Oct 1, 2018 - GSS ends Patrol Method?

[DuctTape]

28 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

When I started working with my current troop (now on 10+ years ago) the go to attitude was can't go down and interfere with the Scouts, they have to figure it out.  I had (on my first campout) a good discussion with active troop leaders, explained sure you can.  We are to observe and mentor.  They explained the long time SM (who did not attend outings regularly) direct that.  I knew him and felt it was a misinterpretation.  Guess what, it was.  They took "don't do things for a scout he can do for himself" as Hands Off.

Take for example setting up a tarp. If they have never really set one up, how do Scouts know how to do it properly, tricks, etc.  You can mentor and advise the PL on what maybe the next steps should be without impinging on their leadership.  Again, observe and mentor.  Same with tent placements, cooking, etc.  

Patrols can clearly function with leaders around, the leader needs to clearly understand their role.  It is the Scouts patrol and not the leaderts.  They are not in fact a "leader", they are are in fact an advisor or mentor.

I agree in principle. The how and when though is not obvious to many. First if the PL is struggling with "setting up a tarp", I immediately wonder what the older boys who know how are doing at that moment. If it were at a troop meeting, the PLC decided on that activity, did they have an instructor ? if no older boy was available, then they could have planned to have an ASM demo. If it were on a campout, then I wonder why the PLC didnt plan to instruct this at the prior troop meeting, or again where are the older boys. If none are available, then I might ask to see the PL, and away from his patrol teach him how to do it. Then he could go back to his patrol and teach them. I am sure this is what you were getting at, but the nuance on the how to do it without "impinging on their leadership" is not obvious to many adults. As you pointed out, they interpreted their role as "hands-off", which tells me they had difficulty seeing the nuances. Props to you for showing them how to move towards  "hands-off" as a goal but not the means.

Edited September 14, 2018 by DuctTape

[AltadenaCraig]

On 9/14/2018 at 12:02 PM, Sentinel947 said:

This is what IOLs, SM specific,Wood Badge and the like are for. But we all know those don't entirely solve the problem. What would you add that would fill in the gaps? 

I really like ParkMan's "stages".  Parkman may not have served, but I was an active-duty regular US Army officer for several years, and Parkman's model works into my thinking.  But I guess that really shouldn't be a surprise given Scouting's development.  Arguably it was Baden-Powell's Boer War leadership skills that gave context and structure to the wonderful outdoor experiences which Beard and Seton were introducing to the youth of their day.

I gather the "problem" we're trying to solve here is the Patrol Method for "Stage 3" or thereabouts within the upcoming G2SS.  I'm envious of those highly developed troops with experienced 15-17 yr old scouts - and I wouldn't want to prescribe anything to derail what's working for them - but for those of us who are still building up the inertia, I'm contemplating adding something compelling for our >15 yr olds.  Something to help give a boost to the flywheel that will both keep the Stage-3'rs engaged while also allowing them to serve as "officers" for the rest of the troop.

So I've suggested to a few in our Troop Committee that we consider establishing our senior (Stage 3) patrols as Venture Crews.  G2SS allows for higher-caliber and pistol shooting in venturing, as well as activities such as search-&-rescue, etc.  The upcoming registration changes will soon allow ALL venturers - both boys & girls - to continue pursuing Eagle together, so there would be complete commonality of advancement as well.

@Sentinal, what do you think of that idea?  My biggest concern is that true Venturing suggests allowing the crews near autonomy - and while I agree that "Scout Lead" is not a license for Scouters to abdicate - can Scouters at least compel the crews to meet on the same night as the troop, and also mentor them to fulfill their "Stage 3" troop officership while also allowing them as Venture crews to pursue extreme-high-adventure activities?  Clarke Green over at Scoutmastercg.com has mentioned his troop is running along these lines.  Others?

Edited September 16, 2018 by AltadenaCraig
specified "within the upcoming G2SS"

[MattR]

3 hours ago, AltadenaCraig said:

So I've suggested to a few in our Troop Committee that we consider establishing our senior (Stage 3) patrols as Venture Crews.  G2SS allows for higher-caliber and pistol shooting in venturing, as well as activities such as search-&-rescue, etc.  The upcoming registration changes will soon allow ALL venturers - both boys & girls - to continue pursuing Eagle together, so there would be complete commonality of advancement as well.

@Sentinal, what do you think of that idea?  My biggest concern is that true Venturing suggests allowing the crews near autonomy - and while I agree that "Scout Lead" is not a license for Scouters to abdicate - can Scouters at least compel the crews to meet on the same night as the troop, and also mentor them to fulfill their "Stage 3" troop officership while also allowing them as Venture crews to pursue extreme-high-adventure activities?  Clarke Green over at Scoutmastercg.com has mentioned his troop is running along these lines.  Others?

I tried something similar a very long time ago and the results were not good. At best, there was one or two scouts that could lead before and the rest were struggling. Now the rest don't need to struggle anymore. In other words, it doesn't encourage scouts to lead.

I see the problem as the scouts do not have the correct leadership skills, because they've never really led, and therefore making it fun for them will not teach them to lead. The specific leadership skill that I'm thinking of is being prepared, i.e., making a plan. That just takes time, grit, and focus. I don't even care if the scouts follow the plan but if they have one then they have enough of an idea of what's coming next and can then work on all the other things they learn at nylt. The quality of their leadership is almost always related to how well thought out the event is. The eagle project is one example of where we force scouts to have a plan with enough detail that they can give it to someone else to run. Not that they'd ever do that but it forces the scouts to think of the sequence.

Getting back to patrol method, I'd rather see a sequence of challenges for developing leadership skills. Kind of like ranks. Start small and build it up. Planning, communication, feedback, dealing with negative scouts. All those things would help a lot. I still remember reading the scout handbook for the first time and wondering if I could get to Tenderfoot. First class was so far advanced I was afraid to even think about how bad I'd do. The outdoor skills were very well laid out. The leadership skills were/are just a mystery.

[qwazse]

Adding layers of complexity @AltadenaCraig will be a drag on your unit. You don't want to go through all of the paperwork and extra chartering fee to have pseudo venturing.

15 hours ago, AltadenaCraig said:

...  My biggest concern is that true Venturing suggests allowing the crews near autonomy - and while I agree that "Scout Lead" is not a license for Scouters to abdicate - can Scouters at least compel the crews to meet on the same night as the troop, and also mentor them to fulfill their "Stage 3" troop officership while also allowing them as Venture crews to pursue extreme-high-adventure activities?  Clarke Green over at Scoutmastercg.com has mentioned his troop is running along these lines.  Others?

The method is "leadership development" in Boy Scouts and "leadership" in venturing. If you don't want the crew officers to make their own decisions, you don't have a crew, you have a "crew, except." No amount of gun-slinging high adventure will make up for imposition on Venturing leadership.

A crew needs officers, at least four ... and many activity chairs. And they have to do real work. They really have to put in time, not just in their own unit, but in their council venturing officers association. One or two might even want to contribute to the area, region, or national VOA. So, look at your roster (and, if you've got them, a patrol of girls in the wings waiting to sign on), highlight your best scouts and young ASMs, and make plans for giving them up for the good of the crew.

The payback to a troop comes when

1. You clear out half the older boys whose hearts weren't in troop life anyway.

2. You recruit new youth who are more enthused about activities and skill mastery than advancement grind.

3. Venturers return with lots of clever ideas for activities and a positive attitude about scouting.

But you gotta pay the price to role those dice.

[Eagledad]

18 hours ago, AltadenaCraig said:

I gather the "problem" we're trying to solve here is the Patrol Method for "Stage 3" or thereabouts within the upcoming G2SS.  I'm envious of those highly developed troops with experienced 15-17 yr old scouts - and I wouldn't want to prescribe anything to derail what's working for them - but for those of us who are still building up the inertia, I'm contemplating adding something compelling for our >15 yr olds.  Something to help give a boost to the flywheel that will both keep the Stage-3'rs engaged while also allowing them to serve as "officers" for the rest of the troop.

You have the right idea, it's about inertia. But isn't that the older scouts running the program. I don't understand why you don't see taking on more of the troop responsibility isn't boosting the flywheel that will keep them engaged.

 

15 hours ago, MattR said:

Getting back to patrol method, I'd rather see a sequence of challenges for developing leadership skills. Kind of like ranks. Start small and build it up. Planning, communication, feedback, dealing with negative scouts. All those things would help a lot. I still remember reading the scout handbook for the first time and wondering if I could get to Tenderfoot. First class was so far advanced I was afraid to even think about how bad I'd do. The outdoor skills were very well laid out. The leadership skills were/are just a mystery.

This is where I see adults fail, they don't know how to build it up. Everything, I MEAN EVERYTHING, should be reviewed to improve for the next time. Especially the adult part of the program. They should also be reviewing how the "Planning, communication, feedback, dealing with negative scouts". I've said before that to most common questions ask by participants in my Scoutmaster Specific class was uniforming and discipline. Discipline is complicated at the adult level, so you can imagine how it is at the scout level when trying to get the scouts to take on the responsibility. The way we handled discipline when we started our program was 180 degrees different from how we were dealing with 10 years later. To mature as a boy run program (to keep the inertia continuing), the adults and scouts have to strive to do it better than the last time, every time. 

 

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

Adding layers of complexity @AltadenaCraig will be a drag on your unit. You don't want to go through all of the paperwork and extra chartering fee to have pseudo venturing.

This is a major problem with adults. They always want to make things better by making them more complicated. The treasure wants to use a new computer program they they have used in their business, and that nobody else can touch after they leave. The Advancement Chair always has a new and better way to track advancement. And on and on. We eventually developed a philosophy that a scout had to be partnered with each committee adult every time the adult came up with a new idea. That force the adult to look at ANYTHING from a more simplistic perspective. I used to teach, "if you are going to make changes, ALWAYS simplify to the scout level". Don't let boy run got overrun with adults' good ideas. 

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

The method is "leadership development" in Boy Scouts and "leadership" in venturing. If you don't want the crew officers to make their own decisions, you don't have a crew, you have a "crew, except." No amount of gun-slinging high adventure will make up for imposition on Venturing leadership.

Very well said. There are a few successful Crew/Troops out there, but very few. Running two programs together is complicated and requires an adult with a good understanding of the big picture to make the concept work because it does require more adult intervention overhead. Personally I see no advantage of adding a crew. Our troop planned more high adventure than most of the crews in our area. Our youth leadership is more consistent because the Patrols supported the troop leadership structure. The only ONLY advantage I can see with adding a crew is to get girls into the program. Adding a crew to the troop boy run program just to add girls is a huge risk because the troop requires the older scouts and youth leadership to mixed into the program, not just close or nearby. The patrols still need older scouts in the patrols.

Sadly, many (most) adults think see a crew as just high adventure. It's not. It's character development just like a troop, and part of the development is running the program. Not just showing up friday night to camp all weekend. Boy run is about about youth taking a group of youth to youth planned activities. When the youth start leaving any of the decisions to the adults, they are stepping back from a boy run program. Three out of five crews fail after the first four years because they didn't have good adults who understand how to build a boy run style program. The programs turned into camping clubs, and even high adventure gets boring. As I said eariler, what keeps older scouts in the program is the challenge of running the program and growing from the challenge. The best programs are the ones where the scouts go home saying to themselves, "I like myself when I'm with the troop, or crew". That kind of feeling comes from achieving above what you thought was capable.

Adding a crew to a troop program to improve the troop program is the WORST reason for combining the two programs. Success requires putting the two successful programs together to build a more successful program. As I used to advise units around here, if you can't build a successful boy run troop program, what makes you think you can build a successful crew program?

I know of only one successful true boy run program that combines the crew and troop together.  Cliff Golden' of Troop 33. Cliff is the most boy run scouter I know of and was one of my mentors when I was a Scoutmaster. That program has a reputation for being as active with the community as it is with outdoor adventure. Cliff added the crew so he could bring in girls. They are the luckiest girls in scouting.  Cliff used to be member of this forum. But he wasn't very active here because he was busy doing scouting stuff.

Barry

[Sentinel947]

On 9/16/2018 at 2:52 PM, AltadenaCraig said:

So I've suggested to a few in our Troop Committee that we consider establishing our senior (Stage 3) patrols as Venture Crews.  G2SS allows for higher-caliber and pistol shooting in venturing, as well as activities such as search-&-rescue, etc.  The upcoming registration changes will soon allow ALL venturers - both boys & girls - to continue pursuing Eagle together, so there would be complete commonality of advancement as well.

@Sentinal, what do you think of that idea?  My biggest concern is that true Venturing suggests allowing the crews near autonomy - and while I agree that "Scout Lead" is not a license for Scouters to abdicate - can Scouters at least compel the crews to meet on the same night as the troop, and also mentor them to fulfill their "Stage 3" troop officership while also allowing them as Venture crews to pursue extreme-high-adventure activities?  Clarke Green over at Scoutmastercg.com has mentioned his troop is running along these lines.  Others?

That's in theory how the program is supposed to run. Boy Scouting age 11-14, Venturing 14-age out. As other's have said, if you're going to run your unit(s) that way, you need to go all in. Venturing is about leadership, and the youth really drive that program, even more so than boy scouts. A crew really is a separate unit from the Scout troop. 

What you're really looking for is engaging your older Scouts. @Eagledad talks about better in his posts than I ever can. I wrote out multiple paragraphs, and they were basically saying the same thing Eagledad was, just longer and less concise. This paragraph in particular jumped out to me:

On 9/17/2018 at 10:55 AM, Eagledad said:

The programs turned into camping clubs, and even high adventure gets boring. As I said eariler, what keeps older scouts in the program is the challenge of running the program and growing from the challenge. The best programs are the ones where the scouts go home saying to themselves, "I like myself when I'm with the troop, or crew". That kind of feeling comes from achieving above what you thought was capable.

It's really easy in theory. It's hard in practice. Most Scouters know that it's a program designed to teach Scouts character and leadership, by allowing them to be with their friends, camp in the outdoors, work on service projects, challenge themselves and develop their troop/patrol. So why is this so hard? Well, because it's unnatural. Scouts don't always have the leadership skills or the camping skills and need to be trained and developed. Adults are also often missing those skills, and are supposed to mentor and coach youth to have those skills, some of which they don't have either. In short it comes down to training/coaching (this often is informal rather than formal) the older scouts, listening to them about what they want to achieve for the troop, and giving them the support for them to lead. Part of why older boys flock to Sports and band and ditch scouts is that many scout troops never leave stage 1 or 2. The program becomes about advancing 11-12 year olds, and the older boys aren't allowed to take the lead on the program and challenge their skills and leadership, so they go find something more challenging. 

So we're back to my original question @AltadenaCraig. We have these training curriculum for Scouters, but getting a youth lead, patrol method troop still seems to be alluding us. Where's the gap and how can we fill it? Maybe we're all overthinking things to some extent. It's hard to give advice for other people's troops, because I don't know your Scouts or their parents. 

Happy to give my two cents if you think of something. 

 

 

[AltadenaCraig]

17 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

What you're really looking for is engaging your older Scouts. @Eagledad talks about better in his posts than I ever can. I wrote out multiple paragraphs, and they were basically saying the same thing Eagledad was, just longer and less concise. This paragraph in particular jumped out to me:

On 9/17/2018 at 7:55 AM, Eagledad said:

Three out of five crews fail after the first four years because they didn't have good adults who understand how to build a boy run style program. The programs turned into camping clubs, and even high adventure gets boring. As I said eariler, what keeps older scouts in the program is the challenge of running the program and growing from the challenge. The best programs are the ones where the scouts go home saying to themselves, "I like myself when I'm with the troop, or crew". That kind of feeling comes from achieving above what you thought was capable.

Thanks to all ... I'm really getting a lot out of this thread.

I'm encouraged by my younger patrols - they're exhibiting high enthusiasm for what I'll call "vanilla scouting":  Patrol method in the outdoors.  They're engaged and reasonably attentive at PLC's, they have fun with one another, and the more advanced of my younger scouts exhibit care and concern for the youngest - taking them under their wings and helping them with skills, advancement, etc.  Perfect!

My struggle is with my oldest scouts.  I hate to "write them off", but I'm just there with them.  I've concluded that my predecessor - a truly dedicated scouter and a tireless supporter of mine - unfortunately was also the "world's oldest SPL".  He ran everything ... meetings, campouts, the whole bit.  And charismatically, too.  It was HIS show.  As you can guess it hasn't been an easy transition from him to me.  I'm not him ... and frankly I don't think such Scoutmasters do much for building sustainable programs, much less sustainable scouts.  If my older scouts aren't being entertained, they're out.

What I'm learning from this thread is that I should be wary of setting up a "camping club" as a venture crew to placate my oldest scouts.  While I haven't given up on the Venture Crew, I'll approach it with my younger scouts in mind and eventually set it up it as it's meant to be - real leadership and ownership.  Thanks again!

[Eagledad]

55 minutes ago, AltadenaCraig said:

My struggle is with my oldest scouts.  I hate to "write them off", but I'm just there with them.  I've concluded that my predecessor - a truly dedicated scouter and a tireless supporter of mine - unfortunately was also the "world's oldest SPL".  He ran everything ... meetings, campouts, the whole bit.  And charismatically, too.  It was HIS show.  As you can guess it hasn't been an easy transition from him to me.  I'm not him ... and frankly I don't think such Scoutmasters do much for building sustainable programs, much less sustainable scouts.  If my older scouts aren't being entertained, they're out.

This happens a lot with SM changes. I have helped and observed a lot of troops where the new SM wanted to change the program and I have learned that change pretty much comes from the new and younger Scouts. I now advise SMs in your situation to pacify the older Scouts with the program they want and build your new program with the new Scouts. Older Scouts (in this case 13 and older) simply don’t like change. Building new with younger Scouts is a lot less stress on everybody. 

It seems like two groups in one program will be a hassle, but you will find the older Scouts will pretty much take care of themselves. They will fall in for Troop assembly then go do their thing. The ones who want to advance will come to you.

Ironically leaving the older Scouts to their program is the Patrol Method you are wanting anyway. They just aren’t great role models for the younger Scouts. In fact you can present the idea to them as an experiment and become the older Scouts hero. Trust me, they will love you for it. 

Barry

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

... Ironically leaving the older Scouts to their program is the Patrol Method you are wanting anyway. They just aren’t great role models for the younger Scouts. In fact you can present the idea to them as an experiment and become the older Scouts hero. Trust me, they will love you for it. ...

Caveat about that "older scout's hero" gig, you might find yourself saddled with some serious discipline issues.

Scouts who don't want to bend sometimes break bad.

That's not to discourage. It's just to give your committee a heads up that they can still hold scouts to high standards yet don't take them for granted if all they do for the troop is be decent souls in their community until they age out.

[Sentinel947]

4 hours ago, AltadenaCraig said:

Thanks to all ... I'm really getting a lot out of this thread.

I'm encouraged by my younger patrols - they're exhibiting high enthusiasm for what I'll call "vanilla scouting":  Patrol method in the outdoors.  They're engaged and reasonably attentive at PLC's, they have fun with one another, and the more advanced of my younger scouts exhibit care and concern for the youngest - taking them under their wings and helping them with skills, advancement, etc.  Perfect!

My struggle is with my oldest scouts.  I hate to "write them off", but I'm just there with them.  I've concluded that my predecessor - a truly dedicated scouter and a tireless supporter of mine - unfortunately was also the "world's oldest SPL".  He ran everything ... meetings, campouts, the whole bit.  And charismatically, too.  It was HIS show.  As you can guess it hasn't been an easy transition from him to me.  I'm not him ... and frankly I don't think such Scoutmasters do much for building sustainable programs, much less sustainable scouts.  If my older scouts aren't being entertained, they're out.

What I'm learning from this thread is that I should be wary of setting up a "camping club" as a venture crew to placate my oldest scouts.  While I haven't given up on the Venture Crew, I'll approach it with my younger scouts in mind and eventually set it up it as it's meant to be - real leadership and ownership.  Thanks again!

There's only so much retraining you can do with older Scouts. I try to avoid telling stories about my troop, because every situation is unique, so there's a chance this can't be replicated. 

I joined my Troop in 2005 as a new Scout. The Scoutmaster at that time was finishing up his Scoutmastership and was done by 2007. He had us running a great patrol method troop. He was a stern but fair man, and what he excelled at was giving youth leadership room to make their plans and fail or succeed. He was always available to coach the youth, and if the SPL wanted to, he'd have weekly phone calls with the SPL to walk through the meeting and guide the SPL in making a meeting plan. 

In 2007 one of the committee members took over as Scoutmaster. He was a good man, but he didn't know the behind the scenes aspects of being a Scoutmaster, and when the troop program started to disintegrate without the coaching from Scoutmaster 1, he ended up consolidating things onto the SPL and the adults. The Troop lost most of the it's patrol method aspects (like patrol boxes) aka "The Boys can't be trusted to keep their dishes clean, so we need the Quartermasters to be able to review all the dishes." We went along with this "Troop Method." system the rest of my time as a Scout. I went to NYLT and became SPL in 2009. NYLT was shocking to me and it struck a fire in me. I wanted my troop to be like my NYLT troop. I wanted the autonomy, I wanted the patrol culture and camaraderie that I felt at NYLT. Scoutmaster 2 didn't really understand what went on at NYLT, and 16 year old me wasn't good at selling my ideas to skeptical adults. My initiatives weren't supported, and being 16, I wasn't able to carry them across the finish line myself. I floated into a JASM role after my term, and I spent the next two years helping following SPL's tinker around the edges of our program. 

In 2012 Scoutmaster 2 stepped down, and the Committee Chair at the time became Scoutmaster 3. He was even more green to the Boy Scout program than Scoutmaster 2. Most of the ASM group had left when Scoutmaster 2 did, since their sons were all around the same age. The Scoutmaster group dwindled to our Scoutmaster 3, and 3 ASMS, two of which had sons in junior year of high school and weren't around as much. At that point, I was 18-19 years old, and was still hanging around the troop to help my younger friends earn their Eagle. Long story short, I became an ASM because I was around. I spent much of my time coaching the SPL as I had done as a senior scout. I did my best to start selling patrol method ideas with Scoutmaster 3, but he still didn't "get it" until about 2014 when his son went to NYLT. It was really a metaphorical lightbulb moment for him. All the gibberish that I'd been trying to do clicked. We had a group of 5 Scouts that were in the same grade and became SPL's back to back for 2.5 years including Scoutmaster 3s son. Scoutmaster 3 and I started working with those 5 youth, all NYLT trained, to start putting the pieces back together on the patrol method. Some of the older Scouts and adults resisted. They didn't see the point or they thought it would take away from advancement, or being unsafe, or other stuff like that. I actually went to a Committee meeting and basically did a Patrol Method presentation to get buy in from them. Our youth sold their peers for the most part. From 2014-2016 the troop really ran itself thanks to those older Scouts. Scoutmaster 3 and I went to Wood Badge together 2015. We started building an ASM culture that would support the patrol method.

This year, 2018, Scoutmaster 3 stepped down. His son had aged out in 2017, and it was time to pass the torch. Scoutmaster 4 has been in the job for a few months, but our culture we've created has made him far ahead of where Scoutmaster 2 and 3 were when they started. We still have a great ASM team in place for at least another year, and we're actively hunting the next generation to join us. Our youth leadership is engaged, but there are always challenges with youth, that don't go away. Even with a youth lead troop running the patrol method, it's not all rainbows and unicorns. (I just got home from a Troop meeting.) 

So @AltadenaCraig for your troop. Don't abandon those older Scouts. They really don't know what they are missing, or what it will mean for them. They're like adults often are, resistant to change. You'll need to sell them. The same goes for adults. Adults are key, because they can block your progress either overtly or on accident. Keep building that nucleus you have with your younger scouts. When they hit the leadership positions in your troop, the dam will break, and progress will catapult forward. 

I don't like this story because I feel like I'm tooting my own horn to much. It's not about me really, other than I had the vision and sold others on it.It's not than NYLT is some magic bullet, although it was certainly part of what fast-tracked us. The takeaway I want you to get from this is that there's a broader framework to this. Sell your adults. Find your older Scouts that will buy in, keep developing the patrol method with your younger Scouts. Start building that culture. Sell your vision to anybody that will stand to listen. It will take time. My Troop is finally hitting where I'd like it to be  after we started putting the pieces together in 2014. If you're the Scoutmaster, you've already got a big part of it down. If your an ASM, you have an additional hurdle to clear to sell the Scoutmaster first. 

I'm happy to share some documents I've written with you, have a phone call to discuss. PM me if you'd like. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Sentinel947
Added context