Patrol Draft / Moving Boys from NSP to Existing Patrols

[Horizon]

First, our current organization:

1 venture patrol

3 older scout patrols

2 younger scout patrols (New Scout Patrols after 13 months)

1 New scout patrol (recently bridged Webelos)

 

One of my older scout patrols has expressed interest in recruiting some of the younger scouts, so that the patrol might live on after some of them graduate high school. In essence, create a legacy patrol. I told them that I support the concept (that is how my old troop did it). However, I did not want to see them cherry pick a few boys, leaving some of the younger scout patrols weak. I also know that there are a few boys that would get left in a patrol of 1 if this was poorly managed.

 

I was considering getting together with the SPL and the patrol leaders to discuss how something like this might happen. It could be a draft, or a submitted list, or other such set-up. Patrol leaders could give me their choices, and I would respond with final patrol assignments. I could ignore it all and stick to the existing patrols, and let patrols simply age out into obscurity over time.

 

I appreciate any insight and input from the forum.

[MarkS]

I don't see a Legacy Patrol in my SM handbook.

 

Patrols are a vehicle for teaching leadership and teamwork. This is best achieved if the boys in the patrol are of similar age, capability and interest.

 

I see no reason to change the way patrols are organized if it does not facilitate their function. Even then, I would advise the PLC to achieve buy-in of the boys affected (the boys changing patrols, the boys in the patrol receiving members, and the boys in the patrol losing members) before making the changes.

 

It's their program, their decision. If you provide them with the appropriate guidance, they can make the final decision on patrol assignments instead of you.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Beavah]

Yah, Horizon, like many other old-timers, I'm on the opposite side of this from MarkS.

 

I think Scoutin' works a bit better when patrols are mixed-age, and the patrols have a long-term existence in da troop that outlives any individual group of boys. Older boys have real opportunities to lead lads who need leadership (not just pretend to lead peers while hangin' out). Middle boys get a chance to grow by helping with younger ones and feeling knowledgeable/important and developing their own leadership skills. Young boys get to see and learn from watching older ones, not just being told how in a class.

 

I expect there was a reason why BSA Scoutin' used mixed-age "legacy" patrols for 80 years, eh? I was a patrol setup that had demonstrated success over and over again.

 

I think what your boys are proposin' is great, and shows that they really have bought into the "servant leader" role in Scouting, and that they care enough about their patrol (Patrol Method Lives!!) that they want it to outlast their tenure. You are to be commended as an adult leader for growin' such a fine troop.

 

I think this is something that you discuss with your PL's. Share your concerns, but let 'em come up with ways to address them or choose to set the priorities differently. I think you'd really like da benefits to Patrol Method the "legacy" nature of patrols will bring your program.

 

My guess is once one patrol starts down this path, they're gonna pull your troop that way, or at least open things up. And then, before yeh know it, there might be more patrol pride, and patrol competitions, and gee... more of that Scoutin' magic.

 

Have at it!

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

I'm with Beavah on this one. The boys decide who's in their patrol, adults stay out of it. If the NSP get's cherry picked, so be it, but remember the legacy patrol members can also leave and form up their own patrols as well. Maybe the NSP members want to hang together and don't want to go into the legacy patrols. A lot of dynamics here that if left alone will resolve themselves. The only expecation in my troop is that patrols are no bigger than 8 members. If there's no room for your buddy, one can always leave the patrol to be with him. What happens when only 2 boys want to be in a patrol? They'll figure it out on the first campout when between the two of them they have to do all the work for their "patrol". They'll herd up for protection sooner or later.

 

Stosh

[Lisabob]

I tend to agree with Beavah but I think the advice so far has not addressed the issue of those couple of boys (whom we all have met) who are not very popular and who would not be "chosen" by any of the existing patrols.

 

There's "mildly problematic" kids who are maybe just a bit immature or socially awkward - that can be overcome - and then there are those few who are a serious pain and/or have emotional and behavioral issues, and NO ONE wants to be with them. We had a couple of boys in the latter category for a while and it really was a difficult problem. I'm not convinced we adults did everything we could to make things work either, but I do know it would have been really unfair to expect the boys to fix what we adults could not.

 

Honestly I don't know how you handle this if you are actually going to let the boys really choose for themselves and you also don't want to lose those tough cases from your program.

[Eagledad]

>>Honestly I don't know how you handle this if you are actually going to let the boys really choose for themselves and you also don't want to lose those tough cases from your program.

[Gold Winger]

Oddly I agree with the Beaver.

 

How can you teach anything if no one in the patrol has a clue about what is going on. You wind up with the standard, "What should we do?

"Dunno, what do you thin?" "Dunno . . ." patrol meetings.

[Eagle1982]

I think the older boys practice and hone their skills when they are leading and teaching younger scouts. As such, I think having mixed patrols makes sense. There are of course special circumstances, like when all the new scouts already are bonded together, but even then, they need to eventually learn to work with and under others.

[Stosh]

There are of course special circumstances, like when all the new scouts already are bonded together, but even then, they need to eventually learn to work with and under others.

 

?? I'm confused here, does this mean we are to break up the teamwork of the patrol and replace it with one guy rules all? Working "under" others does not strike me as a team approach, nor does it give any indication of a service style of leadership promoted by the servant leadership team approach of BSA.

 

Stosh

[MarkS]

I guess I'm in the minority on this one but it seems to me that if the condition exists in a Troop that a patrol with similarly skilled/aged boys is allowed to continually struggle without skills instruction from a more experienced scout from another patrol called a Troop Guide or perhaps Instructor or perhaps no title at all (just a good cook or knot-tyer), it's just as likely that the older boys in a mixed aged patrol will do all the work while the younger boys may or may not watch and never get a chance to figure something out for themselves or go hands on.

 

"What should we do?"

"Nothin, we're hungry and we don't want our burgers burnt." "You guys can fix the cold cereal for breakfast..."

 

On another note, Beavah said, "I think what your boys are proposin' is great, and shows that they really have bought into the "servant leader" role in Scouting, and that they care enough about their patrol (Patrol Method Lives!!) that they want it to outlast their tenure."

 

Hopefully, the boys being drafted would have bought into the "good citizenship" role in Scouting, and care enought about their current patrol (Patrol Method Lives!!), that they will want to stay in the current patrol and build it into something special. ;-)

 

Alas, I'm still in the minority but there truly are two sides to every story.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Eagledad]

>>Alas, I'm still in the minority but there truly are two sides to every story.

[MarkS]

Eagledad said, "My observations of patrol styles were reinforced when the scouts in same age patrols just didnt grow or mature nearly as fast as the mixed age patrols. When you think about, that makes sense because if a scout doesnt have example of where to set goals, they tend to just hang around and get bored. All humans need more experienced and mature role models to aspire to a higher goal. Scouts who dont have role models who are more mature and experience have nowhere to go. What typically happens is the adults take over and force growth usually through classroom type teaching. I include Troop Guides in that as well."

 

Doesn't that really indicate a training problem rather than a patrol make-up problem? Shouldn't the leaders in the troop be using the Leading/Teaching Edge principles from NYLT (Explaining, Demonstrating, Guiding, and Enabling)? If the youth leadership applies these principles correctly, does it really matter if it comes from a boy in the patrol vs. a TG or instructor assigned to the patrol until it starts to gel?

 

I went back and looked at Horizon's original post and got to thinking about it a little bit more. So one of three older boy patrols wants to have some younger scouts join it because the older boys are graduating high school (aging out). Are those older boys graduating (aging out) in June or next year? If this June, I'm not sure where that legacy patrol ends up being a mixed age patrol. How are the younger scout patrols performing now? Are they maturing or struggling? Are they struggling because of the make up of the patrol or for some other reason? What might that other reason be? I think we all agree that it's great for the boys to be coming up with ideas like this and that the PLC and boys should figure out the solution but I think any advise we provide as adult leaders would need to be based on the answers to these questions like these.

 

Starting with a mature team and adding pieces to it is certainly more efficient that building teams from scratch. They don't have to go through all those troublesome phases of team building. Aren't valuable lessons lost by being efficient in this case?(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Eagledad]

>> Doesn't that really indicate a training problem rather than a patrol make-up problem? Shouldn't the leaders in the troop be using the Leading/Teaching Edge principles from NYLT (Explaining, Demonstrating, Guiding, and Enabling)

[Horizon]

Thanks for all of the comments - to provide a bit more background:

 

The patrol that approached me is losing two of their 7, and wanted to replace to keep the patrol at the right size. They started talking to a couple of the boys in my more successful new scout patrol (13 months), and if they pulled those two out they would end up putting THAT patrol in a bad way. I asked them to hold off a bit while I thought about it. At PLC we discussed it more and I told them of my concerns and they understood. Another one of my older patrols joined the conversation and love the idea of bringing young scouts into THEIR group as well, to rebuild a patrol that has a great name and history as well.

 

All of the overtures have come from Scouts who WANT to train the younger Scouts. However, as I try to implement more of Patrol method, I can either go the Guide/Instructor route for training the younger Scouts, or instead put younger Scouts into mixed age patrols.

 

As to the performance of my younger scout patrols: 1 of them has done well, thanks to a couple of great natural leaders. That patrol also benefitted from having two dads around who understand Scouting, and gave their sons pointers. The 2nd one has done OK at best. My true New Scout Patrol was started with two older Scouts assigned as Patrol leaders. They came out of camporee doing well, and are on their way to rank advancement.

 

I am still thinking about the mechanics of how patrol recruiting might work, to ensure quality patrols and to keep certain scouts from ending up on the sidelines.

[Beavah]

I am still thinking about the mechanics of how patrol recruiting might work, to ensure quality patrols and to keep certain scouts from ending up on the sidelines.

 

Yah, don't think too much about it, eh?

 

Just set da goals and expectations and let your kids work it out. Sounds like they really have it together.

 

I figure the rules should be simple:

 

* No child left out, no feeling of "last one picked," and a "good fit" for each patrol (friends and personalities and such).

* A reasonable effort to make sure each patrol is "viable" - has enough guys who participate regularly, and has enough range of experience to have both growing leaders and younger guys for 'em to lead.

 

Your top "natural leaders", if yeh set the example, will take on your "hard case" boys as a personal project and challenge.

 

Some years back, I remember talkin' to a PL at a summer camp while he was down leading one of his (younger) patrol members to the health lodge for meds. The younger scout was clearly Aspergers/Autistic spectrum. Given how the older boy cared for the younger, I thought they might be brothers, but I was wrong. "Yeah, I've got to watch out for Pete sometimes. But it's cool. And he's really funny. Plus, he's a super-strong hiker." I thought he was a TG who had been assigned to help the boy, but he said that he was the boy's PL. There hadn't been an assignment, he wanted Pete in his patrol, because he thought he'd be the best PL to work with him.

 

That young PL didn't see a problem kid. He saw a fellow scout and a leadership challenge he was up to.

 

I reckon dat's the kind of Scouting stuff we all love, eh?

 

Beavah