New Scout Patrol or Patrols?

[LongHaul]

      What I need here is for some one, actually everyone to explain what the Patrol Method is and how to implement it. As I see it;

 Assigning a boy to a patrol is telling him who is friends will be, who he is to bond with. 

Assigning the PL and APL to a group of new scouts tells them straight up that A.) they are incapable of being a real patrol and B.) all that talk of a boy run program was in fact just talk.

Putting a new scout into a functioning patrol immediately is the same as taking a new recruit and sending him into combat as part of an existing squad. What happened to basic training?

Why do we need or what is the function of Instructors if each patrol trains its own? Not everyone is a teacher.

LongHaul

[Eagledad]

>>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?

[OldGreyEagle]

I always thought the role of the Troop Guide was to, ahem, guide the new scout patrol's first, second, third, etc patrol leader and help the patrol with the administrative duties of being a patrol, IE select a cheer, make a flag, etc

[Beavah]

What I need here is for some one, actually everyone to explain what the Patrol Method is and how to implement it.

 

Yah, I hear you. What you see out there in different troops is about 6 major variations on New Scout Patrol/FCFY and a dozen permutations - as you see in various people's postings. Even the system a couple o' people have described of rotating New Scout PL every month exists nowhere in the official literature. Quite the opposite - "Members of a new-Scout patrol choose their patrol leader...just like any patrol." (BSHB #33105 p. 18).

 

So all I can give yeh is the best ways (plural) I've seen. One of which is the old, long-standing BSA way of new boys joinin' existing patrols that are "permanent". IMO, they never should have switched to NSP/FCFY, they just should have done somethin' like what EagleDad suggests and provided some guidance on supportin' new boys within patrols.

 

Assigning a boy to a patrol is telling him who is friends will be, who he is to bond with.

 

Nah. If a boy comes in with a couple of friends, put 'em in a patrol together. Putting boys in a patrol gives them a smaller community where they can make new friends, and bond with people, though, sure. No more traumatic to a kid than gettin' assigned to a homeroom in school. Lots better, actually, because a good PLC will try for a "good match."

 

Assigning the PL and APL to a group of new scouts tells them straight up that A.) they are incapable of being a real patrol and B.) all that talk of a boy run program was in fact just talk.

 

Yah, same for assigning 'em an adult ASM-NS and a Troop Guide, eh? No other patrol has 'em. Fact is, we all recognize 11 year olds aren't yet ready to lead or camp on their own. Put 'em with a real patrol, and they get to see boy run in action, for real... and get to see themselves some day being "cool, like their PL".

 

Putting a new scout into a functioning patrol immediately is the same as taking a new recruit and sending him into combat as part of an existing squad. What happened to basic training?

 

Yah, can't buy the military analogy here. To do Basic Trainin' that way, you need a Drill Sergeant - an older, more experienced enlisted man who tells you exactly what to do.

 

Think of it more like a new freshman joining a sports team or an extracurricular like the school newspaper. There are older, more experienced seniors who are leaders and team captains and editors. There are some sophomores and juniors who are first or second string players and solid beat reporters. You're the newbie, not yet ready to be team captain or editor, but still a full-fledged member of the team, or ready to pick up basic tasks and assignments for the newspaper.

 

Why do we need or what is the function of Instructors if each patrol trains its own? Not everyone is a teacher.

 

Yeh mean your patrols don't have/do their own instruction?? Good gracious, why in the world not? We're not school, we don't need many teachers. Just teammates showin' new guys the ropes.

 

Beavah

[ASM915]

What is the plausibility of assigning a scout (who is interesred)as a Den Chief to the Webelos I or II den, then have him be either the appointed PL (if that is how your troop functions) or as the Troop Guide for his Web's NSP? If he's the PL, make it for 6 months and rotate the newbies thru the APL position. Then at the 6 month mark, become the Guide and let the newbies start rotating into the PL position. This gives the newbies a scout leading them that they know and trust OR is this to much exposure to the same scout?

By the time the newbies are FC and around 13-14, maybe you can continue the cycle by having them be Den Chiefs for the Web. I or even Bears. 1-2 years assisting the Pack as DC and 6 months as the PL would make them about 16, a good age for Guide as stated in a earlier post. Just a thought. lso, what ever happened to training (competencying) the older boys in the troops like in my ancient times? I thought it helped us be better teachers.

[LongHaul]

>>Lets also remind ourselves that the BSA still looses most of its scouts during that same time period. Why? Because the shift of going from the security of to the unknown world boys taking responsibility for themselves is a dramatic shock and scares the devil out of these boys. Turns out it doesnt really matter whether you are in a Patrol of friends or in a Patrol of strangers, becoming self-dependent is scary.<<

 If the poster meant to say from the security of an Adult run program or something to that effect, then these boys must be coming from a Cub Scout Pack. If the boys are scared or there is a culture shock upon crossing over then the Webelos to Scout Transition program was a failure. Most likely it was implemented too late to be effective. We dont wait until Christmas of a boys senior year to begin teaching him the things he will need to be successful in his first year in college why wait till September of the Webelos II year to begin transition? A successful transition program ensures that the boys are ready for independence at the new scout level. They have camped with this troop and are secure in their safety. Being afraid of the dark is something totally different and can not be addressed by NSP / FCFY / Vertical Patrols or anything other than inner growth.

 >>Assigning a boy to a patrol is telling him who is friends will be, who he is to bond with.

Nah. If a boy comes in with a couple of friends, put 'em in a patrol together. Putting boys in a patrol gives them a smaller community where they can make new friends, and bond with people, though, sure. No more traumatic to a kid than gettin' assigned to a homeroom in school. Lots better, actually, because a good PLC will try for a "good match." <<

What happens with the Webelos Den of 7 that has been together for the last 4 years? The PLC decides who your patrol mates will be and that is how we teach boys to form bonds and patrol identities? Next year we reshuffle according to the number of new scouts?

>>Assigning the PL and APL to a group of new scouts tells them straight up that A.) they are incapable of being a real patrol and B.) all that talk of a boy run program was in fact just talk.

Yah, same for assigning 'em an adult ASM-NS and a Troop Guide, eh? No other patrol has 'em. Fact is, we all recognize 11 year olds aren't yet ready to lead or camp on their own. Put 'em with a real patrol, and they get to see boy run in action, for real... and get to see themselves some day being "cool, like their PL".<<

The NSP doesnt have an ASM assigned to them the TG does, NSP dont camp as patrol without the rest of the troop so they are never on their own Seeing boy run in action is always better as a spectator than as a participant? Why cant they aspire to be as cool as their TG?

 >>Putting a new scout into a functioning patrol immediately is the same as taking a new recruit and sending him into combat as part of an existing squad. What happened to basic training?

 Yah, can't buy the military analogy here. To do Basic Trainin' that way, you need a Drill Sergeant - an older, more experienced enlisted man who tells you exactly what to do.<<

Think of it this way, does every patrol with a New Scout go into slow motion? Explain each step and skill as it is being done? Does the PL explain what he is doing and why for every move? Does each patrol member explain each task, its importance and the proper way of doing it? Instead of a Drill Sergeant you have a TG that works with the new scouts so that they understand all the jobs of the patrol. They are taught how to do things step by step as equals with their patrol not as the new kid that is trying to keep up.

>>Why do we need or what is the function of Instructors if each patrol trains its own? Not everyone is a teacher.

Yeh mean your patrols don't have/do their own instruction?? Good gracious, why in the world not? We're not school, we don't need many teachers. Just teammates showin' new guys the ropes.<<

 Instructors give the first exposure to a skill so that instruction is uniform. If every patrol did its own version of instruction the skills will become as variant as language. The patrol members working with each other to hone skills to the level that a scout feels ready to be tested is not the same as teaching the skill from the start. Home schooling is great if those doing the teaching are capable of doing it. Everyone was home schooled at one time, society developed the centralized education concept for a reason.

LongHaul

[Beavah]

Yah, good discussion LongHaul, thanks.

 

A successful transition program ensures that the boys are ready for independence at the new scout level. They have camped with this troop and are secure in their safety.

 

I can't really speak for EagleDad. I think that a transition program can help, sure, but successes there in terms of scheduling and such are fairly rare, even with "feeder pack" relationships. Tough to do, never seen it work that well in most districts. With a good transition program, I think first year in Boy Scouts is still pretty scary. You're movin' very quickly from being reliant on adults to bein' reliant on older kids and yourself, and yeh still don't know the players very well compared to the adults you've been with for many years.

 

What happens with the Webelos Den of 7 that has been together for the last 4 years? The PLC decides who your patrol mates will be and that is how we teach boys to form bonds and patrol identities? Next year we reshuffle according to the number of new scouts?

 

Lots of ways to handle it. Mostly boys (& parents) request who they want to be with, or in some cases who they don't. Within dens of 7 or 8, there are always smaller groups of tighter friends. And your old den-mates are still there on the campout, eh? Friendships also change with time. Your best friends in 5th grade aren't always your best friends in 6th.

 

The NSP doesnt have an ASM assigned to them the TG does

 

So a NSP has both, eh? Unlike the other patrols.

 

NSP dont camp as patrol without the rest of the troop so they are never on their own

 

Good gracious, why not? This again seems like it's a "not like other patrols" feature.

 

Seeing boy run in action is always better as a spectator than as a participant?

 

Huh? No spectatin' in vertical patrols. I think the notion is more like "it's best to participate in boy-run at the level you're ready for, and watch older boys model the other parts of boy run that you'll move into as you learn and grow." New scouts are full participating members of their patrol, and they often "tip the balance" in patrol competitions and become the heroes - but only if you have vertical patrols where competitions are fair.

 

Think of it this way, does every patrol with a New Scout go into slow motion? Explain each step and skill as it is being done? Does the PL explain what he is doing and why for every move? Does each patrol member explain each task, its importance and the proper way of doing it?

 

Should the first year of scouting be like school, where the NSP goes into "slow motion"? Do yeh have to move ...step... by... step... through explanations... and practice... to explain... each task... and it's importance... and the proper.... way of doing it?

 

Or should it be more fun and zany, where you're learning a lot of things just by participatin' and watchin' and osmosisin' and getting a little advice here and there from your older buddies?

 

Instructors give the first exposure to a skill so that instruction is uniform. If every patrol did its own version of instruction the skills will become as variant as language.

 

Why is non-uniform instruction such a big deal? Our older boys do know what they're doin', don't they? TLT does happen, right? I'm not sure uniformity is a worthwhile goal. This should be a game. Kids should be having fun learning and teachin'.

 

There's also the "instructor ratio". Do yeh suppose it's better to have one Instructor/TG presenting to 16 New Scouts (school class model), or do yeh suppose it's better havin' one APL showin' 3 or 4 boys how to do somethin'? Which allows for more coachin' and practice?

 

More grist for da mill, eh?

[Oak Tree]

I will say that we've used the New Scout Patrols with great success. I agree with Eagledad that the main concern is whether the boys feel safe in the patrol and troop, and being in a New Scout Patrol has visibly had that effect on our boys.

 

When my son started in the troop, there were a bunch of boys who were 14 or 15, and not many 12 year-olds. The older boys were not the best role models, and didn't really come across as very friendly to the new Scouts. Our boys didn't like several of them very much. I think it was a very good thing they weren't mixed initially, or we may have lost a bunch of them. At the six month point when the patrols were remixed, we considered whether we should mix the new boys in with the older ones, and a number of parents who had been active with the troop were strongly opposed to it, for understandable reasons. After a year, this issue was no longer a problem, and the younger boys had grown comfortable with the older ones.

 

I understand the argument for vertical patrols, and I have no objection to using it if it fits your situation. But for us, the New Scout Patrol has worked pretty much exactly as designed. (And we do let them camp as a patrol if they want.)

 

We do have a strong transition program, and a good relationship with our feeder pack. Our retention rate has been high, and in fact, we've more than made up for any dropouts with new recruits.

 

Oak Tree

[Beavah]

When my son started in the troop, there were a bunch of boys who were 14 or 15, and not many 12 year-olds. The older boys were not the best role models, and didn't really come across as very friendly to the new Scouts.

 

Yah, I think this is the single best argument for NSPs.

 

For a troop in transition, where there isn't (yet) a culture of older boys' leading and caring for younger guys, yeh don't really have a choice until you have time to change that culture. Probably by graduatin' the "old guard."

 

Can someone explain to me how in an average-sized troop you manage patrol competitions with horizontal patrols? Unless kids are really just tickin' off requirements and forgettin' 'em, aren't the older boys almost always goin' to shellac the young guys? I've seen dozens of horizontal patrol units, and never seen the same patrol spirit/patrol competitions as with da verticals. (Except where the troop is really big and has multiple patrols at different levels, and only competes within levels - or where most kids get out by HS, so there isn't much age spread).

[LongHaul]

I find that the biggest critics of NSP, FCFY and Transition are those that didnt like the concept when it was introduced. They never really tried to implement the idea and never promoted it among their peers. They tend not to fully understand the concepts and National does a lousy job of explaining these ideas after their initial introduction. There are no magic programs that work 100% 100% of the time. But the effectiveness of an idea in practice is dependant on the amount of effort that goes into implementation and the degree of belief that the idea will work. Look at any professional sport you can name and the different teams which are involved. They all use basically the same plays, its the ability to execute that makes the difference. The belief that they CAN execute the play. The determination to adapt when things go wrong and still focus on execution of the idea. Many things just dont work because we just dont try.

LongHaul

 

[Beavah]

I find that the biggest critics of NSP, FCFY and Transition are those that didnt like the concept when it was introduced. They never really tried to implement the idea and never promoted it among their peers.

 

Yah, there's some of those, fer sure. Still, it's not fair to discount their experiences or successes.

 

Da strongest advocate I know for not doing NSP is a troop with great leaders that tried to do NSP for at least 7 full years back in the 90s. They tried every interpretation/permutation they could think of. Since they switched to vertical/no NSP, they've never looked back. Da kids at the time of the switch thought it was much better, and the adults thought Patrol Method was much stronger after the change to the new (really "old") way. (Da second troop in the other thread got the vertical idea from this troop, after they too had their struggles with NSP).

 

 

[local1400]

Yah, Beavah, you got it right there, no? Separating the boys by age just doesn't build a troop dynamic! You may as well separate them by height, color, religious preference, hair styles, or better yet, financial class! The older kids just don't interact with the younger kids when split into patrols by age groups! Then who is teachin' who? If there is a patrol of older boys down to say 3 active members why on earth wouldn't you add some new boys to the patrol? If not, that patrol will fade away eventually. There are times when the troop acts as a whole and not as 4 or 5 separate units. It is wonderful to have this forum where we all agree to disagree, share our opinions, problems, and answers. I guess the best thing to do is do what has been working for your troop and the boys.

[Eagledad]

>>I find that the biggest critics of NSP, FCFY and Transition are those that didnt like the concept when it was introduced. They never really tried to implement the idea and never promoted it among their peers.

[Lisabob]

My son's troop uses NSPs and I haven't been around the program long enough to remember a time when that wasn't the case so I won't comment on the comparative advantages and disadvantages of a truly vertical patrol system. But let me add this about those new scouts. First, if a troop is "typical" then they will likely lose between 30-50% of the new scouts somewhere during the first year anyway, so being rigid about putting a bunch of new scouts together mainly so that they'll be with their buddies has some pitfalls. If their buddies leave and they haven't become integrated into the troop in other ways, will they be more likely to leave too?

 

And second, just because a den has been together since 1st grade or whenever doesn't guarantee that all those guys have been, or will continue to be, best buddies as they go into middle school. In some cases I've seen dynamics where I think it would have been better for all concerned if a den had been split up a little bit upon joining the troop. But we tend to assume otherwise because we don't know these guys or the pack or the webelos DLs as well as we ought to. And I don't know how your troops operate? But I have yet to see a SM sit down with a webelos DL and ask *their* opinion about the den's dynamics or each boy's needs. Webelos DLs represent a seriously under-utilized resource for troops in this regard.

[LongHaul]

Eagledad,

As a scout in the 60s our troop had about 40-50 boys divided into 5 regular patrols and a Senior Patrol consisting of the SPL, ASPL, Scribe, Treasurer, Quarter Master, and JASMs. We employed the vertical patrol method and it worked just fine. We lost very few scouts before they turned 14 and entered high school. New scouts were taught by who ever was handy at the time, and troop meeting instruction was done within patrols.

Our SPL ran the meeting entirely. My father was SM and he usually only said one word Joey and made the hand signal for circle around me. Our SPL, whos name was Joe, would call the troop to attention and the meeting would start. After the opening the adults would leave the room. At the end Joe or one of the Senior Patrol would knock on the door to the room the adults were in and my dad would come out and do a Scoutmasters minute or talk about something that was coming up.

The troop I served as SM for in the 70s was well established and I just picked up where the previous SM left off. Scouting died in our area very quickly, between 73 and 75 we lost about 95% of our units in our District, mine was one of them.

When I returned to Scouting in the late 80s we started a new troop and pack. I was Bear Den leader and moved up to Webelos Den Leader with my son. I was a MC to the troop also and as a new troop we only had a NSP. The troop was adult led and organized for the first several years. As each new group of Webelos crossed over our patrol reorganized because the original group were pressed into leadership roles. It took 3 years before we had 2 patrols not counting the Senior Patrol. The SM, ASM, and most of the MCs were scouts in the 60s and we were trying to reproduce what we had been used to as Scouts ourselves. The problem was that we had no existing experienced scouts to act as role models. Getting the boys to accept the responsibility and work of running the troop was difficult to say the least. The boys knew that if they didnt do it and adult would see that it got done because we didnt want to loose the troop. We grew to a troop of 28 boys. The Webelos crossed over in Feb/March and had been out with the troop at least three times beforehand. Most of the boys were from the same school and parish and knew each other. We used a NSP approach until September and then the boys grouped as they liked and new patrols were formed or existing patrols grew. I took over as SM in 95 and lost the original group of scouts to college. The younger boys were not willing to accept the leadership roles necessary and we struggled for 5 more years trying to get a functioning Senior Patrol. Nobody wanted to run for SPL and the adults were lost as to ideas for sparking them. They wanted the fun but not the work. An influx of Webelos at this time due to the folding of some other troops in our area not only flooded our youth ranks it flooded our TC. The parents were not trained and had no scouting back round and the Committee meetings disintegrated. The new boys were looking for a Webelos III type program and with the resistance of the older boys to accept responsibility things fell apart fast. The troop is only 8 boys now and the TC is even smaller. Thats my personal experience.

As a District trainer Ive visited most of the troops or had sit downs with the leaders and find that those that have existed since the 70s and 80s have a better patrol method in place than do those formed after 1990. Most of the newer troops are adult organized and claim to be boy led because a boy reads the plan an adult wrote. The NSP concept works well in established troops that have boys able and willing to lead. Vertical patrols work in newer troops because there is little patrol method to begin with. Adults do most of the skills instruction. My experience is that the older troops grow according to the amount of new scouts they can attract but the newer troops are stagnant in numbers. They get a bunch of new scouts in February but by the following January when we recharter their numbers have not changed just the names.

Lisabob,

>> First, if a troop is "typical" then they will likely lose between 30-50% of the new scouts somewhere during the first year anyway,