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

[TAHAWK]

In the one-day district-level JLT ("temporarily" ended circa 2001 while we waited- and waited - and WAIT for the new syllabus), the discussion leader asked "Who is the leader?"  The syllabus answer was "the Patrol Leader."  Not a Scout failed to understand that the "leader" was whoever led, titles notwithstanding.  Bill understood in pushing elected PLs in The Patrol Method, BSA 1930.

 

(And still waiting after sixteen years for the new syllabus.  Except when we use the "old" syllabus as the basis for an "unofficial" course.)

[Stosh]

Why do you think that it fails?  It actually works out quite well.  This works for our troop, come visit us on a campout sometime.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it.  I thought you were expressing concern about some problems.  After re-reading your comments more carefully, I understand better, my bad.  Sorry.

 

As long as one can run a boy led, patrol method program where the adults aren't getting blamed for interfering, one can't fail in the long-run.

 

If the boys like breaking up the NSP after a year, then that's great.  If they want to stay together, that's great, as long as they make the decisions, I don't have a problem with it.  My boys generally stay together in the NSP and transition as a whole into a traditional patrol.  If a few want to go into other patrols, that's their choice.  If after a year or so in the NSP and the boys are trying to gouge out each other's eyes, then letting them separate out whenever they want.  I don't hold my boys in the NSP any longer than they want and if right from the git-go they want other patrols, then we don't have a NSP that year.  That's never happened.  We have had a few boys individually opt out of the NSP in the beginning, but it was their choice.  No adults are involved in the membership and/or leadership decisions of the patrols.

[Eagle94-A1]

We train Scouts in NYLT.  They go back full of excitement, only to be told "That's not how we (the adults have determined) do it here."

 

 

Unfortunately that aint a recent problem. When I did BA22, one Scout I went through the course with was also in my high school. This was a problem he had.

 

One thing my JLT course did 6 months after the training was have a conference to see how things are going. Several folks had the same problem.

 

Worse case though was a troop that had a change in SMs. Old SM was very boy led oriented, but was building up the troop and they were young. He  finally was able to get funds to send 3 scouts to NYLT. When the new SM took over, everythign the Scouts learned and try to implement, which would have build upon the old SM's vision for the troop, was negated by the new SM. 1 left to join a neighboring, youth led troop; 2 eagled and left.

 

In the one-day district-level JLT ("temporarily" ended circa 2001 while we waited- and waited - and WAIT for the new syllabus), the discussion leader asked "Who is the leader?"  The syllabus answer was "the Patrol Leader."  Not a Scout failed to understand that the "leader" was whoever led, titles notwithstanding.  Bill understood in pushing elected PLs in The Patrol Method, BSA 1930.

 

(And still waiting after sixteen years for the new syllabus.  Except when we use the "old" syllabus as the basis for an "unofficial" course.)

 

Could you PM me a copy of the syllabus? I did a district-wide 1 day training in order to qualify for BA22. That was an awesome expereince, especially since the staff of instructors were BA22 grads.

[TAHAWK]

No.  Adults who don't "get it" is not brand new.  But it's worse now where I am than it was in my first life in Scouting in California in the "Golden Age."  There, each troop that was judged to be applying the Patrol Method per 1950 Patrol leader's Handbook got its number called to have its flag brought forward to receive a ribbon ("Patrol") at the annual council assembly of troops on Scout Saturday.  Everyone noticed the few troops whose number was NOT called.

 

Jump to 1989.  I am Scout RT Commissioner, and I discover that 2/3 of the troops represented have adults appoint PLs and 3/4 have adults appoint SPLs.   The spokesman at that RT meeting for adult appointment ("The boys always get it wrong.  It's just too important to let them decide.") is my older council's most recent Silver Buffalo recipient and its rep to numerous national meetings.

Today, I can count the Patrol Method troops on the fingers of my hands.  Thankfully, I just joined one of them.  It meets twice a month so the patrols can meet four times a month.

 

Today, even after some progress, it is some forty years since BSA said, in any coherent way, what the Patrol Method is.

 

Today, Scouting.org's website says the Patrol Method is " a component of what we call youth-run, or boy-run troop. [punctuation and spelling as in original]."   One wonders who "we" might be and why they are allowed to speak for BSA.

 

 

 

Could you PM me a copy of the syllabus?

Which syllabus?

Edited February 12, 2017 by TAHAWK

[mashmaster]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.  I thought you were expressing concern about some problems.  After re-reading your comments more carefully, I understand better, my bad.  Sorry.

 

As long as one can run a boy led, patrol method program where the adults aren't getting blamed for interfering, one can't fail in the long-run.

 

If the boys like breaking up the NSP after a year, then that's great.  If they want to stay together, that's great, as long as they make the decisions, I don't have a problem with it.  My boys generally stay together in the NSP and transition as a whole into a traditional patrol.  If a few want to go into other patrols, that's their choice.  If after a year or so in the NSP and the boys are trying to gouge out each other's eyes, then letting them separate out whenever they want.  I don't hold my boys in the NSP any longer than they want and if right from the git-go they want other patrols, then we don't have a NSP that year.  That's never happened.  We have had a few boys individually opt out of the NSP in the beginning, but it was their choice.  No adults are involved in the membership and/or leadership decisions of the patrols.

No worries, The only time we have parents involved is when there are serious issues between boys that they can't resolve and it is detriment to the troop and them.  Otherwise we only provide advice and suggestions where wanted from them.   

[Eagledad]

The delimna of any training is that the syllabus presents only one approach or set of guidelines to a program with diverse approaches. Just take a look at the different "my way or high way" responses in this thread. Did these seasoned (legends in their own mind) leaders go to the same training?

 

The way we attempted to work the problem of newly NYLT trained Scouts was to require the SM attend a 2 hours talk on the last day of the NYLT course. The talk was heavy on Aims, Methods, boy run, and what the scouts were taught in the course. Then the scout participants were asked to sit with their SM for an hour to review the Scouts list of ideas they wanted to bring to their troop program. The scout and SM developed a plan together of how the SM will support the scout in his list of ideas. The Scouts created the list as they attended their classes. The idea was based on on the Wood Badge Ticket Items for the adults.

 

We called the Scouts and SMs 6 months later to see how the Scouts were doing. It was the SMs who praised NYLT for bringing new ideas to their program. I think the Scouts just assumed that they would make a difference. The SMs knew better from previous NYLT courses.

 

Even us experts on this forum have different interpretations of how to approach the program. The best way to minimize interpretations is to direct one set of guidelines at the groups as a whole. District and Council trainings is the best way of doing that in scouting. But the trainers must be of one mind on the subject content they are teaching, otherwise even the training courses will have multiple interpretations.

 

Barry

[TAHAWK]

A great approach !  

 

All that is done in my older council is to invite the SMs to a "banquet" the last day where some scraps of what has been taught is presented -as they eat.  The assumption seems to be that all SMs use the "official" Patrol Method - despite the contrary information actually in hand and the lack of clarity about what is "official."

[Eagle94-A1]

Could you PM me a copy of the syllabus?

Which syllabus?

 

the one day dsitrict training, if you got it.

 

 

The delimna of any training is that the syllabus presents only one approach or set of guidelines to a program with diverse approaches. Just take a look at the different "my way or high way" responses in this thread. Did these seasoned (legends in their own mind) leaders go to the same training?

 

The way we attempted to work the problem of newly NYLT trained Scouts was to require the SM attend a 2 hours talk on the last day of the NYLT course. The talk was heavy on Aims, Methods, boy run, and what the scouts were taught in the course. Then the scout participants were asked to sit with their SM for an hour to review the Scouts list of ideas they wanted to bring to their troop program. The scout and SM developed a plan together of how the SM will support the scout in his list of ideas. The Scouts created the list as they attended their classes. The idea was based on on the Wood Badge Ticket Items for the adults.

 

We called the Scouts and SMs 6 months later to see how the Scouts were doing. It was the SMs who praised NYLT for bringing new ideas to their program. I think the Scouts just assumed that they would make a difference. The SMs knew better from previous NYLT courses.

 

Even us experts on this forum have different interpretations of how to approach the program. The best way to minimize interpretations is to direct one set of guidelines at the groups as a whole. District and Council trainings is the best way of doing that in scouting. But the trainers must be of one mind on the subject content they are teaching, otherwise even the training courses will have multiple interpretations.

 

Barry

 

Unfortunately A) not every SM goes to these sessions and B) ev en if they do attend, they do not buy into it.

 

Regarding training. I agree that more emphasis is needed on patrol method. I really think the old SM Fundamentals Course, which required a month long commitment, is the way to go in regards to training, especially for those who have never been involved in Scouting. We were put into patrol right from the get go. And we had to meet  as a patrol prior to the last, weekend session to come up with menus, duty roster, etc.

[mashmaster]

the one day dsitrict training, if you got it.

 

 

 

Unfortunately A) not every SM goes to these sessions and B) ev en if they do attend, they do not buy into it.

 

Regarding training. I agree that more emphasis is needed on patrol method. I really think the old SM Fundamentals Course, which required a month long commitment, is the way to go in regards to training, especially for those who have never been involved in Scouting. We were put into patrol right from the get go. And we had to meet  as a patrol prior to the last, weekend session to come up with menus, duty roster, etc.

In our district/council, the NYLT course directors like to invite scoutmasters to be on staff for it so that they better understand what the boys are learning at NYLT.  Obviously, this doesn't scale but I like the idea behind it.

[Eagledad]

In our district/council, the NYLT course directors like to invite scoutmasters to be on staff for it so that they better understand what the boys are learning at NYLT.  Obviously, this doesn't scale but I like the idea behind it.

I like this idea a lot and did suggest it to the council when I retired from Council JLT Chairman. However, having the adults does have an effect on the scouts.

 

Getting adults up to speed on boy run, patrol method, or what ever you want to call it is an interesting dilemma. We can train the boys but the adult's screw it up? LOL

 

There is no easy solution. As was spoken in one of the discussions last week, with over 75% (probably close to 85%) of adults joining the BSA without a youth scouting experience, the odds are against building a traditional patrol method program.

 

And training adults to understand patrol method is not as simple as putting them in patrols and letting them play boy scout for a week or two. The old Wood Badge course did that and the adults nearly destroyed the patrol method standard because they forced their scouts to duplicate have their experience of the course.

 

Truth is you can't take the helicopter parent out of the scout leader until the scout leader experiences or witnesses the internal motivation to change from making a previous decision. Scouts given the freedom and safety to make independent decisions for themselves and their group is what patrol method allows. Forcing scouts to duplicate the Wood Badge experience is not giving scouts independence. As a result, the old course was scrapped.

 

The problem we have with preaching "take care of your scouts" to inexperienced adults is that real growth comes from the motivation to still take care of your scouts after you did it wrong the first time. That is a very difficult concept to teach, which is why the BSA fails at it. I'm honestly not sure it can be taught in a training course.

 

Patrol Method wasn't a huge issue when 60 to 70 percent of the adults joining the BSA had some patrol method experience as a youth.

 

Barry

[TAHAWK]

"There is no easy solution. As was spoken in one of the discussions last week, with over 75% (probably close to 85%) of adults joining the BSA without a youth scouting experience, the odds are against building a traditional patrol method program."

 

Add that, among those who Scouted, a minority would have experienced the Patrol Method.  It was fading fast around here almost thirty years ago.  Many who would have recalled it are dead.

[DuctTape]

I disagree that the problem stems from adults not having a scouting experience as a youth. The very first scouters did not have it, yet they were the ones who pioneered the patrol method. I think the training for scouters should be improved to focus on the patrol method explicitly. As has been mentioned the implicit lessons do not work. It needs to be focused and direct. "This IS the patrol method vs, this is NOT." Instead of journey to excellence, there should be a journey to the patrol method. For example, first measure: At amy meeting did adults speak to the entire troop for more than 2 minutes? My point is there needs to be clarity of ADULT expectations first.

[Eagledad]

"There is no easy solution. As was spoken in one of the discussions last week, with over 75% (probably close to 85%) of adults joining the BSA without a youth scouting experience, the odds are against building a traditional patrol method program."

 

Add that, among those who Scouted, a minority would have experienced the Patrol Method.  It was fading fast around here almost thirty years ago.  Many who would have recalled it are dead.

Yes, I was going to throw that in, but decided to not complicate the picture. My 34 and 30 year old son are likely the rare adults now who experienced a patrol method program.

 

Barry

 

Whoops, sorry about the key typo

Edited February 13, 2017 by Eagledad

[Eagledad]

I disagree that the problem stems from adults not having a scouting experience as a youth. The very first scouters did not have it, yet they were the ones who pioneered the patrol method. I think the training for scouters should be improved to focus on the patrol method explicitly.

Well I'm not stating a theory, I have been watching the change for the last 50 years. As for the first scouters, they had a single vision to which the built the program around. Folks today aren't working toward a single vision. Not even the National.

 

Barry

Edited February 13, 2017 by Eagledad

[TAHAWK]

A bad experience is likely worse than no experience.  They have a "model" in their heads, and it not Boy Scouting.