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

[Kahuna]

Beavah pretty much has stated my point of view. Having been part of a 65+ boy troop over a period of years, it really does come down to the adult leaders being able to deal with that kind of thing. It definitely doesn't mean the patrol method has to suffer at all. It does mean that training PLs is critical and having an SPL who can handle it. Of course, after a while the PLs and the SPLs don't know any other way of doing things. One advantage of a big troop is that you can have a dozen or so trained adult leaders. Again, the offset is there has to be an SM who can keep them from taking over program.

 

Unfortunately, a large troop almost presupposes a rather wealthy base. It also requires people who can handle money. Ours had an annual budget that equaled or exceeded some small companies.

[John-in-KC]

Stosh,

 

"to start the process."

 

That means vigilant overwatch ... not entry into their affairs, but certainly overwatch.

 

That does mean active mentoring ... but that's the SM and the SA's job, and should be done offstage 99.98% of the time.

 

It means youth should be able to, sooner or later (hopefully sooner) operate independently ... the old patrol hike/campout.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, jblake, if I remember correctly, yeh have a relatively small troop, eh? The dynamics of da big programs might be somethin' yeh haven't experienced yet.

 

Cubby, I think patrol structure is one of da most important things in scouting. What yeh choose depends a lot on your goals for the kids, and it's pretty independent of troop size.

 

Most kids on their own at the start of Boy Scouting only have experience with age based groups, eh? School, sports, cub scouts are all age based. That wasn't the case for "natural gangs" in BP's day, nor is it true for modern gangs. In real gangs, yeh have a mix of older, more experienced leaders, of lieutenants, of members, and of newly inducted. Yeh learn from da older fellows by word and example, and rise up da ranks in your gang to become a member, then lieutenant, then perhaps leader.

 

So jblake is right, eh? In da modern world, kids will initially stick to their same age group because that's all they've known. And Eagledad is right, the more natural gang and the way boys are wired is more mixed-age.

 

If yeh choose to keep same-age, then the NSPs are easier to teach as a "class". They and their parents are more comfortable because it's just like webelos, and yeh don't have to worry about "splitting up" a large incoming den. They can advance more or less as a group through FCFY. If yeh keep age-based after that, as jblake points out the lads who make it to high school in the program will be part of a same-age patrol that can pursue more advanced activities and "high adventure.". Typically by then they won't be in the same patrol as when they started, because yeh lose quite a few along the way and patrols "consolidate". But in a big troop, yeh can run a First Year Program, a Grade 7-8 program, and a High School Program as almost independent entities. For whatever reason, a lot of big troops tend to be set up this way. And, as yeh can imagine, that means quite a bit of adult support for the middle school aged lads (or, if not adult support, then older boys who sometimes feel like they are "babysitting" outside of their patrol). This structure also tends to lead toward filling PORs in da way Kudu hates, because the boys "need" a POR to advance (or the patrol "needs" a PL) at an age when they are not developmentally ready to lead. Lots of these troops can be quite successful. The parents are happy with da advancement, they've got a high school high adventure program backed by big-troop resources, yeh can get a lot of parent involvement in running outings, etc,

 

Mixed age just feels different, eh? A boy will stay in one patrol that is never "consolidated" for his whole scouting life. That may even be the same patrol his dad was in back in the day. Like Gyffindor . It's natural to have patrol competitions, because the mixed age patrols are fairly well matched, where a 7th grade patrol vs. An 8th grade or 9th grade patrol will typically get crushed. The older boys are da "natural" leaders in the patrol right when they need PORs. The middle lads naturally lead da younger ones by example, and it doesn't feel like babysitting. That young scout beating da young scout in another patrol in the knot tying game might well win it for the whole patrol, so it's worth it to cheer for and teach the younger guys. They are "us", not "them". The challenges naturally grow as the boys do, and yeh don't need an adult push for more guided "high adventure" activities for retention and challenge. And with a mix of ages and skills, yeh really can have all the patrols camp on their own at 300 feet or more away from yeh. In these troops the PLC /Leadership Corps is all older boys who are experienced scouts and leaders, so the PLC/Leadership Corps/Venture group becomes the locus for more advanced stuff not accessible to the younger fellows. It often can be a bit more youth-run than da typical guided-tour high adventure stuff, and it doesn't have to be high adventure. It can just as easily be service-focused.

 

But no matter what, da key is havin' adults who have the vision to understand the setup and make it work, eh? That matters a lot more than which yeh choose. Of the two, I think mixed age has a qualitatively different feel and is "deeper" scouting, but there's nuthin' wrong with the other way. Same age is less counter-cultural and therefore more intuitive for a lot of adults, and therefore easier for less experienced adults to implement.

 

Interestingly, yeh don't typically see as many mixed-age patrol mega troops, eh? That's mostly because I think da really big troops are more adult run, and the patrol-method adults don't tend to do that sort of push which is needed to become a really big troop. So from that, you'd say maybe a mega-troop should be same age in structure. Da mixed age, traditional patrol method troops seem to be happiest around BP's magic number of 32 - 45, though yeh can see da well established ones with stable leadership keep growin' to 60 or more.

 

Just random speculation based on many years of workin' with troops lots of places. Your local situation is always unique, and will vary in some or many ways!

 

Beavah

[Stosh]

Beavah,

 

Just because I run a small troop now, doesn't mean that it's always been that way.

 

As far a organizing youth and recruiting, back in the mid '70's I work putting together 42 Explorer posts that serviced over 1000+ youth of the community. I have worked with Cub Scout packs that dealt with 125+ cubbies. I have worked in and with scout troops of sizes ranging from 5 to 50+. I have worked with Venturing crews that have involved 25+ boys working together with up to 50 other adults at events involving thousands of reenactors. I have been senior advisor for church youth groups that have involved 70+ youth at gatherings, conventions, mission trips and activities. I have personally observed what works and what doesn't work.

 

People don't have to listen to me and if they so decide, I wish nothing but the best for whatever format they choose to use. However, if they don't have the magnitude of experience I have, maybe an ounce or two of suggested advice might trigger something for them that they can use.

 

By the way, the smallness of the troop I serve is by choice. I prefer the effectiveness of the one-on-one I can have with the boys verses the mega troops/groups where getting to know the boys has too often take second place. Can I do it? Sure. Do I want to? Maybe not.

 

Of the two troops in town I am SM of the smaller of the two. The other is maybe 3-4 times larger than us. They put out two Eagles last year and so did we. The difference between the two is not a judgment call of which is better or worse. It's just that considering the skills I have, I like the opportunity to offer high quality one-on-one to the boys I serve.

 

By the way, it wouldn't be a problem if my current troop grew to 80+ boys, I know how to organize them, train them, assist them in their leadership/character goals and I strongly believe the boy-led, patrol-method organization of the BSA is the best way to get them there. I don't believe it works, I know it works. Been there done that.

 

Your mileage may vary....

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

A scout's growth is only limited by the quality of people in his immediate environment. The scouts in same age patrols only have scouts with the same experience as their own. I found that scouts in same age patrols grow at half the speed of mixed age patrols. And worse, typically troops with same age patrols have a lot of adult interaction to force thegrowth, usally by instruction. They have to because the other scouts aren't near by. Especially for troops that separate the patrols by 100 ft. or more.

 

As for breaking up patrols for older scout adventures, we don't do that. Our adventure crews meet outside of troop and patrol activities and dissolve once the trek or adventure is over. I dont keep track now, but We probably average between 4to 6 temporary adventure crews a year while i was scoutmaster that have done everything from snow skiing to scuba in Mexico. And all ages are welcome provided the the scout is physically and mentally mature for the activity and there are no age restrictions like Philmont.

 

Barry

 

 

[gsdad]

My boyhood troop had about 80-90 active members spread over six patrols.. We were a boy run troop and used the patrol method quite effectively.

[Horizon]

I am Scoutmaster for a Troop of around 80 (and growing). I could not do it without Patrol Method and mixed age patrols. I CAN'T micromanage activities in each patrol site, there are too many of them. Instead, I depend on my SPL and the PLs (the PLC) to keep things going, and focus my mentoring on them.

 

One difference - the Patrols in my Troop are 10+ boys enrolled, since that results in closer to 8 on any given activity. I have one mega-Patrol at 15 or so, but none of them wants to leave or change so I leave them as they are. They have great Esprit de Corps, who am I to argue?

[Eagle92]

I like mixed aged patrols. It works, gives the PLs and older scouts in the patrol a chance to work with the younger guys. My troop expereimented with a NSP officially once, and realisticly twice. The official go at a NSP lasted about a year, wasn't effective, and was discontinued by the PLC.

 

We had a new troop that wanted to work with us to see how things should work and teach their scouts until they could go off on their own. They only had 8 scouts, and were their own patrol. Long story short, within 6 months their troop merged into ours, and we moved to their CO. Then the scouts were mixed up into the patrols.

 

Now we did have an older scout patrol, originaly called the Leadership Corps, then Venture Crew, and now Venture Patrol. They were older scouts who had expereince as PLs, and held troop level positions: instructor, QM, historian, etc. The ASPL was the de facto PL of this group,a nd they woud do their own activities on occasion.

[jhankins]

I was reminded the other day that B-P's vision for the patrol method meant that a troop would only be 32 boys.

 

B-P, in his ever present humor also said that: I realize other scout leaders will only be half as good as I am at running the patrol method, so most other people should have scout groups of no more than 1 boys.

 

Just some food for thought. It's caused me to analyze how we implement the patrol method a whole lot more.

[Stosh]

Maybe a definition of what people mean by a mixed patrol might be helpful.

 

A lot of discussion around mixed "aged" groups vs mixed groups.

 

Mixed aged group could mean all the boys 13-17 that qualify for high adventure, but to me it is not a mixed patrol.

 

For example: All the new scouts in one patrol (NSP). They might have a TG to help them get started, organized etc. They might have an Instructor or two to help them through T-FC, etc. But the patrol stays as is.

 

Okay some of the boys screw around and don't get FC but 2/3rds of them do. They can if they wish, take the 2-3 NSP's (a mega troop will have more than one NSP) and reform a patrol of like minded, same rank boys so they can now expand a bit and all work towards Star together. They're experienced so they could do a few patrol activities on their own, etc. If they decided it would be good to go to Camp X while the rest go off to Camp Y, so be it. I would think that if the 1/3rd of the non-FC boys were but just a handful of requirements away, there shouldn't be a rule to break them up. That would punish them unjustly.

 

The other option is for the older NSP boys reform a reorganized patrol which would focus on 2nd/1st Class requirements that they need to finish up. The new batch of Webelos II's come in and form their NSP's and start working on TF. Their levels of scouting are different even though they are both considered NSP's because they aren't yet to FC. Any patrol that doesn't want to break up will work extra hard to keep everyone on the same page and progress together as a team. If they aren't totally successful don't punish them by breaking up their team.

 

Now the older boys FC+ start deciding on their MB's as a patrol maybe, camp together, take some time to get their non-FC boys up to speed, if Philmont opens up, they can all go and the patrol stays together. They don't have to break apart for special occasions leaving some of their buddies behind. If anyone gets left behind it's their own personal decision. They all have equal opportunity to go. Maybe they fund-raise the cost of Philmont together as a patrol so some of the boys that might not be able to afford it can without being singled out or left out, make it to Philmont. They work as a team taking care of each other. If this patrol has a TF or two in it, that means by rules some can't go and won't be inspired to work with the rest of the patrol and team-work and esprit-de-corps takes a hit. Worse yet, the "older boys" get to do the fun stuff and the rest of us can't. Patrols need the bonding, teamwork, etc. dynamics to function properly. We spend all the time sending our boys to COPE to build teamwork and then keep shuffling the deck so they don't get a chance to practice it. At our council camp, individual boys sign up for COPE. Why aren't patrols signing up? That system doesn't make sense to me.

 

Okay, now the new "Star" patrol needs POR's. Okay, the first thing that occurs to me is PL, ASPL and 6 instructors a mega troop can have more than one instructor. They focus on creating lessons to go back and train the NSP's coming in or tutor the revised NSP boys get to FC. The skills are still fresh having just completed them. It's a great way to reinforce their just learned skills. The "Life" POR's Okay they can take on the QM, Scribe, etc. stuff and maybe offer back a few TG's to the NSP. Okay, they're all troop officers, but their are in their own "Leadership Corp" type of patrol anyway. No disruption to any other patrol going on here. The "Eagle" patrol... well they just hang out and have a ton of fun and become de facto ASM's filling in where ever they are needed. Does that mean that 14 year old Eagles are in the same patrol as 17 year old Eagles? Yep. Are they a mixed patrol, Nope.

 

Can you have a "mixed" patrol of Star/Life/Eagle? Sure, why not. They can still work MB's together, do Troop POR's, and it doesn't interfere in anyway with the patrol structure/method.

 

One can make the case for these being mixed aged patrols, but to me they are not mixed patrols. They have common friendships, common levels of expertise, common level of interests, common opportunities, etc. and if the "Eagle" patrol sets their patrol camp up 10' from the adults, so what. If they want to camp 500' away and hang out, so what. It's their choice.

 

I don't think these natural divisions amongst buddies would be considered mixed patrols, but they could be mixed "AGED" patrols.

 

Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh

 

[Eagledad]

Well you lost me Stosh, I'm a simple man, so maybe it's just me, but that is very confusing, analogy?, theory?

 

It does appear you like to group your scouts by rank and advancement and that's a big difference between our program styles. I don't measure a scouts growth by their rank all that much, but I can see how same age patrols would work better in that style of program.

 

I guess its all in the adults vision.

 

Barry

[Stosh]

I guess what I was getting at was aged based would imply that all 14 year-olds would be grouped together regardless of rank, interest, friendship, etc. I just don't see how that would work all that well. But if a group of boys all working on their Eagle projects together would be advantageous regardless if they were 14, 15, 16 or 17. At least they're all in the same boat together. However if the 14 year olds, all working on say Life rank all of a sudden had a bunch of 12 year olds that just got out of a NSP and some hadn't reached FC yet, it would drastically change the dynamics of the patrol. The arbitrary mixing by adults may cause a number of the boys to consider other options than BSA. I don't see how that "theory, analogy" is very confusing. It's basic group dynamics. If I'm tossed into a group of people I really don't want to be associated with for any reason, it'll be my motivation to aggregate to a different option. That's basically why my whole patrol, en mass, went into Civil Air Patrol when we turned about 14 or 15. We had been a den in Cubs, a patrol in Scouts, and when the SM wanted to change things around, it was out the door for all 6 of us. We stayed in CAP throughout the rest of high school. I don't know if any one of us made the suggestion, but we all decided together what our next step was going to be. It's pure speculation, but had we been left alone, we might have all Eagled together. By the way, we were all the same age, same interests, and been friends for a very long time.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

//The arbitrary mixing by adults//

 

Who said that?

 

Mixed age patrols do not equate to adult control, much less arbitrary. I'm sure there are some valid reasons for using same age patrols, but over controlling adults is not one. In fact the big problem with same aged patrols is they tend to require more adult interference than mixed age patrols because the patrols are less exposed to scouts with different experiences. The risk of over controlling adults is much greater in troops that use same age patrols, which is a common problem with new troops.

 

Barry

[Beavah]

Yah, I think one of da things that happens when we hear new ideas is that we imagine what would happen if our own program (which of course is successful ) were to suddenly make that change.

 

That kind of sudden change would feel "arbitrary" and we can easily imagine all da thing that would be bad about it.

 

It's quite a different thing to imagine what a program feature would feel like if it were fully in place, from da ground up so to speak.

 

Same age/rank/skill patrols have a very different feel than mixed age/rank/skill patrols, eh? Neither is arbitrary.

 

Same age-rank-skill tends to follow da school program thing, eh? Schools do pretty much what jblake describes - track kids by their current age, skill and ability, so that all the kids who are together can work on the same stuff. They can "work on Star together" as jblake says, and leave those fellows who didn't finish First Class yet behind. Jblake's program is a tracking program.

 

In order to make that work, yeh need somebody from outside the patrol to provide instruction, eh? Yeh need a teacher, whether adult or older scout. Yeh also need somebody from outside to "test". Usually an adult, but most importantly not the PL, eh? The PL is at the same rank as his fellows. Having a homogeneous group makes it much easier for a teacher to teach a class on somethin', and test everyone together. Kids and adults are used to this system, eh? It's very comfortable for 'em. Has the downside that the high-track kids can get a bit cliquish and snobby, or that the low-track fellows can become discouraged. Like an ability-tracked sports team, there's no place for a slower, weaker fellow, and so not as much within-the-patrol opportunity for real servant leadership. But yeh can go do things at a high level.

 

Mixed age/rank/skill is just a different beast entirely. Yeh join the patrol yeh "click" with personality-wise, maybe because you really think the older scout PL is cool, or maybe because that patrol does more water stuff and you and your close friends like water stuff. Then yeh stay with that patrol forever. It's your home. There are no "classes" because everybody is at a different level. Instead yeh learn from doin' stuff alongside older/more experienced scouts. When yeh get "tested", it's your PL who does the testing. Each year, your patrol recruits new members into its illustrious ranks, and they learn da secret signs and handshakes of the Burly Beavahs from the old hands. There's a sense of tradition, passed down. As you grow, maybe you start to do the teachin' and eventually, you become that cool PL that you once looked up to.

 

Adults and older TG scouts are goin' to be better at teaching classes, eh? But that doesn't mean that is the best way for lads to learn. Same age/ability is goin' to be comfortable and familiar like school or sports. Mixed age/ability is goin' to be more like home, with family.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh]

Hmmm. Beavah, you make some good points, but assume things that I don't.

 

First of all, of the boys are "working on Star" at the same time, anyone of the boys could be PL. They are all equally trained to do so. They don't need older boys to lead them. But if one of the boys in the patrol already takes a heads-up and starts suggesting that they work on this MB or that MB, he will naturally fall into the PL role and the patrol still functions just fine. There is no need for older scouts to take over all the leadership positions. If they need them for POR, then vie for them. Offer up oneself to lead a patrol of struggling boys, but don't assume that the adults are going to automatically put you there because you need POR. If they do, they're pretty much shooting themselves in the foot with their troop leadership. The NSP is just starting their second year, all FC, and some other scout from a different patrol says he needs POR and will be their PL. Who's the outsider here? I'm thinking that just isn't going to bode well for that patrol. If one breaks up the first year boys into all the patrols, then the goal of all the patrols is to get these boys oriented and all high adventure planning for the older boys goes out the window, or the attention gets divided into two diametrical goals and neither is done well.

 

In the NSP, NONE of the boys are PL material to begin with, but with the careful guidance of functioning TG and Instructors, they should be able to quickly figure it out. But now they step out of their NSP roles into older boy patrols, what are their chances of putting to use what they have just learned? Not much, the new guy on the block isn't going to get a chance to lead until he becomes the old guard of the patrol. I'm seeing a major gap in their leadership development at this point. If they stayed on as a "Star" patrol (2nd year patrol) they will be able to have at least a few of them retain their leadership role development without having to compete against more experienced scouts.

 

The "arbitrary mixing by adults" comment was the announcement by the adults, that now that the boys are no longer NSP they will "move up" into "real" patrols? Heck, they are already a real patrol that has been working, developing and becoming a real patrol. Let them stay that way if they want to!

 

If an older patrol wishes to recruit young blood from the younger boys to preserve their heritage as a prestigious patrol, no problem, recruit away!

 

Any boy that doesn't maintain their "level" will be better helped by his pards than being put in a "flunked" patrol that needs special help to get caught up. I guess I just like the idea that a lot of progress for each boy is a result of group assistance.

 

I hear a lot of leadership problems being identified on the forum with leadership being challenged by other boys. PL's who are leading boys that are their buddies is going to have a lot less hassle fulfilling his role of leadership than with boys that aren't his buddies. Too often I see young leadership being set up to fail by stirring the pot of the troop.

 

Also, the accepted level of attrition in the troop will naturally reduce the number of the older boys' patrols. They could at their discretion, merge, recruit, or whatever, just like a troop would do when it's numbers dwindle. Maybe the two Venture Patrols would work together on a trip to Philmont, kinda enjoy working together, get to know how the others work and may just announce when they get back that they are going to merge into one patrol. So be it. It's just fine with me. Or maybe a Venture Patrol of all "Life" scouts works in a similar fashion with a "Star" patrol of younger boys. Same outcome could happen. Maybe a "Star" patrol who lost 4 boys to first year attrition, may actively recruit the 4 new Webelos boys that are coming into the troop. Nothing wrong with that either. The first year, the Star PL rotates each of the 4 Webelos through the APL position, giving guidance and mentoring leadership (APL doesn't count for POR anyway, no harm, no foul) and the other three take on responsibility of Instructors (now all 4 Star scouts have a POR), training not only their 4 Webelos, but maybe the 2nd or 3rd NSP's at the same time in a bigger troop. It works. It is totally endless the different combinations one can come up with to maintain leadership and organization in the troop and keep the boys relatively "segregated" into common goal patrols. It just makes more sense to me to keep them goal oriented than putting Webelos cross over scouts in with the patrol making plans to go to Philmont because they need a boy or two to fill out the roster of their patrol. I'm thinking they aren't going to get the necessary attention needed to get them oriented to the troop the first year.

 

Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh