1st Class 4E Serve as your Patrols cook

[Scoutmaster613]

OK, I have 1 patrol with 12 kids in it.

 

The Asst Scoutmaster over the patrol wants to split the patrol into 4 mini patrols with 4 kids each so they can complete this requirement.

 

i am not for it as I told him he had to many boys in 1 patrol to start. and at best i would allow him to split it into 2 separate mini patrols with 6 each.

 

What are your thoughts.

 

Thanks

 

4e.

On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup.

 

[T2Eagle]

The first thing every poster on this board is going to tell you is that you should let the boys figure this out, and they're right.  You will also get a lot of opinions telling you an ASM shouldn't be micromanaging any scout's advancement, let alone a whole patrol's, and they're right there also.  So you should immediately move to a boy led patrol method organization the way Scouting has always meant to be.  

 

But you have a question/problem/concern today that you probably want to do something good about today without changing the entire structure and culture of your troop today.

 

A patrol of 12 is too big, especially if a large percentage camp regularly.  You can find all kinds of support from Baden powell through Green Bar Bill through today's SM handbook for that being too many boys.  But if you and or they want to keep calling themselves a patrol until you fix that problem then I would suggest that you help the boys split into two patrols for cooking purposes on campouts, and then really do let them figure out how and when they want to work together to complete the requirement.  This would be a good first step towards getting your troop, this ASM, and this patrol moving towards a boy-led patrol method troop.  

Use this as an opportunity to help both the scouts and the ASM realize what their respective roles should be in the Advancement Method and the rest of Scouting.

Edited February 1, 2016 by T2Eagle

[Stosh]

As @@T2Eagle mentions, the problem is rooted deeper than the symptom describes.  T2Eagle identifies all the areas to address and if done correctly, the whole issue of who's cooking supper is a moot point.  Don't sweat the small stuff... and remember: most of it is small stuff.

[Krampus]

The Asst Scoutmaster over the patrol wants to split the patrol into 4 mini patrols with 4 kids each so they can complete this requirement.

My first question to the ASM would be why HE is making any decisions to begin with. The Patrol Leader should make the decisions.

 

My only comment is that 12 kids in a patrol is a bit much.

 

i am not for it as I told him he had to many boys in 1 patrol to start. and at best i would allow him to split it into 2 separate mini patrols with 6 each.

My patrols have the same issue. My PLs has figured out a rotation that allows each guy to be cook at least once during the year, many times twice and in some cases 3-4 times.

 

Sounds like the ASM wants to get this done fast. I agree 12 might be too many people for a patrol but that's a different issue altogether.

[qwazse]

Tell your ASM that he's suffering from overthink. Meanwhile you need help not burning the coffee.

 

This is an opportunity to talk to the boys about how hanging together in one massive patrol may be fun, but it may slow down advancement ...

 

Let's suppose half the boys need to finish this requirement, that means scheduling 6 days of camping so each boy gets to cook. That means obliging the ASM and a buddy on as many days to come camp within 100 yards of you for the sake of adequate overnight supervision. That means more cards, flowers and chocolates to Mrs. ASM and Mrs. Buddy for doing without their spouses for those weekends, which increases everyone's costs.

 

Whereas, two patrols of six (small yes, but leaves room for growth) with each patrol having three scouts who need this requirement. That means maybe three days of camping. Patrols on opposite ends of a 200 yard field with ASM and Buddy in the middle for adequate overnight supervision. Far fewer cards, flowers, and chocolates to Mrs. ASM and Mrs. Buddy -- maybe even "thank yous" from them for babysitting their men while they have a girls night out! Costs contained.  A downside is some scout may be stuck as a one-man patrol if his buddy's bail on him. No problem. It'll be his patrol by the book. He can rate his own food, and report in to his patrol leader next meeting for sign-off.

 

Lay it out to the boys something like that. Say that if they are comfortable keeping things the way they are, you'll support them and help the PLC make a long term plan. If they want to give change a try, you'll support them and have the SPL get the new patrol leaders up to speed ASAP.

 

Either way, they'll know that they've done it by the book ... with pride.

 

(Note that, in my framework, this has nothing to do with the ASM or the PL making the decision. It has to do with the boys feeling pride in their work. Assuming that they have sour memories of one Webelos requirement where an adult played the "do your best" card. You will have boys hungering for someone who interprets the program quite literally.)

Edited February 1, 2016 by qwazse

[blw2]

I would suggest that a patrol of 6 isn't really small... actually right in the "perfect range".... unless maybe half of them are not active and never there.

 

I would echo others, and suggest that the ASM shouldn't be 

a) over a patrol  (sounds like 3rd year WEBELOS to me)

b) doing anything not directed by the SM

 

And agreed let the boys work it out... I might suggest that someone point them to their "game book" to reference what a patrol should look like in size and structure.  It shouldn't take too many questions or nudges for them to figure out that

12 is more than it should be

and, oh would you look at that.... 12 divided by two gets you dead smack onto the perfect range.

 

and personally, I would suggest that if it works so that the two patrols aren't split exactly 50/50..... who cares?!?  Let them figure out what they want.

[walk in the woods]

Lots of questions hinted at in the previous replies.  How many boys need advancement, what is the age demographic of the twelve, how frequently do they miss camp outs and meetings, how close are they as a patrol, etc.  All that said, your ASM's idea isn't all bad.  Keep the boys as a single patrol if that's where they are comfortable for now.  If you've got the gear coach them into creating three cooking stations and use it as chance to teach multiple cooking techniques (e.g. one dutch oven station, one open fire station, one propane two-burner station).  Have the boys plan each station with enough food for 3 or 4 people and make each meal a pot luck of meal preparation options.  Use three sets of buddy pairs for the first camp out and three sets of buddy pairs for the second camp out.  Let the boys sort out who cooks with who.  Every scout gets a chance to cook with each of the techniques and you might get your natural patrol split in the process.  FWIW, I wouldn't split 12 scouts into 2 patrols unless you're getting at least 10 boys on every camp out.

Edited February 1, 2016 by walk in the woods

[SSScout]

""FWIW, I wouldn't split 12 scouts into 2 patrols unless you're getting at least 10 boys on every camp out.""

 

Irrelevant.   A Patrol is a Patrol.   If some of the boys don't come, the rest ARE the Patrol.  Six cooking in a Patrol, if it is THEIR Patrol, and not the ASM's Patrol, is good.  Three cooking in a Patrol can easily demonstrate nutrition, cuisine and hygiene in the wilds . Only if you have a drop down to only one Scout, and there is no reason he can't cook for himself as the XYZ Patrol of one, should you meld them back into one Troop/Patrol. 

 

I heard someone comment at a recent IOLS " Remember it is Boy Scouts of America, not   Parents of Scouts of America".

 

Roger's Rangers were adults.   ASM's Patrol won't be, but could be Scouts.  The Ugly Sneaker Patrol  might be Scouts, if they are "allowed". . 

[Stosh]

Hmmm, let's put it this way.

 

You have 12 boys, some needing advancement cooking requirement needing to be done.

 

You throw the boys into one room, 6-8 boys per patrol, at least one leader for each group.

 

When the come out (probably in two groups) and a leader, the new leader is told, now take care of your boys, some need to do some patrol cooking.  Take care of it.  Let me know if you and your boys are having a difficult time figuring it out.  I'll be over with the other adults drinking coffee.

 

Anything more than that is over-thinking it, on the part of the adults.

 

If the boys can't handle that, it's because 1) the adults have been doing it for them for too long or 2) they were never trained in the first place.... or both.

[k3egl]

@Mr Ed T24 there is nothing wrong with coaching the PL on strategies to get everyone to meet the advancement requirement. But beyond that you should wait for requests for further help.

 

Best of luck in serving these young men!

 

Scott 

[Peregrinator]

The Asst Scoutmaster over the patrol wants to split the patrol into 4 mini patrols with 4 kids each so they can complete this requirement.

I assume you mean 4 patrols of 3 each or 3 patrols of 4 each since 4 patrols of 4 each would be 16 boys.

 

Nothing wrong with 2 patrols of 6 each, or even one of 5 and one of 7. The "ideal" number is 7 or 8.

[Renax127]

""FWIW, I wouldn't split 12 scouts into 2 patrols unless you're getting at least 10 boys on every camp out.""

 

Irrelevant.   A Patrol is a Patrol.   If some of the boys don't come, the rest ARE the Patrol.  Six cooking in a Patrol, if it is THEIR Patrol, and not the ASM's Patrol, is good.  Three cooking in a Patrol can easily demonstrate nutrition, cuisine and hygiene in the wilds . Only if you have a drop down to only one Scout, and there is no reason he can't cook for himself as the XYZ Patrol of one, should you meld them back into one Troop/Patrol. 

 

I heard someone comment at a recent IOLS " Remember it is Boy Scouts of America, not   Parents of Scouts of America".

 

Roger's Rangers were adults.   ASM's Patrol won't be, but could be Scouts.  The Ugly Sneaker Patrol  might be Scouts, if they are "allowed". . 

Oh my goodness this. Two scouts will do just fine on their own, unless there are adult requirements about what they have to use on a camping trip are enforced. And if they do run across something that needs more than two scouts to do, well asking for help is ok.

[gumbymaster]

My son's troop, which admittedly is more of a Troop method than patrol (2) method unit; the PLC inquired which boys needed the requirement (or the single meal for 2nd class), and worked with the patrol leaders to appoint scouts to be in charge of a patrol's (not necessarily their own) menu/planning/cooking over a couple of campouts to get most the boys through it.

[TAHAWK]

If twelve boys went out in a field to play softball, they would end up in two teams.

[Stosh]

My son's troop, which admittedly is more of a Troop method than patrol (2) method unit; the PLC inquired which boys needed the requirement (or the single meal for 2nd class), and worked with the patrol leaders to appoint scouts to be in charge of a patrol's (not necessarily their own) menu/planning/cooking over a couple of campouts to get most the boys through it.

4e.

On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup.

 

Expediting the requirement by stripping out the leadership from it, sounds a bit like pencil whipping with a bit of ignoring parts of the requirement to get it done.  I alway ask my boys, did you do what the requirement says?  Obviously some of the boys in this troop would have to say no and would have wasted an honest opportunity because the adults got in there and messed around with the requirement.  This is how adult-run Eagle mills get their start.  I would recommend your son earn his Eagle honestly and if that means taking his time and doing it right, it's going to be good for him in the long run.  I've been in troops that do it this way.  Notice it isn't present tense in the sentence.