Can a Troop Be Too Big to Run the Patrol Method?

[Cubby's Cubmaster]

Our troop participated in Peterloon last month. (A bi-annual event since 1930 that brings 5000+ scouts from Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky.) Walking through the 5 sub-camps, I noticed some very large troops (80+ scouts).

 

Assuming a patrol has 8 boys, then a troop of 80 could have 10 patrols. 104 scouts would give 13 patrols. Meaning 13 dining flys, 13 chuck boxes, 2-3 troop trailers, etc. Using the 100 yard rule, we'd need 7 or so football fields to have a troop campout! I can see that using the Troop Method would make this easier as food is cooked in one central place and boys camp in tents with no particular patrol makeup. That is how it appeared at Peterloon. While I realize space was tight and this was a special situation, I wonder how those troops function on a regular campout.

 

My question to Scouters Forum is this...at what point does a troop become too big to run the Patrol Method effectively and using the Troop Method is inevitable?

 

Regards,

CC

[DancesWithSpreadsheets]

My first reaction is how could you operate a troop of 100+, or even 80+, without the patrol method? At that size you need some kind of hierarchy of leadership just to keep things from devolving into utter chaos. You might even need an intermediate level (a company, perhaps?) due to span of control issues.

 

Personally I think a troop that size is too big and should be split, but if you have the resources, including meeting space, volunteers, and equipment and want to make a go of it more power to you, but abandon the patrol method at you own peril.

 

Regards,

 

DWS

 

[Eagle92]

Scouting IS the patrol method. You don't use the patrol method, you don't have Boy Scouts.

 

On another note, I work with a Pack that use to be able to have 120+ folks on a camping trip. It took a dedicated cook crew to handle the cooking and cleaning, and they would only do 2 meals ( Sat Dinner and Sun Breakfast) b/c it was so much work.

 

Compared to the patrol cooking I did as a youth and saw a week later from a cub scout family campout, doing things by patrols IS easier.

[OldGreyEagle]

If you have a troop that is too big to run the Patol Method, then your Troop is too big period

[shortridge]

A few comments ...

 

- One way to reduce space needs: Backpack. Use lightweight, compact tarps for the dining flies, and ditch the trailers and chuck boxes.

 

- Putting 80 Scouts together in one location for meals on a regular campout - even just cooking and serving - creates a very large impact on one plot of ground at least four times over a 24-hour period. All those feet tramping around the picnic tables or campfire circles - not to mention the multiple blazing campfires or big propane tanks attached to those two-burner Coleman "camping" stoves - lining up to get their food dining-hall style is going to rapidly kill whatever grass may exist there.

 

- There's no rule that says troops have to camp out together, as a group. I would wager that these large troops split up regularly, taking just half or a third of their patrols out at one time - they'd certainly have enough adult leadership to do multiple treks on the same weekend. Three or five patrol campsites are much easier to locate than 10.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[John-in-KC]

What E92 and OGE said.

 

Split the troop.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, big/mega troops are an interestin' thing, eh?

 

Usually they come as a result of a key adult leader (SM) and a group of active parents. They can be very active, fun units with a lot of esprit de corps.

 

I think you're right, da tendency in such troops is to military-camp in one big group. Often the adults at least cook as a big group of 20+ people. But I expect if yeh had the time to look closer, Cubby, you would have seen some patrol action goin' on.

 

Big troops do tend to have more of an adult-run sorta presence, especially for the NSPs and some of the non-Venture regular patrols. Yeh just need a lot of adult horsepower to move all that gear and help da youth with the span-of-control issues.

 

So yah, probably more "troop method" than some, certainly tend to be a bit more adult directed, but on the other hand yeh get a lot of activity and parent enthusiasm, eh? Sorta like da youth hockey programs up here. Not da best scouting, IMO, but not the worst. Yeh do have to be alert for bullying issues in da bigger programs.

 

My personal preference is to start a new troop in an area that has a mega-troop or to spin one off. Not because mega-troops are necessarily a bad thing (just another flavor of scoutin'), but because when the key adult(s) in a mega-troop move on or retire, those troops tend to collapse in size relatively quickly. So yeh really don't want all your scouting eggs in an area in one basket, so to speak. It's particularly problematic if one "mega" troop is killing off smaller programs, since that can leave no alternatives when the big program hits a downturn. I've seen mega-troops go from 100 to zero in less than three years after da loss of the SM.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Stosh]

I concur a couple of issues but also disagree on others.

 

If the patrol method is being used, the troop cannot be "too big". When adults say the group is too big, it means that they cannot control the issues it faces and an adult led program will struggle.

 

However, if one looks at the dynamics of the patrol method, it's the only option.

 

Each patrol optimizes at 8 boys. Okay, that means that at any given time there are groups no bigger than 8 to deal with. Why would anyone want to combine them to make matters uncontrollable? Maybe adults may, but then one is trying to run troop method it makes sense and requires the troop to divide up. Of course a divided troop also means twice as many adults to run it, if that be the case.

 

100 boys?

 

8 patrols = 80 boys

 

SPL who has a "patrol" of 8 PL's to support.

 

ASPL who has a "patrol" of troop officers (too many troop officers? 2 ASPL's!

 

1) ASPL and Scribe, 2 QM (lots of equipment), Bugler, Historian, 3 DC's.

2) ASPL and WebMaster, Chaplain Aide, Librarian, 3-4 TG's

 

Just keep the numbers at

[Beavah]

Yah, it's a nice theory, jblake. But da world tends not to be too kind to nice theories .

 

At the core, troops really function based on Adult Association, eh? It's the adult leadership that ultimately determines the direction, size, and character of a troop. The lads are too transient. Even da best of youth leaders tends to give yeh a couple of years only. Enough to make an impact, but not enough to sustain a program.

 

Mega-troops tend to form around dynamic adults who like that sort of operation and are good at attractin' other adults to support it. But da nature of that is that those are not adults who have a deep understandin' of and commitment to Patrol Method in the "pure" form you envision. Let's face it, even with Kudu beatin' on all of us only a fraction of the dedicated scouters on these forums run that sort of thing, eh? But when you're talkin' the adult support for a large troop, you're talkin' a lot of plain old ordinary MC and ASM parents who've never heard of 300 feet.

 

Plus, I think what yeh also find is that even with da best of Patrol Method yeh need a higher level of Adult Association than what yeh propose. That was why B-P speculated the ideal troop was around 32 boys. Just the sort of mentoring conversations and parent de-helicoptering and occasional morale-boosting or nudging toward growth that an experienced scouter can pull off but da average PL can't... or at least not without some hands-on guidance. Once da troop gets big enough to be outside the SM's reasonable span of inspiration/control the strong Patrol Method tends to break down - either by becomin' more adult-directed or by not retaining boys.

 

Da mega-troops do, by and large, run separate high adventure trips for older boy "companies" if not patrols, and often some separate new scout "company" events. But if yeh just think about the number of adult drivers that typically entails, yeh can see how what tends to happen is that things get adult-driven (in more ways than one ) in a lotta ways. Interestingly enough, the patrols may well be fairly independent in da small things in their campsite because the adults aren't "dedicated" to da patrol in terms of knowing the boys well, which is why you can often find more bullying.

 

So by and large in da big troops yeh get patrols as administrative entities more than full-out Patrol Method like what you're talkin'.

 

Now before I get lynched by a bunch of big-troop scouters, let me say that all I'm reportin' on are generalities and trends, eh? Your local mileage may vary.

 

Cubby also raised da economics of all that gear. I'd say that most mega-troops don't maintain truly separate patrol gear for all their patrols. Beyond that, with size often comes fundraising prowess and more folks with trailer hitches, so da gear issue isn't usually a limiting factor.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

//My personal preference is to start a new troop in an area that has a mega-troop or to spin one off. Not because mega-troops are necessarily a bad thing (just another flavor of scoutin'), but because when the key adult(s) in a mega-troop move on or retire, those troops tend to collapse in size relatively quickly. So yeh really don't want all your scouting eggs in an area in one basket, so to speak. It's particularly problematic if one "mega" troop is killing off smaller programs, since that can leave no alternatives when the big program hits a downturn. I've seen mega-troops go from 100 to zero in less than three years after da loss of the SM.//

 

I don't disagree on anything beavah says here, he is right. but one other bit of information that needs to be included is the troop that splits off typically struggles and most fail. And the other troop grows back to the size before it split. We found splitting is a gamble with odds the not in our favor. Not saying it shouldn't be done because it is a logical solution, but experiance has me swayed to lean toward leaving mega troops alone and put my energy into the new leadership a few years later. I admire beavh trying the other side of the coin.

 

Also, I think folks get boy run and patrol method confused. That is a different discussion, but I was a SM of a very boy run troop that grew from 15 scouts to 95 scouts in seven years. There is no way a troop of 50 scouts or more can be boy run without the patrol method. Even then it is a huge challenge that I would not wish on anyone. I certianly would not strive to build such a program. We just had no choice.

 

Barry

[Stosh]

One of the big issues for the group dynamic issues of any troop is not necessarily the theory aspects.

 

Professional teachers optimize at about 20-25 students because that's about how many they can handle. These are professionally trained people.

 

Semi-trained volunteers can't conceivably do as well and thus adult led troops tend to be the 10-20 range so that everyone can handle that many boys at one time.

 

Sure, add to that the SPL who's immature and less leadership skills than most adults and they're going to be in over their head once the troop gets to be 3 patrols.

 

Adult association is vital to the program, but for guidance and support. If the goal of the boys is independence, the association with adults is to help them get to that point. The theoretical goal of good parenting is exactly the same. Adult association is not babysitting these boys until they are 18. At least not in my book.

 

That means that the adults teach and suggest, and then get out of the way and let the boys lead, but lead a group size they are capable of handling, i.e. a patrol.

 

The group dynamics we are talking about here work very well for the military, for business, and for churches.

 

Every military squad (patrol) has a corporal (PL), the sergeants are in charge of a group of corporals, first sergeant runs the corps of sergeants (SPL) Lieutenant watches over the sergeants, the captains (company) watch over the lieutenants, then major (of the regiment) etc.

 

How big is the army before it's too big?

 

Business, has their departments, supervisors watch over them, over which the department heads, managers, etc. on up the ladder. The CFO doesn't know what Joe Schmoe is doing every day down in the accounting department.

 

Churches, different programs have different people watching over them, they in turn are supported by a committee, heads of committees sit on councils, etc.

 

No organization is ever effective if they are not broken down into smaller, manageable groups within it. To think a SM will be able to have an effective troop bigger than 15-20 members without a huge corps of other adults is simply fooling themselves. With an effective patrol method approach, that issue goes away.

 

Because of the structure, an army can never be too big, a business never be too big, a church never be too big, but change the structure and you're going to have to limit the troop because it just can't happen otherwise.

 

Stosh

 

 

[Cubby's Cubmaster]

Great comments!

 

So Beavah & Stosh (and others that want to chime in)...

 

Would a large troop be more effective using mixed patrols or patrols by school grade?

 

My thoughts are that patrols by school grade would be better as they are have similar interests, similar advancement path and are likely already friends. So when planning outings, it isn't practical to take the whole troop, but there could be a new scout patrol program, middle and older one. So the entire troop meets at a weekly troop program but they are on different outings. I could see such a troop have campouts 2 weekends a month. Thus they could use the same gear over and over and not have 13 chuck boxes, 2 trailers and over-use a campsite. When camping as an entire troop, likely the Troop Method would be used as there wouldn't be enough gear but the duty roster would have patrols rotating through the troop kitchen taking on duties of cooks, clean-up, water, etc. Seems doable and allowing for the Patrol Method to be the primary method.

 

Regards,

CC

[Eagledad]

//Would a large troop be more effective using mixed patrols or patrols by school grade? //

 

For a large troop, same age patrols equate to a basically adult run program. Mixed ages can go either adult or boy run, but optimal boy run programs require mixed age patrols. There are many discussions in the archives on boy run and adult run.

 

Barry

[John-in-KC]

Every military squad (patrol) has a corporal (PL), the sergeants are in charge of a group of corporals, first sergeant runs the corps of sergeants (SPL) Lieutenant watches over the sergeants, the captains (company) watch over the lieutenants, then major (of the regiment) etc.

 

Corporals and buck sergeants go to a month-long full-time leadership school before we entrust them with leading troops.

 

Lieutenants have had 8 semester hours military leadership psych (plus more ordinary psych from their universities) as part of the current ROTC curriculum. The Academies have ... rather more than that. They get more leadership psych as part of their entry courses before reporting to their first permanent duty station.

 

Captains get 6 semester hour equivalents of military leadership psych as part of their career courses. Further, they've had college + 4-6 years experience.

 

Majors at the Command and General Staff College get still more leadership psych, plus 10+ years experience.

 

In addition, there's PLENTY of ADULT-RUN method supervising them. A division CG has lot of discretion. Brigade commanders, less. Battalion commanders: They have some, but they brief their brigade commanders and CGs and get permission to play. Forgivness is is not better than permission.

 

Company/battery/troop commanders have relatively little discretion.

 

The comparison, on its face, is invalid. 11-17 year olds, working 1 night a week and 1 weekend a month, do not have, by orders of magnitude, the experience base even a corporal has.

[Stosh]

I guess I have to take the track the CC has suggested.

 

If the patrols are mixed, then every time something comes up that might be high adventure, i.e. limited by age, then the patrols would need to break up! If the patrol only does what the least level of boy is capable of doing, the older boys will get bored.

 

I'm thinking the boys should be allowed to select who they want to hang with, and if all the older boys want to hang together and do things, they aren't limited by age, rank, etc.

 

Yes it would be nice if the patrols interacted with one another, no reason why a venture patrol can't do something nice for the NSP, but the boys need to be making those kinds of decisions, not the adults.

 

Every effort should be made to homogenize the patrols, not the troop. One needs to homogenize the troop in an adult led program, but definitely not a patrol method troop.

 

If 8 buddies go into Tigers together they should by all means Eagle together if they wish and not have some arbitrary adult decision that breaks them up when they reach Boy Scout age. BP likened the patrol to a natural gang of boys, this means they have or will bond together to form a group on their own terms. To mix and match arbitrarily "for the sake" of the troop or to make the lives of the adults easier, encourages them to find other activities where they can hang out together.

 

If for some reason a venture level patrol decides to take on a newbie scout as some kind of mascot, younger brother or whatever, it should be a patrol decision, not an adult decision.

 

I have suggested as a standard for my troop, the boys can have a patrol of 6-8 boys. I don't care who runs it, how that person is selected, but I have no influence on who is in the patrol. That is left up to the boys themselves.

 

If the patrols were homogenized and it was decided by all the PL's to do a high adventure outing instead of summer camp some summer, then every patrol in the troop would potentially have to break up in order to get there. Otherwise the PL's of the venture patrols would simply decide and go in their entirety, end of discussion. No hassle, no adjusting, no accommodating, no adults getting in there and messing around with it. The incident that caused me to move out of an adult led program was one summer the boys went off to a camp far out of council. The three patrols were homogenized and when they hit the camp Sunday afternoon, the SM let all the older boys sign up and go off on the high adventure experience. That left NO leadership in the patrols and of course, the SM took over and ran the show for the rest of the week. Afterwards the trip was always referred to as the Scoutmaster's vacation with the boys tagging along.

 

To simplify the adult requirements, each of the patrols would have an "adviser" who would need to find a second chaperon for any activity that required it and be done with it. That way if there are 10 patrols, 10 advisers

and they could go in 10 different directions if they, and the emphasis is on they, decide to do so. I seriously find nothing wrong with each patrol going off and camping at a summer camp of their own choosing. What does that do to the dynamics of the troop? Nothing, except offer a troop that allows any and all experiences from which the boys can choose.

 

It only gets complicated when one stirs adults heavily into the mix. After working with kids for over 40 years now, after watching their social interaction, I will never be on board for homogenized patrols.

 

 

John KC: Maybe they don't have the experience of a corporal, but Scouting is the best way I know of to start the process. Maybe after 2-3 years of training, they can be at a level good enough to lead 7 other boys as PL. After all, we're here to teach leadership and what better way to do it than with the patrol method? I know the comparison isn't an exact fit because if a corporal makes a bad decision, someone might die. If a PL makes a bad decision, let's hope that doesn't happen. As you pointed out all those in the military are leadership trained. Yep, that's my goal for my boys too!

 

Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)