Just got word....

[Stosh]

In theory.

 

In practice where I live an ASM runs the patrol like a Weblos den.

 

And this is a classic excuse for not having NSP's.  Just like any other patrol in the patrol method, the adults that interfere will always destroy the intent of the program.  An ASM is NOT part of the patrol method, nor should a SM "assign" him/her anymore than the SM assigns any other position in the troop. 

 

Do NOT use inappropriate behavior of the adults for an excuse to run down NSP's or any other patrol for that matter.  I do not interfere in the operation of the NSP, nor the regular patrols, nor the HA (Venture) patrols.  They sink or swim on the merits of the patrol method and it works.  I find very few adults in my neck of the woods that really trust the patrol method and tend to meddle in the operation of the troop and then scratch their heads as to why things aren't working out very well for them.  And that's the key, it's never "for them", it's for the boys.  Let them run the show and trust them to do a better job than adult interfering.

[Col. Flagg]

In my experience the boys learn faster in mixed patrols. And you don't burn out the poor Guide having to deal with more than 2-3 11 year olds. That's been the chief reason for most troops locally dropping NSPs.

[Eagle94-A1]

As for the statistics regarding making First Class in a year, what does age-based patrols have to do with that? We have a separate program we call First Class Emphasis for the sole purpose of getting the boys to First Class within a year. Doesn't always happen, but that's the goal. But you can establish such a program outside NSP.

 

 

 

The reason Is stated the use of statistics on First Class Scouts for the creation of NSPs is because that is what national used to justify creating the NSP model. The more I think about it, more I realize LDS units must have influenced its creation since their stats would skew traditional patrols since the y keep all the 11 years olds separate. In fact if you think about it, they are aged based, i.e. 11 years olds separate from the rest of the troop; 12-13 in the troop; 14-18 Varsity et

 

 

 

 

In theory.

 

In practice where I live an ASM runs the patrol like a Weblos den.

 

Not just where you live. In the three states I've seen it used, the only way it was "successful" was if it was a Webelos 3 program.  That's not what Boy Scouts is about.

[The Latin Scot]

Speaking for LDS units, we do have age-based patrols, but other than the fact that they are divided by age they are, for all intents and purposes, run just like other BSA units. I cannot speak on how that has influenced the NSP program direction. What I can say is this - while the Church does not have any current plans to leave the BSA (despite the many paranoid alarmists or reactionaries who would tell you otherwise), the decision to include girls in the program would be the final breaking point. In our religion, we believe strongly in the importance of both the male and female roles both in strengthening families and in building healthy societies. To change the very nature of a program that, for over 100 years, has met the needs of boys' growth and development by including girls, whose needs and natures are fundamentally different, would be in my eyes a tragedy of epic proportions. And not just for the boys mind you. The girls who are being raised like boys may be suffering an even greater loss than anybody, since they would be the ones being put into a program that was not designed to meet the needs of their sex. Their unique qualities and gifts are not treated nor nurtured by the Boy Scout program, and while the activities would be fun for some of them, the full power and potential of women is not something which the Boy Scout of America is equipped to develop. It's unfair to them, it's unfair to the boys. It's unfair to the nation.

[Eagle94-A1]

In my experience the boys learn faster in mixed patrols. And you don't burn out the poor Guide having to deal with more than 2-3 11 year olds. That's been the chief reason for most troops locally dropping NSPs.

 

Agree 110%. When I was the "Troop Guide" (I was doing this in 1986 and it was called Patrol Leader at that time) It was extremely challenging trying to get the new Scouts up to speed. Instead of increasing morale, allowing us to focus on their advancement, getting htem better in tune with Scouting etc, there were arguments, no one wanting to listen, and not enough help from older Scouts on the camp outs b/c they were with their patrols. And our SM only interfered once, and that was when I was at my breaking point and the SPL took over my patrol while the SM had a chat with me. I say it was acceptable and needed interference at that point. We did it for a year because we had to, then went back to mix aged patrols. But in that year we lost Scouts due to frustration with the NSP.

 

When I was a NSP ASM, I tried to mentor and advise the TG and PL, and after the fact. But the same exact problems I saw when I was a "TG" were recurring. Everyone brainstormed on how to solve this issue. The only way was going to traditional patrols. And it is working.

 

 The girls who are being raised like boys may be suffering an even greater loss than anybody, since they would be the ones being put into a program that was not designed to meet the needs of their sex. Their unique qualities and gifts are not treated nor nurtured by the Boy Scout program, and while the activities would be fun for some of them, the full power and potential of women is not something which the Boy Scout of America is equipped to develop. It's unfair to them, it's unfair to the boys. It's unfair to the nation.

 

That statement is what many of us who do not want to go coed fear: National will change the program to accommodate them. And they will. I remember being in school and hearing comments about how schools are focused more for boys than girls. Over time, curriculum have changed to accommodate girls. But it seems that it is overcompensating. Recess, or more specifically unstructured play time is gone in most places. I thought I was reading an Onion article when I read a story about school districts hiring recess organizers to organize a game for everyone to play. In my day organized games was PE. And there are other examples.

[qwazse]

.... The girls who are being raised like boys may be suffering an even greater loss than anybody, since they would be the ones being put into a program that was not designed to meet the needs of their sex. Their unique qualities and gifts are not treated nor nurtured by the Boy Scout program, and while the activities would be fun for some of them, the full power and potential of women is not something which the Boy Scout of America is equipped to develop. ...

I find this funny because, if I were to match your alter-egos among my youth, I imagine Latin Scot's would my Venturer who recently returned to her Boy Scout Italia troop ... all enthused about Baden Powell, sharp in a uniform, knows her knots, super friendly. Still as full-powered woman as any gal I know.

 

Maybe that's where my religion trips me up in the opposite direction. If a messiah could be fully-God and fully-man whilst among his disciples, it's not a stretch to think a youth could be fully girl and totally Boy Scout.

 

It's also amusing that people feel okay with other troops mixing ages in patrols in whatever way works for their community, but spit nails over the thought of some other troops and packs mixing sexes as they see fit.

[Eagledad]

It's also amusing that people feel okay with other troops mixing ages in patrols in whatever way works for their community, but spit nails over the thought of some other troops and packs mixing sexes as they see fit.

Role models. Role models are key for boys to learn behavior and same gender role models magnify that growth.

 

Barry

[Col. Flagg]

It's also amusing that people feel okay with other troops mixing ages in patrols in whatever way works for their community, but spit nails over the thought of some other troops and packs mixing sexes as they see fit.

The HUGE difference being we are talking about mixing BOYS of any age versus GIRLS with boys.

 

That's night and day.

[qwazse]

Great sound (text?) bytes:

Role models. Role models are key for boys to learn behavior and same gender role models magnify that growth.

And, all of the parents who were interested in their daughters joining my crew agree. It wasn't about the adventure, it was about the male role model that they (rightly or wrongly) saw in me and many of the advisors on the VOA. The female advisor up the road selected her co-leader based on his track record as a male role model. I have to confess that I was not nearly as judicious selecting my female counterparts.

 

The HUGE difference being we are talking about mixing BOYS of any age versus GIRLS with boys.

That's night and day.

Night and day? For a while, with our scouts, it was "we rule the night" -- special goggles included. (I made no never-mind, they were still in bed by ten. The coyotes helped motivate that. )

 

Sounds to me like it is the difference between a continuous distinction and discrete distinction. A couple male 16 year-olds mixed with as many or slightly more male 11 year-olds and a couple males in between ... male 11-14 year-olds mixed with a couple of female 11-14 year-olds. Which mix is the greater impediment to everyone mastering first class skills and living up to the promise of the oath and law?

 

I've really only experienced the former. CSE Mike seems convinced, on hypothetical grounds that the latter is hugely problematic. Folks from across the pond are telling me otherwise. And the Indonesians are off-the-charts with their "together, but different" strategy.

 

So, a difference? Certainly. A HUGE one? Untested.

[Eagle94-A1]

It's also amusing that people feel okay with other troops mixing ages in patrols in whatever way works for their community, but spit nails over the thought of some other troops and packs mixing sexes as they see fit.

That is becaus up to1989, there was no such thing as a NSP. From 1972 to 1989 you had mixed aged patrols, aka traditional patrols, and the Leadership Corps of older Scouts. I know that at one time BSA had Explorers in troops for the older guys, but do not know the time frame.

 

So mixed aged patrols are the traditional patrol recommended by National from 1910 to 1989, and many units continue to use traditional patrols after national started recommending NSPs because the traditional patrol works. It's not a matter of ignoring what nationals tells us to do, it is a matter continueing to use an approved patrol type, after all National still allows folks to use mixed aged patrols, in a manner consistent with the Patrol Method. Do you want adults treating a patrol like Cub Scouts stil? I do not. That is why I am a proponent of traditional patrols.

[Eagledad]

Great sound (text?) bytes:

And, all of the parents who were interested in their daughters joining my crew agree. It wasn't about the adventure, it was about the male role model that they (rightly or wrongly) saw in me and many of the advisors on the VOA. The female advisor up the road selected her co-leader based on his track record as a male role model. I have to confess that I was not nearly as judicious selecting my female counterparts.

 

 

Yes, I agree that good role models of both genders is important at the Venturing age group (post puberty). The brain works differently for this age and not only is it important to have good role models of both genders, but the scouts are now biologically adults and should be treated as such. Which I know is your style of leading. This is the age where male and female role models show how well adults (both scouts and adults) work together. 

 

Personally I like Venturing Crew adults and youth working closer together to represent a team as apposed to adults and youth. The adults have a specific responsibility different from the youth, but that doesn't mean they don't work together to accomplish a common goal. We worked with our senior scouts somewhat the same way when pushing them in more of ASM roles.

 

Barry

[Col. Flagg]

The difference between mixing teen boys with teen boys, versus mixing teen girls and boys is UNTESTED?

 

Over a century of public education and more than a century of single sex education says otherwise.

[qwazse]

The difference between mixing teen boys with teen boys, versus mixing teen girls and boys is UNTESTED?

 

Over a century of public education and more than a century of single sex education says otherwise.

What does it say?

It is equivocal at best.

 

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/coed.aspx

 

While these types of teaching approaches may be thought to improve grades, test scores and college acceptance rates, there’s little empirical evidence showing that sex-segregated classes improve educational outcomes. A 2005 U.S. Department of Education comparison of same-sex and coeducational schools found a dearth of quality studies examining academic benefits and concluded that the results are mixed and not conclusive enough for the department to endorse single-sex education.

 

The difference, if any is far from "HUGE" in any sense. And, might not be in the direction one thinks. The APA's Monitor concludes ...

 

... segregation is very seldom a beneficial form of “choice†and that fostering diversity within schools, rather than across schools, is the best option.

 

Note that I have no inclination to put the APA on a pedestal. Nor do I believe they have much of a clue when it comes to outdoor education and teaching kids patriotism. But, I would advise against treating education science (art?) as gospel when it doesn't even tell you what you wish it would.

 

I'd rather let you rely on my administrative assistant's perception that GS/USA should be for girls and BSA for boys. Feel free to cite as "water cooler conversation."

[Ankylus]

The reason Is stated the use of statistics on First Class Scouts for the creation of NSPs is because that is what national used to justify creating the NSP 

 

 

 

 

 

 This much I understood already. But thank you for the effort.

[Eagle94-A1]

 This much I understood already. But thank you for the effort.

 

May I try again

 

When the powers that be looked at the stats for membership retention back in the day, they noticed 2 trends. First was that Scouts who got First Class in a year tended to stay in Scouting and eventually earn Eagle. That lead to the creation of  "OPERATION FIRST CLASS!" (sic) Over the years that has morphed into First Class Emphasis; First Class, First Year and whatever else they have called it over the years. 

 

The second trend they noticed was that the majority of First Class Scouts who earned it within a year of joining were in patrols that were comprised of only 11 year olds. Remember, LDS units put all their 11 year olds into their own patrol(s) with an ASM over them. i do not know the percentage of LDS troops during the study period, but today it's approx. 33%  From my own observations and talking to LDS Scouters, the goal is to get  their 11 year olds to First Class before they turn 12.  I don't have the actual numbers in front of me regarding First Class, but extrapolating from Eagle data showing LDS units have a higher number of Eagles than non-LDS units, it is a safe assumption LDS units have a higher First Class Scout rate than non-LDS units. If 33% of the units are producing a high percentage of First Class Scouts, then why don't implement their patrol model? Hence the birth of the NSP.