Important Ideas About The Patrol Method

[pargolf44067]

Depending on the situation NSPs have both worked and not worked in our troop.  One year we got about 15 boys that crossed over at the same time.  We used two NSPs to work with them and had them elect Patrol Leaders, had TGs and Instructors work with them and those worked well.  Our mistake was splitting them up into multiple patrols after their first year.  A good portion of them have stayed (they are seniors this year) but several left.  I don't know that they left because of that but you never know.

 

On the other hand, the past few years we have gotten anywhere from 1-4 new scouts in the troop in a year and the NSP concept just didn't work at that level, so they boys found their way into a patrol (when we had patrols  ) and that seemed to work out as well.

 

There is no one solution to any issue. As @@Eagle94-A1 mentioned above, it is more an art than a science.  It seems that what @@Stosh does works well for him and what @@Eagledad has seen has worked well for his group.

[TAHAWK]

I don't see how you go wrong if you aim for "a small group of friends."  That will often mean contemplatives, but not 100% of the time.

 

 

And on behalf of all the old farts, I object to the exclusive use of use of "old" to modify "fogey."  I have seen fogies, but some at ;least were young fogies.

[Stosh]

Re/ older boy patrols (13 and younger, 14 and older patrols) we've tried these and they didn't work for us.

 

Re/ new boy patrols, these did not work either.

 

The mixed patrols worked best. Older shouts who have earned the right go in to Leadership Corps. That seems to have worked for us.

 

@

 

Is this a long standing tradition in your troop or do the boys have a choice when the come into the troop?  Not to make waves, just curious.

 

How then does that work out with HA and older boy opportunities that wouldn't be available for the whole patrol to attend intact?

[Stosh]

@@Eagle94-A1

 

Soon after the NSP gets oriented to the scouting routine and has maybe Scout and TF under their belts, the SPL and TG do the GBB patrol training with the boys.  The quicker they get into that, the quicker their PL/APL combo can take the reins and the TG can step back in a more supportive role like GBB suggests the SM does.  The training is rather simple and the SPL/TG combo usually do a pretty nice job of holding the course. 

[Stosh]

Depending on the situation NSPs have both worked and not worked in our troop.  One year we got about 15 boys that crossed over at the same time.  We used two NSPs to work with them and had them elect Patrol Leaders, had TGs and Instructors work with them and those worked well.  Our mistake was splitting them up into multiple patrols after their first year.  A good portion of them have stayed (they are seniors this year) but several left.  I don't know that they left because of that but you never know.

 

That bonding thing the first year goes a long way in developing the patrol-method in the boys.  To disrupt that by adult decree at the end of a year or  so is not something I want to be responsible for.  If the boys wish, they can break up the group, but it's up to them.  If the older boy patrols have dropped to less than 6 boys, they are strongly encouraged to "recruit" from whatever areas they wish.  It might be the NSP, another patrol or even a new boy not yet in scouting. I don't care as long as the boys are happy and have total ownership in the process.  It's not a ditch worth dying in.

 

On the other hand, the past few years we have gotten anywhere from 1-4 new scouts in the troop in a year and the NSP concept just didn't work at that level, so they boys found their way into a patrol (when we had patrols  ) and that seemed to work out as well.

 

We have had this situation too, where we didn't get our 6 boys for a NSP.  The boys came up with an option for older boys needing advancement to offer their services as PL and TG (APL) to the NSP.  The year we did that the TG/PL did the GBB training.  I did spend more time observing the process that year as SM because it was far different than what had been tried in the past.  At the end of the year, the two older boys returned to their original patrols and the 4 boys stuck together and we able to merge with another struggling patrol of 4 older boys.  In this case we did have a mixed patrol, but it never really worked as well as the others because every time we did a HA activity, this group had to split and we ended up with a patrol of 4 on the HA activities.  It was a struggle for them. and they never really fully bonded as did the other patrols.  Sometimes we don't get what we want but make do with what we have.

 

There is no one solution to any issue. As @@Eagle94-A1 mentioned above, it is more an art than a science.  It seems that what @@Stosh does works well for him and what @@Eagledad has seen has worked well for his group.

 

I agree, and if that's what the boys feel most comfortable with, then go for it.  From my example above, the mixed patrol hasn't always worked as well for my boys.

[Eagle94-A1]

@@Eagle94-A1

 

Soon after the NSP gets oriented to the scouting routine and has maybe Scout and TF under their belts, the SPL and TG do the GBB patrol training with the boys.  The quicker they get into that, the quicker their PL/APL combo can take the reins and the TG can step back in a more supportive role like GBB suggests the SM does.  The training is rather simple and the SPL/TG combo usually do a pretty nice job of holding the course. 

 

 

That's the goal, although, why didn't i think of using GBB's  syllabus for new troop!

 

I told the TG his job was to work his way out of a job.

 

We now have an issue though; we no longer have a TG. The TG and the NSP are having so much fun together, the NSP elected him PL.

 

 

Now I gotta get another copy of the 3d. Edition SMHB!

[Stosh]

That's the goal, although, why didn't i think of using GBB's  syllabus for new troop!

 

I told the TG his job was to work his way out of a job.

 

We now have an issue though; we no longer have a TG. The TG and the NSP are having so much fun together, the NSP elected him PL.

 

 

Now I gotta get another copy of the 3d. Edition SMHB!

 

@@Eagle94-A1

 

I've had that happen before too where the TG gets elected as PL.  After all they kinda work a bit like a DC, but no DL to direct them, more leadership going on with the TG.  If they hit it off, no problem the boys can pick any other boy in the troop to be their PL and the PL can pick anyone they want for their APL.

 

Only once did I have a TG turn down the PL position and not go with the NSP.  He told them his work was very important for the next group of Webelos boys coming in and suggested someone else they could ask.  This boy was one of my Eagle Scouts.    The new boys agreed and took him up on his suggested scout who did a nice job for them. 

[Eagledad]

There is no one solution to any issue. As @@Eagle94-A1 mentioned above, it is more an art than a science.  It seems that what @@Stosh does works well for him and what @@Eagledad has seen has worked well for his group.

Yes quite so. There are two truths that most experienced leaders agree on: troops work to a size that fits the SM style of leading, and every SM has a different style that works for them.

 

Also, each SM has different personal goals for their scouts, which is how they measure the success of their leadership style. As a scout in the 60s and 70s, we used mixed age patrols. I never saw a patrol of scouts all the same until I became a scout leader in 1992. All my patrol leaders had their drivers license and they took very good care of us. We all aspired to be like them. Our troop of 6 patrols was very boy run. Each patrol camped out of sight and sound of each other. That is a big deal now, but not back then. In fact most troops were like this in our area.

 

So it makes since that as adults we tried to build the same troop for our sons. But National had just started this NSP patrol thing and was making mixed age patrols a challenge for us. Plus, our new troop of 18 scouts had 12 Webelos, so we gave same age patrols a try. Right off the bat we found that even with a troop guide that NSPs require more adult intervention for growth than we want to give. We found that without the constant. And consistent wisdom of older scouts, young scout growth either stagnates or comes from somewhere else, adults.

 

National placed Troop Guides (TP) in the program to fix the problem, but we found over the years that TG direction is not natural growth for younger scouts and eventually peaks out at the limits of TG (6 months on average). From our perspective, TG direction is more class room style teaching where mixed age was more observational and natural to human behavior of boys this age. TG style of growth is more intrusive where growth from observing is more intuitive from our perspective. For several reasons, we had mixed age patrols working side by side with same age patrols and NSP patrols and clearly the growth of scouts in mixed age patrols advanced the fastest in character, confidence, skills and importantly for us, a servant attitude.

 

As I said before in the discussion, we eventually developed had a high retention rate in our troop with 45% of our scouts being 14 and older. Our personal goals drive many of our decisions and mine are leadership development and character. I think anyone who follows me on these forums will agree that those two qualities are on the top of my list for developing a program that helps boys build habits that lead to making moral and ethical decisions. If your goal is a program of building character leadership, you share my passions.

 

As adults, I think we made mistakes 50% of the time, but we were always trying to change those parts that work so as not to repeat the mistakes. To do that, the program has to have a vision of success to compare daily performance. Our troop had a reputation in district and council as wild cat troop that didn't follow the rules. Not that they thought we were bad, just the opposite, we averaged 2 new scouts a month from other troops. Some of those were local, but many were were transfers moving in town and were sent by the DE because of our reputation for fun and adventure.

 

By the way, we had no desire to be a fast growing troop, our goal was about 25. But it didn't work out that way.

 

However, as a district and council trainer, I took great pride in that weren't doing anything outside of BSA boundaries. It was the other troops that had fallen in bad habits which made our troop look so different. Eventually someone in council asked if I would created and lead a course of how to be a more "boy run" troop. In the end, the course wasn't much more than a review of Aims and Methods, and how to apply them. Short quiz: how many reading now can recite the four Aims and seven Methods? Lol

 

The reason most troops struggle to define boy run is because they don't know or understand the program basics. I was once honored to be invited on a forum way back when with other scouters who had successful boy run programs. These guys made me feel small in their wisdoms on the subject. One of these guys said something that I have found to be very true, the best boy run leaders typically have an above average knowledge of the present BSA program and are students of Baden Powell, Green Bar Bill, seton, Beard and other source of traditional patrol method wisdoms. I used to poll our Wood Badge courses and found that less than 20% of SMs had read the whole SM Handbook. Less than 7% of ASMs had done the same. Not that I can't blame them, the handbook is a top notch snoozer. But I think it is indicative of adults with a higher level of passion. I guide new SMs to use the PL and SPL handbooks instead until they got comfortable.

 

For me, it's not about mixed age or same age, it's very much about best growth with the resources of the moment. That is why I can explain the performances of different styles of patrols depending on circumstances. I did the same thing in Cubs to triple our retention rate.

 

But after all the time and effort to build a prducing patrols using the BSA program and modifications to improve their performance, I have concluded that National implemented three program changes that I believe have caused the most damage to the troop program: NSP, First Year First Class (FYFC), and Venturing Patrols. I believe those changes are the reason adults today struggle to inject boy run in the program. Don't take that as being anti National, I am not. They are just pragmatic conclusions from years years of applying and observing the scout program at the unit, district and council levels.

 

I also beleave that we can't go back to the great days of traditional scouting when boys were truly given independence to learn about their boundaries of making good decisions because we have too many generations of adults who only understand the newer less boy run program.

 

But I'm here because I love this scouting stuff and I want to help other scouts and scouters have experiences as rich as mine. There will always be those few who want better than a mediocre program, so I'm here to share our mistakes as well as our successes to help them work toward a better performing patrol method program. And I will also be a balance for those who think they are the end all to scouting and feel they have to demean everyone else to make there point. If a pragmatic case can't be made, then it's just another egocentric theory.

 

I love this scouting stuff.

 

Barry

[KenD500]

Short quiz: how many reading now can recite the four Aims and seven Methods?

4 Aims & 7 Methods?  Shouldn't that be 3 Aims & 8 Methods?  Or are you referring to a different version?

[Eagledad]

Just checking! You passed. Lol

[MattR]

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. In hindsight this can all be attributed to personal growth, but a new SM reading the methods of scouting will never see that because personal growth is some vague blurb about getting a religious knot and doing a good turn daily. Adult association does not describe how important it is to not be around at times.

 

So how do we get you to fill in all those details? Just to make it concrete how about three pages per method? To make it easier just give me a pile of ideas for each and I'll do the writing.

[Stosh]

This whole idea of the older boys teaching the younger boys is really an adult-led proposition.  We have an INSTRUCTOR POR that is expected to be teaching the younger boys on a regular, functional basis.  Why are ALL the other boys doing it other than some adult insist they do?  The Leadership Corp of troop officers have it covered.  Let the patrols just do their thing and when needed they'll speak up.

 

NSP PL: "Hey, Instructor John, my boys need to get the low-down on 2nd Class advancement requirements.  Can I pencil you in for one of our meetings, lets say, 2 weeks from now."

 

Instructory John.  "Sure,, I'll be ready."

 

And lo and behold, Instructor John gets real credit for this Instructor POR and the boys in the NSP get their instruction from an older boys.  The system is really quite good if the adults don't get in the way.  How many units out there really have functional Instructors?  Oh? the older patrol members are supposed to be doing that?  Great, now along with Bugler we have 2 useless POR's.

[MattR]

Stosh, presumably your instructor is an older boy? So I guess the older boys are teaching the skills. You're the one that said scouts should keep a log of what leadership they did and not worry about a patch, and if teaching skills is one of those items then I guess the older boys are teaching the skills. This would be a big change from what my troop did before I came along, which was have the adults teach the skills.

[Stosh]

Stosh, presumably your instructor is an older boy? So I guess the older boys are teaching the skills. You're the one that said scouts should keep a log of what leadership they did and not worry about a patch, and if teaching skills is one of those items then I guess the older boys are teaching the skills. This would be a big change from what my troop did before I came along, which was have the adults teach the skills.

 

Of course the Instructors tend to be older boys.  They are working on their Star/Life/Eagle POR's.  If they are to be functional, they need to be actually doing something, like instructing the younger boys.  As part of the Leadership Corps group, they aren't necessarily a member of a patrol, but focus their attention on helping the younger boys up to FC and the older boys with specialty instruction like backpacking, hiking, planning, Dutch Oven cooking, and skills beyond the T-FC requirements.

 

Yep, I said they should be keeping a log of leadership, but if they need a POR for advancement, they had better be functional and not just wear the patch and sit on their behinds waiting for 6 month to pass.. 

 

If the adults are doing the training, then they are basically are stealing opportunities to lead and advance from the boys.

 

If one has promoted that ALL the older boys are to be teaching the younger boys at every opportunity, then they have basically negated the reason for even having an Instructor POR at all.  If the PL's run around ant tell the boys when to get up, when to go to bed, when the flags are, etc. then there's no need for a Bugler, either.  It's kind alike the SPL runs the troop, okay, then there's no need for a PL either.

 

I think they have these designations for a reason, a lot of people don't understand them and it creates a lot of bad situations as a result of it.

 

Maybe if adults really knew what these POR's were meant to be there would be far less reason to discuss all the problems they are having on the forums.  I'm a firm believer that a lot of the problems we face as adult leaders today is of our own creation.

[DuctTape]

In a troop which may have mixed aged patrols (which does not necessarily mean the extreme age differences that some allude to), does not mean that troop leadership positions are adult led, or patch wearing only. Let's look at an example. Patrol A has a boy who is Star. Has been the patrol leader and patrol quartermaster among other things along the way. A new boy joins the patrol and he and the PL decide he would be the patrol QM, now he doesn't have much experience here as he is new. Patrol B also has a boy who has never been a patrol QM before. The older boy who used to do it for the patrol is no longer there. The Star Scout from Patrol A becomes the troop QM, he is still a member of his patrol but helps the two newer boys learn the ropes as he functions in the troop QM role. This is functionally no different than him being in a patrol with other Star Scouts and helping these two boys in their new role.  I guess my point is, the Patrol method and functional POR do not require age-based patrols or mixed age patrols. It can work in both, neither require more or less adult-intervention. IMO, when an adult states his preference for mixed or fixed, his belief system will push the boys into that type. In other words, the adult interfered with the patrol process. If we stop referring to the patrols based on age mixture we can then allow the boys to truly decide who is in what patrol and how they are to operate.