a good person and good citizen is learning to care for others.  I can attest to the fact that older boys, at least a good many, will faithfully take care of younguns'.)

Agree 100 percent. In fact I tell troop leaders in training that the quality of a troop is measured by the older scout part of the program. We not only had a 75% retention up to 16 year olds, we average one older scout from other troops switching to our troop. Reputation travels far.

 

I also worked all around using NSPs and eventually only used them their first six months if we had more new scouts joining than two per patrol. The BSA looses more scouts in the first 6 months of a boys troop experience than any other age. We suffered over 50% losses of new scouts our first couple years, but eventually brought that number up to over 90% retention after learning how over the years.

 

In fact, the reason National created the NSP program was to raise the first year number up. I did some research around 2005 to see how much the NSP had improved the national retention rate of first year scouts and found it had not changed it at all. It's a difficult problem to solve, but NSPs turned out not to be the fix. It sounds like TAHAWK went kind of the direction we eventually found. I personally believe the NSP has caused more damage to true boy run patrol method than any other program change made at the Boy Scout level because if forces the adults to get more involved.

 

Like TAHAWK, I don't like talking about our program because it comes off bragging. But I do think both of us want to help others have the same success with true patrol method programs like we experienced.

 

Barry

[Stosh]

That was the best part of my experience in my troop's Leadership Corp (aside from the honking big red patch with the oil lamp on it). I had no interest in the local explorer post (which some of the girls in band mates were in): everything I needed in terms of adventure was with the LC on a ridge-top in the middle of winter making pizzas from scratch with an improvised patrol mess kit. Then, I could pass down those stealth-acquired skills to any PL or other scout who would listen.

 

Reflecting on my sons' troop, I think that was one of the reasons some older scouts told me they didn't like the patrol method. They kinda grew out of it, yet they really did not want to bother committing to the crew. None of our boys like the idea of forming a "Venturing Patrol" because to them it felt like they're being snooty. They like the younger scouts, and don't like feeling "above and apart", except maybe after lights out when they want to hang out and finish a game of cards, reflect on life, etc ...

 

So, letting boys establish their own patrols won't necessarily lead to age-based. And being flexible with the older scouts won't necessarily undermine your patrols.  Trying to micromanage both just seems to make for ephmeral partrols from my observations.

 

So you can then deduce from this that one of the reasons OA isn't well supported anymore is because as an honor society dedicated to service, it's too snooty?

 

After all when it comes to the sports team, no one really wants to be on the A-Team for fear of being snooty.

 

It is interesting that the boys do hang out after lights out as a group or patrol should.  That doesn't seem to be snooty.....?

 

Love the word snooty... 

 

One of the observations I have made over the years is when one forms a honors/venture patrol, the boys have to actually roll up their sleeves and go to work instead of lording it over the younger boys they badger into doing for them.  Mixed patrols definitely have pecking orders quickly established even when adults stir the pot ever 6 months or so.  Remove the patrol method and one immediately removes all expectations for the older boys.  Sure, the adults have expectations, but the boys don't, the younger boys will pick up the heavy lifting and we've paid our dues so we don't have to work so hard.  Now the adults come down heavy and the cycle is complete, no patrols, and the adults running the show.  Without constant cultivation of the patrol method, this is the inevitable spiral that will happen.

 

Every time I hear about the older boys not doing anything, not helping the younger boys, not really doing anything to earn their POR rank advancement, etc. from a SM, I always bite my tongue and just smile.  "It's because you have trained your boys to be that way!" is screaming silently in the back of my head.  

[KenD500]

We're currently using "age based" patrols.  There's two patrols - 1 ranging from 15-16 yrs old, the other ranging from 10-12 yrs old. 

 

When we started talking about splitting into 2 patrols based on our size, the Scouts fell into these groups by themselves.  This is how they separated themselves for games & it was natural for them.