New Scout Patrol or Patrols?

[pargolf44067]

I have an interesting dilemma, one which might be a good one to have. We have 12 new scouts that have bridged or are bridging (11 bridged in the last week, one will bridge in a couple of weeks). In addition, we have a couple of older scouts that have recently joined scouts or transferred from another troop, that for all intents and purposes are new scouts, which gives me 14 "new" scouts.

 

Do I make this one or two patrols? My initial thought was to make them one, but the more I thought about it, two seems to make some sense. My issue with two is that we have three packs that sent scouts to us. One pack bridged seven scouts, another bridged four and the third bridged one, but he has good friends from the pack that bridged four. So it would be easy to break the patrols into two seven member patrols, with the pack that bridged seven being their own and the other five in the other patrol with the two older scouts. My fear is that this will create patrol cliques.

 

Any ideas or thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

[LongHaul]

It's called Patrol Identity not clique. The seven that have been together should stay together. Yes they will have a head start on building a team because they were already a den. What kind of a New Scout Patrol program do you use? Rotate PL responsibilities? Do you have a functioning PLC? How you handle this situation depends a lot on the infastructure you already have in place. Bottom line in my book is that a group of 14 is too large, they need to be split in to two groups. Check out the thread just below this one currently. First Class First Year Jeff Thompson from Atlanta Area Council developed a very good program for New Scouts.

LongHaul

[Lisabob]

Keeping in mind that patrols are supposed to be the tightest-knit groups in the troop anyway, I don't see a problem with setting up the two patrols of 7 each, as you described, where most of the boys know each other pretty well already. In fact I think this might be better than setting up one huge patrol of 14, with pre-existing "cliques" within the patrol.

 

 

[pargolf44067]

Thanks for the quick responses. I have printed off the FCFY download from the other thread and that is what we are using. I was leaning toward the two patrols set up as I mentioned, but was just looking for confirmation that it was the right way to go.

 

We do have a PLC and we don't rotate PLs in our new scout patrols.

 

Along the lines of the First Class First Year thread, would you have these boys taught things at the same time (obviously other than the Forming the Patrol sections) and then do everything else at the Patrol level?

 

Bill

[LongHaul]

The First Class First Year "program" I'll call it, is set up to fill the instruction portion of the troop meeting. The troop guide and the PL for the New Patrol have an instructor "teach" the patrol the different skills as a patrol while the rest of the troop is doing thier instruction. Unless you separtate the Experienced Scouts and the Older Scouts by patrols I wouldn't separate the New Scouts during instruction. The two guides and PLs will have to keep records for their respective patrol but instruction can be done as a group.

LongHaul

[Beavah]

Or yeh could give up on all that silliness and do things da way it's supposed to be done.

 

Move your new boys into real patrols that aren't age-based, rather than keepin' all the inexperienced lads together. Who in their right minds puts all the experienced lads together, then grabs one at semi-random to make him "leader"? Check out all of the past threads on "horizontal" vs. "vertical" patrols. "Vertical" is the way Scouting was designed, and the way it was done for most of its history. Without FCFY so kids can work at their own place and Advancement stays in its place as only ONE method of scouting.

 

Just to give yeh some alternatives when you find that you really don't like the "feel" of two hordes of munchkins.

 

 

[BrentAllen]

"Or yeh could give up on all that silliness and do things da way it's supposed to be done."

Kinda like wearing the proper uniform, eh, there, Beavah? :-)

 

There is a pretty good article on New Scout Patrols in Scouting magazine, in the May-June 2004 issue. It can be found at http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0405/a-year.html

 

A follow up article on this group just appeared in the January-February 2007 issue, pg. 4. You can decide for yourself if it is worth it.

 

I have mixed feelings about the plan. I think the positives outweigh the negatives, and the boys will be in their new permanent patrols soon enough. The troops around here talk a 6 -9 month time period for the New Scout Patrol.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[LongHaul]

Beavah,

           Please tell me where does it say using the New Scout Patrol Method is NOT the way it is supposed to be? Where does it give any recommendations on how it IS supposed to be? Putting scouts anywhere, according to what Ive read from training manuals or BP writings is NOT the way it is supposed to be. The boys are supposed to form a patrol and the patrols are supposed to form a troop not the other way round. Please explain what you see as being The Patrol Method. Who in their right minds puts all the experienced lads together, then grabs one at semi-random to make him "leader"? Have you ever really given the concept a chance? Rotating PL once a month and giving each boy a chance to sit in at the PLC , run a patrol meeting and organize the patrol for the monthly outing is a good way for them to gain experience. How does a boy get OTJ training for PL your way? FCFY is not a method of advancement. Read thru the material in the thread about First Class First Year, currently under this one.  It does not promote group advancement, it does enable every boy to have the opportunity to be exposed to and work on all the skills required to become a First Class Scout. Whether the scout chooses to present himself for testing and actually attain First Class in the First Year is up to him. If the troop program does not address the need for every new scout to have an opportunity to pick his patrol site, serve as his patrol cook, cook over an open fire, and all the other things needed for advancement how is a boy supposed to accomplish it? How do you achieve these vertical patrols without reorganizing patrols every time you get new scouts? Unless you are loosing as many as you are gaining you have to form new patrols which must require reorganization and the break down of patrol identity. Having 3 or 4 new scouts is one thing but 14 how do you maintain any form of Patrol Identity.

LongHaul

[FScouter]

Who needs a silly "New Scout Patrol Method" made up by some silly goofs in Irving that don't know anything about anything?

 

I'll state my case, of which I'm certain

I've lived a life that's full

I traveled each and every highway

And more, much more than this, I did it my way.

[Beavah]

Yah, yah, easy there, LongHaul. I was just given a strong dose of "alternate theory" so that pargolf would look at all the options, eh? As yeh know, I'm a lot more an advocate for "what works for real units in the field" than I am for "what somebody paid to have printed in a book." Especially when da professionals who make the books don't get evaluated or promoted on their knowledge of the program or the quality of their service, eh? So if you're doin' a good job with New Scout Patrol of FCFY, by all means, carry on! Use what works.

 

As I've said in the past, tho, I've been part of both kinds of units, and supported a lot more as a commish. Of the two, I think vertical patrols makes the most sense, and from my observations it works best. It gives the older boys someone to lead, it gives the new boys some older boys of all ages to look up to, and it preserves patrol identity over a Long Haul. :)

 

There seems to be at least a half dozen different versions of "New Scout Patrol/FCFY" and a bunch of variations on those, which to my mind illustrates a problem. Despite all the trainin' and materials, it's not being well understood/well implemented. People don't get how to do it well. Maybe because it doesn't work that great, eh? The best I've seen is when you have a great ASM/NS, who has the right zany personality to connect to those kids, and a couple of good Troop Guides. But then that just ain't much different than Webelos III, eh?

 

Rotating PL once a month and giving each boy a chance to sit in at the PLC , run a patrol meeting and organize the patrol for the monthly outing is a good way for them to gain experience.

 

I'm with EagleDad here. I think kids who are brand new to a troop aren't lookin' for leadership roles. They're looking for "where do I fit in?" and "Is the next campout going to be fun?". The "experience" they need to gain is takin' care of themselves in the woods for the first time. Then good Followership. Leadership's a fair ways off.

 

How do you achieve these vertical patrols without reorganizing patrols every time you get new scouts?

 

Close as I can tell, it's the horizontal patrol units that are perpetually re-organizing patrols. Older boy patrols get reduced in size and participation rates, and combined constantly. The vertical troops I know are runnin' with the same patrols 10 years later. New scouts join a patrol with a few friends. All of a sudden the 2nd year boys are "experienced hands" and good followers, who have young guys to show the ropes to (and begin gettin' leadership experience). Older boys who are ready for leadership are the natural leaders, right when they need it for rank.

 

And there's the added bonus in vertical patrols that patrol competitions are fair and fun, between patrols of relatively equal experience and size.

 

This ain't hard. Think Hogwarts.

 

Unless you are loosing as many as you are gaining you have to form new patrols which must require reorganization and the break down of patrol identity.

 

Yah, sure, if you have big gains in membership yeh might need to add a patrol occasionally (but not every year!). So yeh ID the best few lads for the job and you give them the special task of startin' a new patrol. They love the challenge. And they have the experience and skills to handle it, which an 11-year old doesn't. Their old patrol(s) continue on and become part of the competition, which only adds to da fun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gonzo1]

Pargolf,

I'm usually agreeing with Beavah and BrentAllen, but I think I'm split today. Sorry guys.

 

Vertical patrols make more sense overall. There is merit to both way however. If a troop is gaining 14 new scouts, the troops probably is already big, what 40 boys? You could put 3-4 boys in each of your patrols. Observe them and see who actually gravitates toward one another and put them together.

 

I think the concept of New Scout Patrol is fairly new. I personally prefer vertical. If the NSP gets the boys acclimated to scouts, then put into vertical patrols, that might work well.

 

The troop of my youth still has the same patrols as when I was a kid and ASM in that troop! Comanche, Flaming Arrows, Thunderbirds, Eagles. No picking new names, new patches, etc. New scouts were assigned a patrol, intoduced to his PL and basically, fit in. Occaissiontally, changes were made, but not often.

 

(This message has been edited by Gonzo1)

[pargolf44067]

Hey guys, thanks for all the good feedback. I ended up doing the two different patrols, with seven in each, split the way I mentioned earlier. We did this at our meeting last night. In a couple of weeks we will let them come up with their patrol names and flags, etc.

 

Here is how our troop has started doing patrols. I became SM about 18 months ago. Up until that point the patrols were in age group (first years, second years, etc.). In talking with the PLC and committee, we decided to go more with vertical patrols and reorganized our patrols last August at the annual planning meeting. We did this so the older boys would have an opportunity to see that the younger boys in their patrols were advancing, etc. We are still on the way to a true patrol way of doing things, but I am slowly getting the troop there.

 

My original thoughts for this year was to have this "New Scout Patrol" through at least summer camp and maybe the fall and then split them into the existing patrols. However, I wasn't expecting so many boys, so that may be more difficult and we may have to add an additional patrol to our existing three. I think without having some sort of structure for the new scouts in terms of FCFY or whatever you would use, you have the strong chance of the new scouts getting lost in the shuffle and not advancing properly (at their own speed) and losing interest. I have seen this happen in both my current troop and the troop that my older son belonged to before we moved.

 

Thanks again for all your feedback!

 

Bill

[local1400]

I always believed it made more sense to integrate new Scouts into already established patrols rather than create new ones. 11 year-olds leading 11-year olds? Doesn't seem to work very often. And you know, maybe an existing patrol has lost a member or two and new blood can beef them up. Your 14 y/o PL can be the effective Leader he was elected to be. I thought I learned in JLT during Ronald Reagans first term as Prez that patrols should have no more then Eight boys in them. I do however have a 12y/o PL who is more mature and responsible than some 15y/o's.Just his upbringing and dedication to Scouting I guess. Splitting them into age groups in my opinion doesn't create a Troop bond- yes, patrol method but patrols are just small components of the TROOP. It's not like they are close friends and won't be able to be friends in different patrols. They just forge a bond with other Scouts.

[Stosh]

We do it all wrong.

 

The new boys coming in are grouped into units of 6 and are assigned a patrol leader and assistant patrol leader from qualified older boys. This guarantees them 2 advocates along with Troop Guide so that they can become oriented to the new troop while still retaining their identity coming in with their friends from Webelos. If the Webelos den had a "patrol" name instead of a den numeral, that is also retained. The den flag, if there was one, is also modified to reflect their transition into Boy Scouts.

 

It is expected that each patrol do the program for the evening when assigned. The new patrols would be hopelessly lost if they were to be put into this position. The older patrol leaders buffer the boys while giving instruction on how the Troop is run rather than just running them into the program and expecting them to figure it out on their own.

[OldGreyEagle]

As I understand it, Boys come together to form Patrols, Patrols come together to form Troops, Troops come together to form Districts, Districts come together to form Areas come together to form Regions and the 4 regions come together to form National, the smallest basic unit is the Patrol. B-P recognized that boys liked to hand out in clusters of 6-10 and assigned the name Patrol to this group. It is the basis of scouting. To say patrols are just components of a Troop is like saying the states are just part of the US

 

(See Kudu, I studied, well at least I think I did, I am sure you will point out any errors)