February = New Scout Patrol Discussion

[Twocubdad]

Interesting topic. Your idea, Barry, about mixing the first two years is especially interesting. I assume this is a rolling thing? After two years the third-year guys move up to regular patrols?

 

We use the NSP method pretty much right out of the book. Last year we had 12 new guys and stuck with one patrol, assuming we would have some attrition. We're finishing the year with 14 first year guys and split mid-year "A" and "B" NSP patrols. We're getting 12 Webelos again this year so we're forming two new patrols. Of course that automatically means we'll loose 5 and end up combining patrols half way through.....

 

The one twist we have in the program is that we don't run separate troop meeting programs for the new guys. We're really never had the bench strength to pull that off. March is always basic Scout skills month and the focus of the whole troop is getting the new guys ready for their first campout. We generally get some grumblings from the older guys, but most can clearly use a refresher on most of the skills. This March we're going to try assigning three or four new guys to the regular patrols for instruction time and inter-patrol competition. Of course the older guys will be responsible for helping the new guys learn the skills and then their performance in the ensuing activities will depend, in part, on how well the new guys do. Hopefully, by having some skin in the game, the older guys will feel a little more connected.

 

For the rest of the year, we do regular troop meeting with all the patrols, NSP included. The first-year specific skills are taught during patrol time, on campouts and during occasional patrol activities like hikes, orienteering trips and the like. We may re think this a bit for this year. Over the past six months we've tried to step up the level of our general troop instructions. We also now have more older Scouts and adults who could run a separate NSP instruction time.

 

The key to a good NSP program is good troop guides. They have to be interested in working with the younger Scouts and, clearly, not everyone is. I've got two good guides now, one finishing his second year in the troop and the other his third. They took over mid year this year after last year's guides tanked. They did a good job stepping into the positions and want to take this year's group from the beginning.

[Stosh]

In an adult-led program, mixing and matching of patrols may be the traditional course of action, but when it's boy-led and they are making the decisions as to patrol membership, that is not possible. The mixing of anything by an adult basically destroys any patrol unity that has been developed and shifts the group dynamics in way that adversely affects the leadership of the group. For example, two NSP's merging into one. Half the boys had been working diligently on the commradarie of their patrol and now mixed together with boys that the day before they had been competing against. It would be an us and them issue for some time. There would be those that have and those that don't have rank. A new pecking order would develop and the newer boys would be relegated from equal status to second class. Leadership development would cease until the second year when they would arbitrarily be mixed in with the new boys and they could "run the show" as it has been described.

 

Nope, don't see it as a viable option and neither do my boys.

 

THEY have decided it would be best to "groom" a new scout through the recruiting process to get ready to join THEIR patrol. THEY would select the boy, THEY would determine how well he would fit into THEIR program in the patrol. If it's a good match, according to THEM, then the new scout would select THEIR patrol when he crossed over into scouting. The beauty of the process is that the boys can never find resentment with the adults as to who they get "stuck" with in their patrol. When they control the process then they live with the results of their decisions.

 

I didn't see much of the new boys being all that worried about the older boy leadership in a patrol that they selected to join. There is a bit of a gap in the NSP as the TG gets them organized and they prepare to determine/select their leadership. At the guidance of the TG this process is not rushed, but it's the TG's responsibility to make sure the boys don't attach themselves to him as their leader, but determine leadership amonst themselves. Like adult leadership, the TG accepts the responsibility to support and assist the NSP, but not lead it.

 

To assume that boys under 14 should not be "burdened" with leadership responsibilities because they will "burn out" is not an option in a program that is supposed to be teaching leadership. The overwhelming stress of leadership that is often dumped on boys is usually a directive from the adults to do a task that overwhelms them. This occurs when the boy is not leading but merely doing what they are told by adults (You're the SPL now and you run the troop!). The structure the boys use in the troop I'm involved with, first assumes that the responsibility of any job only involves a small group of scout and they determine the processes, not something an adult tells them. The SPL does not run the troop, he facilitates the PLC and the PL's run the patrols. No one burns out because they are overwhelmed or need 3 years of maturity before they can start learning leadership. They get leadership of some form of training from day one and this continues until they turn 18 years of age.

 

The new boys learn from the beginning that they do not lead by directive, but by group consensus, and that group will remain together for as long as they want it to. If there are adjustments to the group, or any merging going on it is at the consensus of the groups, not some arbitrary theory of an adult who think they may have a better way of doing things than the boys themselves.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

>>In an adult-led program, mixing and matching of patrols may be the traditional course of action, but when it's boy-led and they are making the decisions as to patrol membership, that is not possible.

[Kudu]

jblake47 worte:

 

"In an adult-led program, mixing and matching of patrols may be the traditional course of action, but when it's boy-led and they are making the decisions as to patrol membership, that is not possible."

 

Eagledad responds:

 

"You make this up as you go along so you can justify how you direct your scouts, don't you?.

 

"Its a pride thing isn't it.

 

"Can I make a guess here, you weren't a boy scout as a youth, were you?"

 

Wow! Not one but THREE perfectly executed ad hominem attacks!

 

As in Wiki:

 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

 

I would think that should appeal to the logical nature of engineers.

 

Besides being illogical, personal attacks are ALWAYS a projection of what we secretly fear about ourselves:

 

I used to teach my scouts that your true character is how you would act when nobody is looking. I like to monitor scouting forums because scouting is my passion. But I also glance at other forums for various reasons and it seems like there is a trend that folks are getting down right rude and obnoxious. I even see more of it here on this forum where I think folks behavior would be at a higher standard.

 

It got me wondering that maybe we are seeing the character of people of when they feel nobody is looking? Are folks starting to think it is OK to see the worst of them because we cant see their face? I use to really enjoy the new computer technology because it allowed us to spread information faster and farther. But now Im not so sure it is worth the baggage it brings with it.

 

I have always dreamed that maybe someday I would be invited to a reunion of sorts for the Scouters of Scouters.com. And I would hope that folks would look forward to meeting me as much as I would certainly look forward to meeting you. But are their some folks who would rather I just skip the reunion because I exposed some character that I wouldnt have done in person. I sure hope not.

[Buffalo Skipper]

Great discussion, but I feel my earlier question went unanswered, so let me re-spin it, based on what everyone contributed in the last 10 or so posts.

 

I really don't want to muck with patrols and mix and merge. One of the patrols right now is about 3 with a strong PL; the other has 3-4 with poor leadership and skills. With about 8 expected crossovers, we can either form a NSP and merge the other patrols, OR we can have the patrols and new scouts work to divide themselves. Either way, once the decision is made, it becomes an "as is" arrangment until next year. Am I missing any options here?

 

My "fear" is that mixing crossovers in to the "misfit" patrol will spoil that bunch of apples. And don't misinterpret my intents: I want to see a way to make the scouts work this out. And I know sometimes scouts need to make mistakes from which they can learn; I am just unwilling to let the scouts make the kind of decision (mistake) which will result in unwanted attrition.

 

Again, this all got brough up to the PLC (senior scouts) a couple of months ago, and they suggested that we merge the patrol and create "true" NSP for the first time. Last year, we allowed the new scouts to mix with the slightly older scouts and form new patrols. One worked, while the other did not. We (the adult leaders and the senior scouts) want to have better results this time.

[Stosh]

Buffalo,

 

I guess my first question for the boys would be: "What do you want to do?" I would address that first to the 8 Webelos crossovers. Do they want a NSP? Do they feel they would be better served by splitting up an joining in with the older boys? Once that issue is addressed then there may or may not be anything more to decide. If the 8 boys wish to form their own NSP, then I would suggest, and yes, it's only a suggestion to the boys, that they might want to consider having an older boy as a TG to help them get started. If they think that would be ok, then they need to interview the older boys to figure out who they would like to have as a TG. Once they have established that, the TG can assist them in organizing their patrol into it's leadership structure. I like the old method of everyone has a job: PL, ASPL, Grubmaster, Quartermaster, Instructor, etc. But maybe just start with the PL and let a couple of the boys try out the position while the TG actually leads until they settle on a PL. Other leadership can be encouraged after the patrol starts to gel together and they begin to understand the dynamics of the patrol method.

 

If on the other hand the boys coming in feel they would rather join up with the older boys, then they need to figure out how they are going to distribute themselves. Keep it in mind once they figure out that the strong PL patrol is the prime choice, it's going to be rough on the new Webelos to get "stuck" with the leaderless patrol. But when all is said and done, it is the boy's choice.

 

I'm thinking that the 8 boys may wish to stick together and have their own patrol.

 

As far as longevity is concerned, the dynamics can change as the boys determine it. They might last a month before they realize that this was a dumb idea and then they can change to something else. They may, for example, mix and then decide it would be better to have stayed together. They can make that call as they see fit. After all, each time they make choices, fail and rechoose, they are developing observation, leadership and decisiveness skills. This should be encouraged. After all the introduction of 8 new boys into the troop is by nature a disruption to the existing program, why would anyone think it's going to go smoothly the first couple of months?

 

Who knows, maybe the NSP coming in and showing strong leadership and teamwork, may inspire the leadlerless patrol to work it out for themselves. My boys have decided that patrols less than 6 would be counter productive to the program and would have taken the strongly led patrol and united themselves with the leadersless patrol. That way the influence of the stronger boys would be directly applied to the other boys. If this does not happen, eventually the "bad apples" patrol is going to kinda get left hanging in the wind while the others progress and prosper.

 

I for one would find it quite interesting to know why a unit would have had 2-4 man patrols rather than just a single patrol. It kinda seems like there's something going on that is promoting POR's with no functionality, i.e. PL and SPL and one patrol? Who's really running the patrol?

 

When all is said and done, the SM and SPL need to constantly remind themselves that until the boys take ownership of their patrol and know they are okay in determining it's success and/or failure, they are going to just sit around and wait for someone else to take the reins of leadership and they'll just follow along, probably not a good lesson in leadership to start out their experience in a boy-led program.

 

Stosh

 

>>>> I wasn't going to waste my time responding to this, but I've got some time to waste so I will. 8^D

 

You make this up as you go along so you can justify how you direct your scouts, don't you?.

 

>>> No, my boys make this up as they go along. As a matter of fact more often than not, my boys are angry at me when I don't make suggestions and expect them to creatively problem solve, make a decision and then live with it.

 

Its a pride thing isn't it.

 

>>> Yes, and my boys esprit-de-corps and morale is at an all-time high. They have accomplished some things that I would have expected from boys 1-2 years older than them. The friendly rivalry between patrols is now beginning to develop into some competition between patrols, especially in terms of recruiting for the new Webelos scouts preparing to cross over next month.

 

Yes I guess we all wrestle with the devil now and then.

 

>>> As a former pastor, I can assure you that we all do that most of the time.

 

Can I make a guess here, you weren't a boy scout as a youth, were you?

 

>>> You can guess all you wish, but you're going to need a second guess. I was in both Cub and Boy Scouting. Sorry for the disappointment. I was also Civil Air Patrol, and numerous extra-curricula programs throughout school, especially in the area of music. My youth work credentials include many years of working with church youth groups, BSA in which I have the fancy schmancy knots for work in the Cub Scout, Boy Scout and Venturing programs. Old guy WB... I have been credited with starting from scratch 43 different Explorer Posts and 1 Venturing Crew of which I have been the Advisor for for about 10 years. I have also had multiple years of working with under-priviledge youth as well as at-risk youth. Basically I have had about 40 years of working with youth. If that's an ego thingy, then I'm guilty. If it's a matter of pride, then from the results of many of my youth and how they turned their lives around, then I'm guilty of that too.

 

Oh, and my latest? Adult leader for 2010 Jamboree. Somebody likes what I'm doing, and I've always assumed that I can't please everyone, but I'm going to focus on those that come to me for help.

 

Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[SMT224]

It's interesting to sit back in the old rocking chair and watch the way things evolve. Movement between Patrols is earned by rank advancement in our Troop. For some Scouts this is a big deal, and they advance as fast as they can because they want to join the "big guys".

Good? Bad? It seems to work, but only about 3 years into it now, so hard to tell if it's sustainable. Nevertheless has been accepted into the Troop culture as the way to do things.

Another quality product from Green Bar Innovations.

[Mafaking]

 

The new scout patrol is designed to support obtaining the first class Rank. The quoted text states this. As with most things in life there is a trade off. You want a bigger yard, you need to move further into the country. You want to live next to the good school, you will need to pay more money. Give and take!

 

Does the New scout patrol method, with separate but equal type meeting plans detract from the units individual patrol strength? Is this the give and take of the New Scout patrol?

 

The traditional role of the patrol leader is to teach and help his scouts obtain rank. Now we use the new scout patrol method and one Troop guide. One scout to lead a bunch of highly charged 11 year olds that need to be focused and directed to meet the business like target of making first class. This is done away from the normal troop meeting.

 

The task of keeping a bunch of 11 year olds focused while inside a meeting hall on rank seems will no doubt overwhelm the 13 year old Star scout Troop Guide. So the adults step in. The cub scout program is extended the adults are happy the parents are happy every body is happy. Right?

 

The PL are left to hang with their buds who all got rank the same way. The patrols sit around and wonder why meetings seem to have no meaning to them.

 

Give and take! Give them first class via the New Scout patrol system and take away a major component of the patrol system. Leadership which could have been brought out naturally in the PL as he taught a subject matter he was very familiar with "Scoutcraft" is gone.

 

 

 

[Stosh]

If the sole purpose of the NSP is to race everyone through T-2-1 rank advancement, it kinda makes one wonder about the scout that joins for reasons other than Eagle, like maybe hanging out with his friends and having fun.

 

I have always had a problem with the idea that personal advancement takes precident over leadership, teamwork, and commradarie. I guess I don't see the patrol method as a means of establishing a pecking order amongst the boys.

 

In the groups I have worked with over the years, friendships play a more important role in group dynamics than do political and/or business structures of who's in and whose out.

 

If the logic holds true, do the boys that either don't want to advance quickly and/or can't advance because of special needs end up in the NSP for 2-3 years?

 

Just wondering.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

Touche Kudu

 

Barry

[BrentAllen]

Is it advisable to have the boys of the Patrol all of the same age? It would seem that this might be the ideal condition, but experience proves otherwise, for often a Patrol so organized turns into an independent clique, with clique spirit instead of Patrol Spirit, and all members of such a Patrol are likely to graduate from Scouting at one time. Save in exceptional circumstances, the best Patrol consists of boys of varying ages. This make-up simplifies the job of the Patrol Leader and tends to insure the permanency of the Patrol. It also presents opportunities for the older Scouts to train and help the younger ones, at times at the cost of sacrificing some of their own wishes for the sake of the Patrol as a whole, a point which adds to the growth of the proper spirit.

 

Once a boy has qualified as a Scout and is admitted to a Patrol, he should be expected to remain a member of that Patrol until he severs his connection with the Troop or is promoted into Troop leadership, unless some compelling reason develops for a change. In a Troop in which boys are shuffled together at frequent intervals and dealt out into new Patrols according to the whim of the Scoutmaster, there obviously can be little opportunity for the development of Patrol spirit and Patrol traditions.

 

Green Bar Bill

[Stosh]

The mix and match of a SM designated patrol may be one issue, but what about the clique of boys that want to hang together? Should they not be allowed to? What does the SM have to do with it? Surely if there are boys that want a mixed-bag, they should be allowed to do it as well. What does the SM have to do with that, too?

 

If the boys are left to their own interests, desire, and focus they can do the patrol method far better than a SM interfering in the process. Leave them alone and let them figure out what works best for them.

 

The unit I serve have both and when the boys cross over this month each one of them will have the opportunity to decide if they wish to have a NSP or join up with an existing patrol. The best way to keep the boys in the program is to have a program that meets their needs and no one knows what those needs may be exept the boy himself. Scouting means opportunities and choices they make in determining what works best for their individual situation. What they commit to should be their choice, not some arbitrary decision (leadership) of the SM to meet what he/she considers is in the best interest of the boy. The sooner the reins of leadership is turned over to the boys, the quicker they will learn.

 

Stosh

[BrentAllen]

So, you think an 11 year old boy actually knows if he wants to be in a NSP versus an established patrol? He understands the differences between the two concepts and how they work? He actually has enough knowledge and experience to make that decision? That he has the ability to see the consequences of that decision? Pretty amazing for a boy who just crossed over into the program.

 

The SM provides the vision for the Troop, which includes the cooperation and competition between Patrols to reach that vision. A Patrol that is a clique is a problem. By definition, they only want to hang with each other and do what they want to do, as opposed to a Patrol that is a gang that also understands they have responsibilities and obligations to the Troop. They understand if it wasn't for the Troop, they wouldn't have a Patrol.

[Stosh]

"So, you think an 11 year old boy actually knows if he wants to be in a NSP versus an established patrol?"

 

>>> Maybe not, but he should get the opportunity offered to him anyway. When an adult takes options off the table for any scout, he/she is taking away leadership opportunities that challenge the youth in a way they may wish to go. Only the boy knows whether he's ready or not. If he is he shoudl be given the chance. This applies directly with a Webelos cross-over den that has been hanging together as buddies since Tiger. Now that they are in Scouts, the adults tell them they have to break up that group? Nope, not in my book.

 

Then there's the single Webelos cross-over that has no place to go? Maybe the commradarie of older boys might be what he needs/wants. Every boy gets the choice.

 

"He understands the differences between the two concepts and how they work?"

 

>>>> If he doesn't he should have the opportunity to learn. We all learn by the choices we make and no choice is forever. If he doesn't like his choice, he can freely change his mind at anytime.

 

"He actually has enough knowledge and experience to make that decision?"

 

>>>> Of course not, but to deprive him the opportunity is not Scouting in my book. Where does he get the knowledge and experience if never given the opportuity to learn?

 

"That he has the ability to see the consequences of that decision?"

 

>>>> This is what learning is all about. If he falls in his face, pick him up, dust him off, and send him out again. This is how boys learn. We will always learn more from our mistakes than our successes.

 

"Pretty amazing for a boy who just crossed over into the program."

 

>>> Yep, treating every boy as a young adult instead of just a kid is a challenge to his character development and leadership skills right from the git-go.

 

"The SM provides the vision for the Troop, which includes the cooperation and competition between Patrols to reach that vision."

 

>>>> Boy-led, patrol-method is the only vision my boys are interested in.

 

"A Patrol that is a clique is a problem."

 

>>>> Except BP said that a patrol is a "gang", and if one understands gang dynamics, this grouping and it's loyalty is a powerful tool in getting boys to work together and express their leadership options. Boys are going to clique together whether we as adults like it or not. Might as well work with the process rather than fight it.

 

"By definition, they only want to hang with each other and do what they want to do, as opposed to a Patrol that is a gang that also understands they have responsibilities and obligations to the Troop."

 

>>> Yep, and for those boys that wish to assist in the development of younger scouts, they are all challenged to accept a TOC position and drop out of their clique and work with the various patrols of the troop. This is why our TOC members are not patrol members. Remember not every boy wishes to do this, but all should be given the opportunity.

 

"They understand if it wasn't for the Troop, they wouldn't have a Patrol."

 

>>>> This argument holds true for units of membership greater than 8, then it doesn't and BSA forms units with as few as 5 boys. Once the unit gets greater than 8, two independent patrols are formed and one older, more mature boy is invited to step out of the patrol structure to assist in helping both patrols grow independently and to offer assistance in the occasions they wish to work together. This is how the PLC eventually evolves into the support group for the patrols.

 

What I call the troop-method constantly reenforces the idea that the patrols are of no real importance other than division of work. They are assigned tasks by the PLC to do as they are told. Once they realize they have all the responsibilty for fuction, but no authority, they will realize that leadership is not part of the process and will remain followers until they get old enough to dictate and rule. The pattern being taught in this process is not true leadership and in the long run will turn boys off. They get enough "do as you are told" at home, school and sports. They want leadership skills. Patrol-method allows them that opportunity in a safe, incubation type of setting which is small enough for even a novice leader trying out his wings.

 

Stosh

 

[Buffalo Skipper]

Slight asside, but not off topic. Our troop (PLC) is still considering options and will discuss the matter tonight, so I want to give them the best information available.

 

Assuming you do not use the NSP model, but place new scouts with existing patrols, what can be done to separate scouts from say a "misfit" patrol who cause more trouble together than if separate? My example is two friends (PL, APL) who just feed off each other. They are not "bad," just very "disruptive." As SM, I don't want to be micromanaging patrols, but we have had this arrangement for a year and it has gotten worse.

 

The PLC's option is to have a NSP. This results in the "necessity" to combine the 2 exisiting patrols (4 each right now), which leaves only one patrol for the new scouts to combine into.

 

I see plusses and minuses to each option, and I want to encourage the PLC to make a decision which will be the best benefit in the long term. Likewise, with a small but growing troop, how do you implement either system with increasing numbers without reorganizing patrols when membership requires additional patrols?