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

[Col. Flagg]

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.

 

@@Stosh, not sure this works entirely well in larger units.

 

For example, that 10-boy group I know we will now be getting, I cannot put all 10 in one patrol. I need to break them up a bit. That said, we let those new boys decide who wants to stay together. Usually that means 2-3 groupings. Moms and dads usually weigh in too. Then we try to align them with existing patrols where there might be guys they know. If not they still get to choose. If things don't work they can move.

[Stosh]

@@Stosh, not sure this works entirely well in larger units.

 

For example, that 10-boy group I know we will now be getting, I cannot put all 10 in one patrol. I need to break them up a bit. That said, we let those new boys decide who wants to stay together. Usually that means 2-3 groupings. Moms and dads usually weigh in too. Then we try to align them with existing patrols where there might be guys they know. If not they still get to choose. If things don't work they can move.

 

BSA recommends 6-8 boys to a patrol.  My boys seem to stick with that as a legitimate guideline.  I'm not quite sure how the boys go about selecting membership, but if there is a 6 boy patrol, they recruit new members and if there's an 8 boy patrol, they don't. 

 

I have had larger patrols, but they eventually get down to the 6-8 range rather quickly, unfortunately the larger the group the looser the bonding between boys.  Usually one or two will "not show up" and be removed from the membership and replaced with those that do show up.

 

After a while these groupings solidify and they hang together quite well until they start aging out.  Patrols that have this happen generally are not happy with having to replace seasoned veteran scouts with "younger ones".  The mixed aged patrol seem to suffer the most from this process.  When they all age out the same year, it's not a big deal because the patrol just ceases to exist.  Boys in the venture patrols generally migrate to the Leadership Corps as the patrol dissolves with age.

 

One of my older boys went back and became a DC, another TG, still others did the Instructor bit just to be on the LC roster.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Stosh

[mashmaster]

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?

As far as basics, some webelos cross over with lots of camping experience, but most have had parents cook, clean, setup, and pack for them.  So they need to learn to plan and camp.  The troop guide teaches them all of that plus toten and fireman chit.  Some are ready faster than others.  Some aren't really ready after 6 months.

[Stosh]

As far as basics, some webelos cross over with lots of camping experience, but most have had parents cook, clean, setup, and pack for them.  So they need to learn to plan and camp.  The troop guide teaches them all of that plus toten and fireman chit.  Some are ready faster than others.  Some aren't really ready after 6 months.

 

Some aren't given the chance to lead and end up not ready after 6 years. 

 

Take languages as an example.  When learning a foreign language one takes a few classes and it takes forever to learn it.  Take a few classes and go to that foreign country and become immersed in the language and one would be surprised how much faster they progress in the language skills.

 

It's the same for leadership.  If the adults never relinquish leadership, the boys will only learn about it in books.  If they need to be the "older boys" then the younger ones' learning will be put on hold until they get older.

 

The reason my new troop and when I had a larger troop previously, the NSP advance so quickly is because they actually have the opportunity to lead from the get go.  They ar immersed in it and expected to succeed, and after many years I have seen boys progress further and more quickly than many of their counterparts.

 

While the younger leaders may not be managerially well organized as the older boys, they tend to draw their boys quicker into teamwork to compensate for it.  That cooperative survival teamwork seems to dissipate as they get older and more competitive. 

[blw2]

wow, lots of great comments and conversation.  Can't even begin to comment on all of it.....

 

will add about my thoughts on this issue..... I've always in my mind followed the logic that BP outlined, that patrols are formed naturally.... groups of friends that just naturally want to hang together.  Extending that logic, the younger ones might look up to older scouts, and the older scouts might do well in leading and helping along, but it doesn't make sense to force them together into a friendship group.  Those things can still happen from patrol to patrol.

 

it hit me the other night that the focus on which way to go it depends greatly on your locus for which you define the goal and how you define success

based on the answer I got from the ASPL, for our "troop"

    the Goal = advancement

    Success = making rank

 

When I step back and analyze things, it seems to me that they tried the NSP for basically 1 year.  It didn't "work" because none made 1st class, none made second class, and only 1 or 2 are close to tenderfoot.

But

I'm seeing a couple reasons for this that are not at all addressed in the solution....

The TG and Instructors that worked with the new guys only did so sporadically, and when they did it was just reading to them out of teh handbook.  Evenif the scouts all already knew the answer, they still got the pleasure of listening to that older scout read to them.

And the other reason seems a bit more complex, but it has to do with a mix of things..... scouts being unsure of themselves and timid, not wanting to approach the SM with a question of for a sign off, and also scouts not having an abundance of opportunity to do that, or to work on things.  Also it seems to me taht a better approach is to put scouts into opportunities where the learn or work on requirements when they don't even know they are.... the just think they are doing something fun.... I just don't see a lot of that...

 

Anyway, I think @@MattR put it well about friends

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.

No, well my son is PL, although he's really to inconfident to speak up much and certainly isn't given much clout from what I can tell.  It seems that he did speak up about it on a couple occasions

And from what I know, no effort was made to let individual scouts give input on who they want to be with.... although it does look like some effort was made to pair obvious friends.

 

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

I think it was the PLC, steered by adults.

 

and @@sst3rd.  Well put I think.... as I have been considering this recent turn of events, I do think it has a decent chance of "working", to the aim of advancement..... but it won't be succesful (in my definition of success anyway)

    since in the setting of the troop meetings, the scouts sit as patrols and so there will be routinely more "contact" with older scouts.... so advancement might happen a bit more efficiently.... but

our patrols only seem to function as patrols for purposes of sitting together at the indoor troop meetings, and they plan meals and cook at camp together

and otherwise it's generally more of a troop than patrols

so I predict generally that the older scouts will still hang with their older friends, and the younger scouts will still hang together

[qwazse]

Your scouts are half right ...

...I got from the ASPL, for our "troop"
    the Goal = advancement
    Success = making rank

The goal is to be first class (the concept, not the patch). Success -- and this is no joke -- is when death is forestalled because boys are prepared. That is measured in little steps: minor cuts being treated properly, hike/float plans reviewed, everyone reading the map, fires tidy, dishes clean, rights and responsibilities understood, etc ...
 
It takes a lot of work (via SM minutes, teachable moments, spur of the moment patch -- or if you're @@Stosh, field spec -- premiums) to get boys to understand that this game has a big purpose.

...I'm seeing a couple reasons for this that are not at all addressed in the solution....
The TG and Instructors that worked with the new guys only did so sporadically, and when they did it was just reading to them out of teh handbook.  Evenif the scouts all already knew the answer, they still got the pleasure of listening to that older scout read to them.
And the other reason seems a bit more complex, but it has to do with a mix of things..... scouts being unsure of themselves and timid, not wanting to approach the SM with a question of for a sign off, and also scouts not having an abundance of opportunity to do that, or to work on things.  Also it seems to me taht a better approach is to put scouts into opportunities where the learn or work on requirements when they don't even know they are.... the just think they are doing something fun.... I just don't see a lot of that...

This is a cultural issue. You don't have a culture of guides. And there is no cultural sense of urgency that the boys know first class skills.

... I think it was the PLC, steered by adults.

 In some sense the PLC is always going to be steered by adults. Even with older youth, I have to be careful what I say and what gets said to my crew. Too much "push back", and they stop trying. But, the PLC might also be seeing that your first years aren't having nearly as much fun as they could. And maybe they were also seeing the TG's being set up for failure. Rather than choosing a boy who is a natural teacher, the SPL might have picked a boy who needed a PoR. And looking forward, if a class of boys ages out and you have two classes of boys not yet tenderfoot, the pool of potential guides will shrink. So, you'd better have one talented TG who's as skilled as your average professional educator.

...  the scouts sit as patrols and so there will be routinely more "contact" with older scouts.... so advancement might happen a bit more efficiently.... but
our patrols only seem to function as patrols for purposes of sitting together at the indoor troop meetings, and they plan meals and cook at camp together
and otherwise it's generally more of a troop than patrols
so I predict generally that the older scouts will still hang with their older friends, and the younger scouts will still hang together

So we get back to the physical separation issue. If there is this concern with the older scouts, plan more cracker barrels, "leadership corps" activities, or even Venturing. In other words, acknowledge their need for social engagement, but balance it with the need to roll up sleeves to achieve troop goals. But my bottom line: don't fret over predicted problems. This is just another thing the boys will have to address as it arises.

Edited February 9, 2017 by qwazse

[fred johnson]

The extremes are same-age or mixed age. IMHO, it's not that simple as an either/or. Patrols need to be flexible depending on the quantity and character of the boys. The make-up needs to continually adjust. In my experience, the most important is making the boys feel ownership and a desire to be with their patrol. Maybe you have a boy that does like teaching younger scouts. In that case, pair him with younger scouts that he can mentor and that will look up to him. Other scouts may be strong willed and best fitted with their friends who can balance their strong will.

The catch phrase for my preference is: individual choice. Not adult assigned. Not PLC assigned. PLC and adults can influence and help. But scouts should be able to choose who they associate (within boundaries of course).

What is/are the aim(s) of scouting? Same as BSA. Character. Physical fitness. Citizenship. IMHO to do that, I want scouts to be active, participating and wanting to be there doing activities with their patrol. During their participation is when we can influence and work toward our goals.

How do you know when you are successful? When we start relating more as peers that than an authority structure. When everyone just does what they need to do. When I can enjoy a long evening of cards at a picnic table with the other adults (or scouts if they want to join us).
 

FYI ... Traditional patrol is up there with Boy Led as one of my least favorite terms.  It's too biased.  What did Baden-Powell design as a patrol?  What have others meant?   Traditional is an knock against other methods to infer an experiment that may or may not work versus a documented history.  

 

IMHO, both work but I have my preferences.  IMHO, the only really destructive thing to do is go from scout's chosing their patrols to assigned patrols (by PLC or adults).  Scout's can adjust from assigned to choosing their own.  But if they have real ownership and pride in their patrol, assigning them to another patrol against their will is about the worst thing you can do.  For all I care, a 17 year old that is a patrol of one is fine if he has a long history of that patrol.  I'm more concerned with his participation than his patrol assignment.  

 

My oldest son started with seven scouts in his patrol.  When he turned 18, his patrol had three members.  Often only two would be on camp outs.  It made their meals easy and they were able to be independent.  And, they often worked as guides for other patrols.  

 

Other benefits ... Older boys can develop bad habits or other interests.  Boys the same age tend to deal with those same issues continually at school.  IMHO, the patrol is the main social organization of the troop too as that is where scouts spend most of their time.  As such, I'm not sure I want 11 year olds to be continually exposed to the habits and issues 17 year olds are dealing with.  Even worse, I think it's a youth protection issue for a 17 year old scout to tent with a 11 year old scout.  I prefer ages to be closer together.  

Edited February 9, 2017 by fred johnson

[Stosh]

From what I have observed from the actions of the boys over the years.

 

Adult directed/assigned patrols:  These groups never seem to "gel" or bond in many ways and often look forward to the annual re-mix after the new boys have gotten in their year of "training".  Quite often the results of such draft assignments is the boys either become more or become less involved depending on the assignments.  All the blame for all the problems falls on the adult leadership for making lousy selections.

 

Because of this, I stay out of the patrol memberships because since I have become SM no one has ever complained about patrol membership blaming it on me.  I like it that way.

 

PLC directed/assigned patrols: Not much different than the adult assigned patrols.  Boys still don't always match up with their natural groupings.  In both cases, it is never obvious to anyone that anyone telling boys at this age who they can hang with and who they can't doesn't work.

 

When the boys are left alone to pick their own patrols, they tend to do so with two focus in mind. 1) Birds of a feather and 2) prior friendships.

The NSP all share a common history and tend to be someone close in maturity.  They can all be taught by an Instructor all at the same time without breaking up patrols to do so.  When 6th grade boys get put in a patrol with early to middle high school aged boys, there is quite a difference in interests, maturity and attitude.  Then the older boys don't necessarily want to be the babysitters of the troop either.  This isn't universal, so some boy may take on TG, Instructor, etc. to  take on responsibility for the new scouts, but NOT ALL THE TIME.  They, too, want time away for themselves and they can't do that if that means half the patrol has to disappear or they take on a high adventure trek so they have a valid excuse for dumping the new guys.

 

The new guys in a mixed patrol will never feel bad about having the older boys doing all the work even if that means they get bullied in the process.  If one is lucky one of the older boys is an older brother that can "protect you," but one can't always count on that.  The only genuine knife fight I had to break up while in the Scouting program was between two brothers.  They were both set to draw blood in the deal.

 

Older boys want a program specifically for themselves, just as the NSP want a program designed around their needs as well.

 

So, my new troop is basically finishing up the bulk of the boys' first year.  There is no talk of changing any leadership positions and everyone seems happy with the way things are.  The older boys are not challenging for leadership and are just sitting back and going along with the way things are. 

 

As long as things are running smoothly, I'm just going to let 'er ride.  It's worked for me for many years, I don't plan on changing any time soon.

[David CO]

Fred says that it is a YP issue for a 17 year old scout to tent with an 11 year old scout.  Where do we draw the line, then?  

 

I think if I were an older scout (15, 16, 17), and I heard scout leaders and parents talking that way, I would high-tail-it out of scouting.  For me, it would become be a youth protection issue, my protection!

 

We already have a shortage of scout leaders who are willing to take boys camping.  Now we want to create a shortage of skilled older scouts?

Edited February 9, 2017 by David CO

[Col. Flagg]

Fred says that it is a YP issue for a 17 year old scout to tent with an 11 year old scout.  Where do we draw the line, then?  

 

I think if I were an older scout (15, 16, 17), and I heard scout leaders and parents talking that way, I would high-tail-it out of scouting.  For me, it would become be a youth protection issue, my protection!

 

ROFL...well BSA will have to rethink that position now. With gay and TG folks joining, there's just as much of an issue (if not more) there than with the 17 and 11 year old. Or are we going to discriminate against the 17 year old and assume things we shouldn't BSA?

[Eagledad]

 

The new guys in a mixed patrol will never feel bad about having the older boys doing all the work even if that means they get bullied in the process.  If one is lucky one of the older boys is an older brother that can "protect you," but one can't always count on that.  The only genuine knife fight I had to break up while in the Scouting program was between two brothers.  They were both set to draw blood in the deal.

 

Older boys want a program specifically for themselves, just as the NSP want a program designed around their needs as well.

 

So, my new troop is basically finishing up the bulk of the boys' first year.  There is no talk of changing any leadership positions and everyone seems happy with the way things are.  The older boys are not challenging for leadership and are just sitting back and going along with the way things are. 

 

As long as things are running smoothly, I'm just going to let 'er ride.  It's worked for me for many years, I don't plan on changing any time soon.

This is why some scouters have no integrity with me. In all my years of scouting as a youth and scouter, I have never seen this kind of consistent behavior. Units that I know with consistent behavior issues eventually changed the adult leadership to survive. A program running on the theme of "taking care of your scouts" doesn't have consistent bullying issues. Why would older scouts suddenly quit wanting to take care of their scouts and switch to bullying? Does that even make sense? How could the BSA have survived 80 years of traditional mixed age patrols if the older scouts were all bullies?

 

I believe troops follow programs that fit their adults best. Age base (traditional) patrols work best for some of us, same-age patrols work best for the rest of us. And then there are those between. But I have enough experience and have been around long enough that I can tell when someone is demonizing rather than relaying experiences.  Shesh. 

 

Barry

[Eagle94-A1]

I have to agree with Eagledad. With the exception of one older scout who was a dictator and threatened violence to get the patrol to work together, and that situation was corrected as soon as it was found out, I've never seen older Scouts bully younger ones.

 

As to the original questions:

 

 

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?

 

In my troop growing up, mixed aged patrols were the norm. NSPs came about 20+ years after the troop was founded, and they did not work. It was successful because "experienced" Scouts, i.e. those a year to three years older than the new Scouts would buddy up with the new guy in their patrol and mentor him. It was successful because Scouts learned from other Scouts, gave leadership opportunities at a younger age, i.e. mentoring, developed 'servant leadership" i.e. "I got help (THE OWL) learn first aid" to " I gotta take care of my patrol" to "I gotta take care of the guys in my troop; and finally THE ADULTS DID NOT INTERVENE UNLESS IT WAS SERIOUS, i.e. a true medical emergency or serious discipline problem that the Scouts could not handle. (caps for emphasis)

 

In the current troop, the NSP was a complete disaster. They didn't listen to the Scout leaders unless threatened with physcial violence ( the TG we took care of) and would not listen to anyone but adults. Since the decision by the PLC, the patrols have had minimal problems. Scouts are taking charge more, helping each other out, etc.

 

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?

 

In my troop growing up, the answer is a definitive "YES!" The mixed aged patrols allowed Scouts to grow via mentoring,giving some youth their first sense of responsibility, i.e. working with a new guy. Scouts are required to teach skills to Scouts for advancement, and mentoring new guys in their patrol can either meet the requirement if at that stage, or give them their first taste of teaching so that they have some experience. As for friendships, I'm still in contact with the guys who mentored me when I joined the troop, and I'm in contact with the guys who I worked with. As for the" What the book says..." prior to 1989, Mixed aged patrols were the norm, with an older Scout patrol of some sort being incorporated into the troop, whether it was Explorers or Leadership Corps, from circa 1950s to today's venture patrols. So yes, mixed aged patrols were what the books said to use.

 

How do you know when you are successful?

 

When the Scouts do everything on their own and the adults stay out of it.

[Sentinel947]

This stuff comes down to what works for your Troop and your boys, with a healthy level of Troop traditions thrown in. At the end of the day, if your Scouts are having fun, advancing, leading the troop, it doesn't matter what type of patrol structure you use. (So long as you use one.) 

 

My troop uses New Scout Patrols. We always have enough cross overs for two patrols worth of Scouts.

 

We have a handful of Troop guides to work with the new scouts at meetings and outings to help them practice the skills they will need for the outing and to review requirements with them. Normally after Summer camp the new scout patrol(s) elect a Patrol leader(s) and are at a basic level of camping proficiency. They can set up their own tents, pack their own gear, plan their own menus and cook their own food.The Troop Guides will stay with them to the end of the year, but back up into a supporting and correcting role vs a teaching role. My Troop has heavily drunk the Woodbadge/NYLT cool aid so we buy into the EDGE method quite a bit. 

 

After the first year the new Scouts generally spread out into other patrols, but they sometimes stay as a patrol. There is a definitely a weird transition period for our second year scouts when the training wheels of the guides comes off. 

 

I am the ASM responsible for New Scouts and Troop Guides. We have an ASPL who trains the Troop Guides in Jan-Feb to help them lay out some loose plans and brush up on their skills. At the ASPL's invitation I may step in and work with the Guides during the prep period. (It hasn't happened yet this year! In March we get our new Scouts. I've been at the game of Scouting long enough to not step in and take control from our Troop Guides, and I block any other well meaning adults from doing so. I observe how things are going and help the Guides troubleshoot anything the ASPL can't help them figure out. 

 

 

It works for us. It may or may not work for you. If what you are doing is broken, consider making changes. Consult your boys. If it's not broken, and your boys seem happy with it, don't fix what isn't broken. 

 

Fun tidbit: I myself was a Troop guide for this Troop in 2010. 8 of my 20 new Scouts from 2010 have earned their Eagle in 2016-2017. It's been very meaningful for me to be with them the whole way, and I'm not looking forward to Troop life without them.   I'd love to say it was my wonderful guiding skills or ASM mentorship, but realistically they are a gang of boys the same age who are all close friends. (Sounds like the BP's patrol doesn't it?) We kept them together, gave them a good program. They stuck together and really gave our Troop some fine leadership and executed a wonderful culture change back to the patrol method. 

 

Yours in Scouting,

 

Sentinel947

It works for us. It may or may not work for you. 

[Stosh]

As always, it would seem that the consensus of the problem lies in the definition of NSP, Traditional and Venture patrols.

 

For the situation I have experienced, NSP are the cross-over boys.  They tend to "stick together" on their own even if they come from different packs.  They are all new, that's the common denominator.  They are all working on the S->FC requirements, share a common goal of orienting themselves to the troop processes, and have an opportunity for leadership that isn't hindered by the older boys always "running the show" and having to compete with them for leadership positions.  With the way the program is set up, these boys are still on the grade-school level of maturity trying to figure out how to spread their wings a bit and having the opportunity to do so without have to compete with scouts on the high school level and always losing out.  It's their safe place to do it without disappointing anyone other than themselves.  Summer camp at the local council camp might be just up their alley, but I have seen times when they wanted the big prize right off the bat and take on a camp outside of council.  Many have been counciled out with too much Cub activity at the local camp.

 

The traditional patrols are those that are focused on expanding their horizons while still having a finger in the pot for teaching the younger boys and helping the NSP patrols on an ad hoc basis and gaining some deeper levels of leadership for their own goals in scouting.  Usually these are the 7-9th grade boys, i.e. middle school aged boys.  The TG is gone now and the boys rely more on the PL/APL team for leadership direction.  Summer camp might be the more primitive non-mess hall camps that offer them the opportunity to try the big stuff with a bit of a safety net in place.

 

The venture patrols are the high school boys that have "been there, done that" and need to branch out big time to retain their interests.  These are the boys that as a patrol will take on Philmont, BWCA or Sea Base in lieu of any summer camp.  I have also had occasion for these boys to regularly take on long weekends of whitewater canoeing and or long trek bike hikes.  Obviously they have the skills and experience to be able to pull this off as they so desire.  These types of activities are taken off the table if the activities always have to take into consideration to the lowest common denominator of Webelos cross over boys as part of the patrol.  The only solution is to break up the patrol and each go their own way to keep the older boys interested.  It works, but it's not the patrol method.

 

If left alone, I see the boys naturally following this progression through this patrol method/structure.

 

So in order to accomplish what I would define as a "mixed patrol", it would have elements of all three mixed into one patrol.  There would be the new boys that don't have the experience, maturity or age to pull off any venture patrol level activities on a regular basis.  The patrol would need to be focused always on having S->FC training for one or two of the boys in the patrol which the older boys would need to be doing so after 4 years of training they spend the next three either breaking up their patrol so the new guys can get training and then having a partial patrol that would need to ad hoc with another patrol in order to do the occasional high adventure.  This constant turmoil of having to cater to the lowest common denominator maintains the patrol in a blend of NSP/Traditional mode for the bulk of their activities.  Losing interest in doing the same-old, same-old yet again will "encourage" the boys to start thinking about getting the Eagle and getting out to areas where they don't have to share the activity with grade school kids, but can design activities more acclimated to high school interests.

 

I guess with the setup that I find most comfortable is that the boys DO listen to their PL's because it is constantly reinforced they are the ones in charge.  So the PL can let their troublemakers know that if they want to be a problem, they can find somewhere else do be one, not in this patrol.  So what has happened in my former troop (I have a new younger boy startup troop now so this doesn't apply) is that the cut-ups all gravitate to their own patrol.  They are like minded, highly strung, and are often the most creative and form the strongest bonds of any of the patrols.  They have a point to prove and often times turn themselves around and do very nicely if they survive their negative attitudes.  Their patrol leader is "one of them" and the conflicts just don't seem to be as intense as a result.   Their leadership nemesis is one of them and they soon realize that they can work around the issues and find common ground in the troop.  They run probably the most independent patrol in the troop because they don't have the super scouts, jocks, and nerds in their group.  I am surprised these Black Sheep boys have never picked the Black Sheep as their patrol name.  In the long run when they figured out that no one is going to "tell them what they can or can't do" (either adult or youth) they settle down and turn into quite a handful in the long run.  But I have seen Eagles come out patrols like this, too. 

 

Now, not every leader understands these kinds of dynamic, nor do they allow them to play out in the units they are responsible for.  The adults will step in when the boys don't listen to their youth leadership.  I don't.  They move them around in the patrols to try and mitigate the disruptions, I don't.  I just let the boys be who they are and most of them will find their niche and do very well.  It's kinda hard waiting them out while they find their niche, but if allowed, they do quite nicely.  Not only that if all the "troublemakers" are in a patrol of their own 300' away from everyone else, they don't disrupt the other boys.  Put one or two of them in each patrol, and the whole troop will erupt in chaos.  Not my idea of a good time. 

 

It works for me, your mileage may vary.

[TAHAWK]

I believe that, to the greatest extent possible, Scouts ought to be in a patrol they want to be in.  Any other goal ignores the BSA statement that a patrol "is a small group of friends" - whether BSA recalls that now or not.