"Traditional" or "Mixed" Patrols? what is your driving force for doing this?

[blw2]

For those of you that believe in the concept of mixed or what I have heard called traditional patrols,

what is your main driving force for steering it this way?

    and why, in your mind, is it successful?

 

Does it point to an aim or goal that scouting is supposed to fill?

Is it for rank advancement purposes?

Is it to foster friendships?

Is it done only because that's what the book says to do?

something else?

 

The reason I ask is that, as I mentioned in another thread, son's PLC last night did a complete dismantling of all current patrols and reorganizing the roster into "traditional patrols".  I have some thoughts, of course, but also something just hit me last night that tied a couple of concepts together in my mind, that had never occurred to me before in quite this way.

 

Put another way, please define two things for me....in how they relate to this question of patrol makeup.

What is/are the aim(s) of scouting?

How do you know when you are successful? 

 

[Col. Flagg]

Our units sees it this way:

• Traditional Patrols (Mixed)
  • Boys get a chance to learn for the experienced Scouts.
  • New Scouts get a chance at leadership (scribe, QM) early.
  • They learn to rely on the boys, not adults.
  • Character development starts earlier. Scouts rely on the older Scouts and the older Scouts learn they can rely on the new Scouts.
  • Hits on the "methods" of patrol, outdoor program, advancement, personal growth, leadership development.
  • Troop Guides are still used as counselors, but help the PL deal with any "new Scout issues".
  • Adults are involved as always...from a distance.
  • Keeps adults from becoming a Webelos III leader.

In short: In our experience, having traditional patrols accomplishes the integration, development, growth and character development of our Scouts faster. We typically get 6-8 transfers in every year. A good 80% are from NSP troops where the incoming Scout was leaving because it was like Webelos III -- an adult was leading everything. Who wants that?

Edited February 8, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[Eagledad]

Role models. Our natural human instinct in the process of learning is to mimic what we see. We develop habits by repeating (practicing) what we mimic. Role modeling takes away the need of class room type of instruction intended to start habits. It's a lot more fun learning skills by watching and mimicing those skills in everyday activities. 

 

You have to watch the process a couple years to see the effect of learning by role modeling, but once you see, you understand it's power. 

 

Now my observations from same age patrols compared to our mixed age patrols. When a patrol doesn't have experienced role models for younger scouts to learn from, growth has to come from outside the patrol. That tends to be instructional teaching. And, that tends to be adult based, even with the troop has Troop Guides.

 

One of the first areas where I saw same age patrols performing slower was cooking. Same age patrols tend to cook the same food over and over again until somebody steps in to show them something different. I'm not a fond of the advice that boys can live off peanut butter and jelly sandwiches because scouting isn't about getting along, it's about growing. The sandwich is only a starting place. Scouts need resources to continue their growth. Resources come much slower in same age patrols.

 

We also found same age patrols to be more cliquish. That sounds funny in a program where all the patrols camp 100 years apart. To some degree, all patrols should be cliquish. But all the patrols are often together for one reason or another and the same age patrols didn't mix well with the rest of the scouts. They are snobs, they just seemed uncomfortable mixing in. I've heard a lot of Scoutmasters have this same observation. 

 

We found that scouts in same age patrols had less independent thought for planning and making decisions. They struggle to be creative. They tended to advance as a patrol, not as individuals. While we want patrols to bond and grow together as brothers, we also want our scouts to grow as individuals by set personal goals at their person ambitions based on their level of skills and maturity. 

 

Where I saw this becoming a problem was taking on troop leadership positions. Same age patrols tended see Troop responsibilities as taking turns. They felt that the patrol as a whole should be the troop leadership when it was their turn instead of individual scouts being setting out for a responsibility. I don't know if this is because they don't have the confidence to act individually or they rely too much on each other. But as same age patrols matured, the scouts struggle to act and grow as individuals. It was obvious as older scouts.

 

Growth and maturity are how we measure our program performance and the same age patrols lagged in those areas.

 

Barry

[qwazse]

I don't have an objection to age-based patrols. Growing up, I was assigned to PL a bunch of crossovers who quickly became their own age-based patrol when I bumped up to SPL. No pining for older scouts there.

 

To me, it boils down to how tight are the boys? Tight enough to hike and camp independently? Do they have the potential to get there? Are there enough boys with integrity to envision what we expect of them?

 

Our community really does not lend itself to tight-knit clusters. Not at least until one of the trustworthy boys turns 16 and gets some wheels. Or, if grandpa is willing to haul them anywhere, maybe the younger scouts can rally around one another better. So, the den our Son #1 grew up with was as good a patrol as any for starters. But, within a couple months they dispersed into the other patrols for summer camp. Within a year or two, older boys were picking him up to go bowling, etc ...

 

Daughter's gang constituted a patrol more-so than either of the boys. Venturing was a no-brainer for them when they turned 14. The down-side was Son #1's posse rarely invested in them (although their slightly younger brothers and fellow scouts did). So their skills and interests didn't get transferred to the next wave. They were friendly enough to Son #2's friends, but really did not bend over backwards to make it to any of their events/recognition ceremonies.

 

Son #2 really clicked with youth a year or two younger or older, so mixed age would turn out to work best for him. But tragedy struck, and it sunk into the boys' psyche to the point they would nominally break into patrols, but insist on doing everything as a troop. Even at summer camp, they would work the patrol method for efficiency's sake, but come steak night, they would cook as a troop (one PL coordinating veggies, the other meat, the other dessert). Outside of the troop and crew, however, he maintained this cadre of friends (mostly younger) who were effectively his co-ed patrol -- minus the name, yell, and flag.

 

So, as far as I can tell, the ideal patrol will happen for any cluster of committed youth. The only question: will it be in a boy's troop or outside of it?

[Venividi]

Age based patrols:  Webelos cross over to Boy Scouts expecting fun and adventure.  They look up to the older scouts and want to be like them.  They select a PL from their midst, but they do not respect or follow him like they would an older scout.   Reason: their PL likely has no more experience or knowledge than their own.    (Adult equivalent would be if 8 random adults were placed together and told to elect one of their own to lead them in building a chemical plant in India.)   Without at least some experience, the PL is thrust into a position that will result in frustration.  

PL role then either a) gets a bad reputation - you have to go to more boring meetings and no one listens to you, or b) becomes adult led to keep the patrol going.   Then by the time scouts are 14 or 15, the patrol has a hard time finding anyone that wants the position.   

[MattR]

For me it's not mixed age vs same age. Personalities and friendships have more to do with it than anything else. 

 

Scouts need friends. Without friendships scouts start dropping around 13 when they start finding friends elsewhere. Friendships can be of similar ages or different. Similar ages are what everyone thinks about. If the ages are different it's more like an older/younger brother relationship. Depending on whether the "brothers" are respectful of each other defines whether the friendship will work. If it does it's magic. At the same time, a group of same aged scouts with different personalities can be just as difficult to form a patrol bond. I've seen similar aged patrols explode into mean girl territory. I've also seen a clique of friends stick together and help each other out to the point where they all had their ECOH together. Also magic.

 

So, what to do? Forget graphs, charts and spreadsheets. Let them figure it out and then be there to help pick up the pieces.

 

As for your son's patrol I see all sorts of red flags. The PLC decided to split your son's patrol up. Did anyone talk to the scouts in his patrol to get their input? Did they just randomly move kids around? This patrol has spent a year together and they are making friendships. Breaking those up is bad.

 

Next, the reason the patrol is broken up is because the scouts aren't advancing. This is not a reason to break up a patrol. It might be a reason to sit down and talk to a patrol, but not to break up friendships.

[mashmaster]

We are trying to do a hybrid.  1st years go into a patrol with troop guides, then after 6 months they get integrated into mixed age patrols.  Feedback from the boys was that they felt the 1st years needed more basics taught before putting them in general population :-)

[wdfa89]

that is what we do. we usually get double digit web xovers.  the boys found it easier to get them trained up if they were in patrols of all newbies.  the older scouts can focus on them and their training.  we really focus on getting them thru the BoR for Scout and started towards TFoot before summer camp.  then we integrate them into the mixed patrols.

[Eagledad]

We are trying to do a hybrid.  1st years go into a patrol with troop guides, then after 6 months they get integrated into mixed age patrols.  Feedback from the boys was that they felt the 1st years needed more basics taught before putting them in general population :-)

Well that supports our experience of slower growth in same age patrols. However, we also learned that adding more than two new scouts at once disrupts the dynamics of the whole existing patrol, not just the new scouts. So, if we get more new scouts than two per patrol, we put them in a NSP until after summer camp (5 to 6 months). While the new scouts may still be struggling a bit, they have enough experience and maturity to not upset the dynamics of the existing patrol.

 

All that being said, it's important to remember that accepting new members into a close bonded group is hard no matter how much experience the new guy has.

 

Barry

Edited February 8, 2017 by Eagledad

[MattR]

We are trying to do a hybrid.  1st years go into a patrol with troop guides, then after 6 months they get integrated into mixed age patrols.  Feedback from the boys was that they felt the 1st years needed more basics taught before putting them in general population :-)

 

I'm curious as to what they mean by basics. We do something similar, NSP from when they join until summer camp. My PLs didn't say they lacked basics, they said some scouts lacked maturity. Some scouts would be able to move in to a patrol after one campout while others would take a year, or maybe more.

 

How can I spread that out? I like the idea of not moving them into patrols all at once. I don't want the "last one picked" scenario. Maybe some sort of requirements to sign off. I don't know, 3 campouts with a positive evaluation of the Scout Law?

Edited February 8, 2017 by MattR

[sst3rd]

blw2,

 

    I don't know by whose authority your son's PLC dismantled the patrols. Was an adult leader pushing this? Was it the PLC itself? Either way, if the scouts of the troop are not allowed to form natural patrols with their friends, etc., this reorganization might "work", but won't be successful. By forcing the creation of "balanced" patrols, without the direct input of the scouts themselves, it's just not fair. A scout asks a friend to join him in his patrol (naturally), and then they get split up to balance things out? If there is a problem with the patrols, ask the scouts of these patrols how to fix them.

 

sst3rd

[Eagle94-A1]

Troop growing up had two type of patrols: an older Scout patrol called the Leadership Corps, and mixed aged patrols. New Scout Patrols didn't exist initially.

 

Then my SM wanted to try something new out to see if it works or not: an NSP. I was the PL as the TG was called in 1986, and it was disaster. We tried it for a year, then went back to mixed aged patrols. Issues included a lot of what was mentioned previously, but add in inter-patrol competition issues. All the other patrols had an advantage over the "newbies."

 

When NSPs were officially introduced in 1989, we ignored it since our experience with it was negative.

 

When a new troop was started and tagged along with us so they could get some experience, it was essentially a NSP. Again we had issues, and within a year both troops merged together, and the "NSP" and other patrols were all integrated, except for the Leadership Corps/venture crew/patrol (we had a stock of LC patches and continued with that name until the patches were gone).

 

Fast forward 23 years and my son joins a troop. Since it was a resurrected, small troop with the oldest Scout being 13, he was in an NSP. there were issues, challenges and we did lose some Scouts. But the troop, and the Scouts, were growing.Thinking about it, I think what helped was that the new Scouts came from 2 packs with very similar philosophies and experiences that helped them along. But it was slower than in mixed aged patrols that I dealt within the past.

 

Then all hell breaks lose in the next NSP we had.

 

The first 6 months had few issues, but we found out later that the TG assigned to them threatened them and was essentially a dictator. Once he was removed was when the problems began. Bickering, taking 3 weeks to come up with a menu, arguing over who is doing what on a duty roster IF THEY EVEN HAD ONE! Adults were constantly jumping in as they would not listen to anyone:PL, TG, or SPL. My son was their last TG, and he was miserable.

 

The PLC and our venture patrol were asked to come up with ideas to solve the problem. They came up with mixed aged patrols with pulling names out of a hat to decide who joined what patrol. They did that, then adults changed it to 2 mixed aged patrols and a venture patrol for those going on the AT. Even then, they had to take one of the younger guys into their patrol since he was doing the AT with them. Part of it was so that the venture patrol could do some patrol activities for the AT. part of it was disgruntlement from the older Scouts who wanted to stick together.So that's why the adults switched it. I was not part of that decision, and told after the fact.  Lots of issues initially with this, but in the long term it worked out.

 

We just got 4 new Scouts. The PLC decided, with some advice from the adults, to split the new Scouts into two groups of 2, and put them with the venture patrol, and one of the mixed aged patrols that was doing well. The other mixed aged patrol has a few issues to be worked out, but they will be getting a new Scouts next month, as well as the other two patrols. And IF we get the entire den of Webelos, we may have to form a 4th patrol. For summer camp, we have 3 full, 8 man patrols going, and 2/3 of the Webelos IIs in the feeder pack have not told us one way or the other yet!

[Col. Flagg]

blw2,

 

    I don't know by whose authority your son's PLC dismantled the patrols. 

 

He posted the detail in another thread. It was the SM. He (the SM) seems to be a bit heavy-handed from some of the descriptions...or maybe that's just my read...and @@blw2 is struggling with how to help his son cope with these issues.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[Eagledad]

How can I spread that out? I like the idea of not moving them into patrols all at once. I don't want the "last one picked" scenario. Maybe some sort of requirements to sign off. I don't know, 3 campouts with a positive evaluation of the Scout Law?

To maintain the scout independence, our new scouts are instructed that the current patrols can recruit from the new scout patrol anytime they want, or wait until the NSP disbands after summer camp and work it out then. It is up to them. And, the new scouts can ask to join a patrol at any time as well. So it's pretty open.

 

But during my time as a leader, I never saw a patrol recruit any new scout until after summer camp, nor have I witnessed a new scout request moving to a patrol until after summer camp. And as far as the last picked scouts go, that sort of implies the current patrols somewhat care what new scouts they get. I don't know why, but that is very rare as well.  Current patrols  instead work it out with the SPL the week the new scouts are disbanded. The SPL does ask the new scouts if they have a preference patrol, but I found the patrol leaders were more or less content with any scout.

 

I can't say it's bad or good, I don't know. But I got the fewest calls from the parents of new scouts and the fewest complaints from scouts with this new scout process. 

 

Barry

Edited February 8, 2017 by Eagledad

[Stosh]

I just let the boys decide, they tend towards age basis of friends. New scouts can hang together or join an existing patrol if there is room. Sometimes they go with older brothers, sometimes they don't. Patrol membership is totally the boys' choice. They can change membership whenever they want,too. I don't care unless it causes problems.