Avoiding Ad Hoc Patrols

[dkurtenbach]

Stosh, I'm not talking about "reverse engineering" the campouts with 2-3 patrol members. I'm talking about reverse engineering "ideal" campouts with 5-8 patrol members in attendance to see what makes them good. Take those campouts with high patrol member participation, and work backward to try to figure out what factors lead to a high level of patrol member attendance.

 

I suspect that the possible causes will be different now than they were 50 years ago when there weren't as many organized youth activities on weekends and Scouts didn't have nearly as many conflicts. Most of the patrol was usually available, so most of the patrol went camping. I think that BSA continues to write its "model" program based on the unrealistic assumption that most Scouts will attend most activities most of the time.

 

I also suspect that the elements necessary for campouts with 5-8 patrol members present from each patrol are either structural or demographic:

- Have extra-large patrols to begin with, so that a 30% to 50% campout attendance rate will yield 5 to 8 patrol members.

- Require high attendance/participation, so that boys with lots of scheduling conflicts will self-select out of the troop.

- Build the troop/patrols only with boys who really, really want to go camping and are inclined to choose campouts over other activities.

 

Dan K.

 

[dkurtenbach]

thriftyscout wrote: "I would like to start pulling them together into a patrol so that they can have a better program based upon the original BSA program often cited by Kudu."

 

Please don't take any of my comments as being critical in any way of what you want to do. I'm just very interested because the situation you are in seems to be very common.

 

So I go back to my earlier question: What do you think you can accomplish on a campout with a larger patrol attendance that you can't accomplish on a campout with only 2 or 3 patrol members? Put another way, what are you doing that causes the creation of ad hoc patrols so that you will have larger patrols on campouts?

 

Dan K.

[BrentAllen]

The success of the Patrol Method hinges on Patrol Spirit, or esprit de corps. Patrol Spirit can't be formed when only half the members are present. It can't be formed when Scouting is treated as a hobby, and the members do not feel they have an obligation to their fellow members to show up. How are we helping Scouts learn to make ethical and moral choices in their life if we are afraid to ask them to live up to their obligations? I see many Troops that set a very low bar for participation out of fear of losing Scouts, and they get very low results. Go figure.

 

Our Scouts are involved in lots of activities - sports, band, etc. I ask them to find ways to do both. Their baseball game may last two hours, while our monthly camping trip "game" lasts 36 hours. I tell our prospective members that if sports is going to always take precedent over Scouting, or they can't find a way to participate in both events, then this probably isn't the right Troop for them. I borrowed the following from Green Bar Bill for our recruiting material:

 

"The real price of membership in this Troop will be unfailing regular attendance at its meetings and outings, and steady progress in all the things that make a Scout "Prepared." If we put our own time into the activities of this Troop, we shall certainly expect you to do your part with equal faithfulness. At Troop 494, Scouting is a way of life, not just an activity."

 

[dkurtenbach]

Let me suggest an answer to my own question: "What do you think you can accomplish on a campout with a larger patrol attendance that you can't accomplish on a campout with only 2 or 3 patrol members?"

 

As Baden-Powell stated in _Aids to Scoutmastership_: "But first and foremost: The Patrol is the character school for the individual. To the Patrol Leader it gives practise in Responsibility and in the qualities of Leadership. To the Scouts it gives subordination of self to the interests of the whole, the elements of self-denial and self-control involved in the team spirit of cooperation and good comradeship."

 

It is only with a larger number of people working together (but not so many that it becomes unwieldy) that you get opportunities for division of labor, delegation, cooperation, debate, leadership, and diversity. That is, you need a certain minimum number of people in a group in order to get group dynamics -- and thus the ability to practice citizenship and build character in individual Scouts.

 

You can't do that well with just 2 or 3 patrol members. You need more in order to accomplish the citizenship and character benefits that a patrol can provide.

 

Some folks would say that you can't really practice citizenship and build character very well if the "patrol" is together for just a short time (an ad hoc patrol), or if the patrol has members who are only there part of the time (patrol members with lots of schedule conflicts). I would suggest that if the patrol becomes a well-oiled, highly-efficient machine, then the members have probably squeezed out most of the citizenship practice and character-building opportunities that particular group could provide, and it is time for a change. That is one benefit of permanent, mixed-age patrols -- regular turnover of membership.

 

I guess my thought is that if you can't have the ideal (most of the members of each patrol go on campouts), the next best thing is an ad hoc patrol formed in advance of the campout so that they have time to do planning and preparation together.

 

Dan K.

[Stosh]

dkurtenbach: A little Devil's Advocate there, I know what reverse engineering is, but I was questioning it's validity in this situation. Instead of going backwards to look forward, why not take today, assess what you have and then go forward in a different direction that what produces less than stellar results. Don't take a shotgun approach either, and first of all get the boys onboard with the change, give them permission to experiment and let them have at it.

 

If you have 6-8 boys that want to step up and move forward, plan their activities, work through the challenges of scheduling, etc. and stick together for their experience in scouting, why in the world would anyone want to break them up? Okay, a couple can't make it, but the other six should do just fine this time around, etc. Let them go, and instead of reverse engineering their efforts, capitalize on their successes! Let them be the pacesetters for the other patrols. Look forward not backwards. You can go back and pick up on past successes such as those suggested by Kudu in earlier scouting material and have the boys work through adapting them to the 21st Century. Stay out of the mix and let them take ownership of it with a combination of historical and contemporary ideals.

 

Let them take on the challenge and figure it out. Why in the world would what we as adult think as good be the same as a 15 year old's. Heck, I haven't though like a 15 year old for 45 years. Who best knows the mind of a 15 year old? Yep, another 15 year old!

 

Ad hoc patrols means that regardless of what I plan, what I want, what is good for me and my buddies, because of not enough making it we need to move in with the neighbors for the weekend. Right, like that's a big sell for the boys. Sounds like punishment to me, and I'm not 15 years old. As adults, if we didn't get 2 deep leadership we would cancel the activity rather than "move in" with another troop for the weekend where there are more adults to meet the requirements. How many boys think this way,- it's better to stay home than to put up with people who aren't our buddies. Maybe I do think like a 15 year old after all.

 

All I do is announce that when we hit 12 boys in the troop that they need to form two patrols. My job is done. When we have closing flags, two patrols are formed. The boys did it based on their own criteria. Now at least they have a chance of success because they picked themselves to commit to the patrol and it's up to each of them to make it work. Not me, I wasn't involved in the formation process. I just sit back and cheer them on when they succeed and help pick up the pieces when they don't.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

 

 

[dkurtenbach]

Stosh, getting back to the original issue -- having enough boys from a patrol going on a campout that the patrol is a real, functioning patrol on the campout. My view is that if your goal is Scouts working together in a real, functioning patrol on a campout, you need a bare minimum of 4 boys but ideally 6 to 8. But what you're getting is 2 or 3 boys from each of the troop's "standing" patrols, and they don't want to "move in with the neighbors" for the campout.

 

I definitely agree that this is an issue that the boys can deal with: Tell those 12 boys, or 20 boys, or 50 boys, that in order to go on a campout, a patrol must bring at least six of its members; and then tell them to go form patrols that will meet that requirement.

 

Dan K.

 

 

[Stosh]

dkurtenbach:

 

If you are looking for a cure-all pill to fix this problem, you're not going to find one. Instead change your focus, Healing takes time and effort on the part of boys working together, trying new things, seeing if the adults interfere, deciding whether they really do have the power to make changes, etc.

 

To look at a huge troop and say "Where do we begin?" is overwhelming to say the least. Well, take a small step somewhere, anywhere! Do something that moves the troop, even if in a small way to where you (oops, THEY...) want to be sometime in the future. We can't see what the future will bring and the way is not visible to us at the present time. But one can still start with something.

 

Instead of mandating what the boys should do, let them decide. They know what interests them, not the adults! Turn it into a free-for-all? Maybe yes! After all, the well structured, adult-led process you have in place now is not working! If they can't figure it out, well, then you haven't lost any ground in the process. But if they do figure it out and begin to succeed be prepared to eat a little crow. The biggest threat to the adults is boy-led success because we as adults have to admit that sometimes the boys are right! If they plan only activities that they want to go to, they'll show up. If they plan on their schedules, they'll show up. If they feel they can do anything, they'll show up. If one patrol can't make spring camporee because of spring sports, but can go the next weekend, why not a patrol outing for the older sports boys instead of the "hundredth" time to some event that they are bored with anyway! Do you really think that the boys are going to plan a patrol outing that only 2 boys can attend? Heck, as adult, you get two opportunities to be out in the woods that way~!

 

It's scary to think that one is going to have to give up some control to make the troop a success, but only the boys know what will work for them. Give them a chance to prove it and then celebrate with them when they get their wins! I don't want to be a successful Scoutmaster, I want boys that are successful!

 

If you were to announce to the boys as SM that you don't have all the answers and that from now on they're going to have to figure things out as to what best works for them, it doesn't mean you as a SM are a failure. Progress doesn't have any end points and success/failure can be determined only at end points. You can't lose unless the game is over! Just don't let the game end!

 

I have always found that 10 boys can think of 10 times more fun things to do than just one SM who is basically guessing as to what might be fun for boys.

 

If it's ain't working, doing anything different will lead down a different path. It may not work either, but there are an endless amount of paths out there to try.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[dkurtenbach]

Yo, Stosh! Stosh! Hey, the issue is over here! Come back! 8^)

 

I know, I know, you get a little excited. That's fine. I'm just not sure how any of that addresses the quite specific issue that thriftyscout raised in this thread.

 

But thanks anyway!

 

Dan K.

[Beavah]

Yah, thriftyscout, I hear where you're comin' from. I really think you'll have too many negative consequences from making an "elite campers" patrol.

 

I'd do somethin' like what jblake suggested, but since your lads aren't familiar with it yet, offer some additional guidance. Do yeh have rough attendance figures for your boys? If not, the lads can just guess 'em for each boy. If a lad has 50% attendance on average, then he counts for half a person. If he attends 70%, then he counts for seven tenths of a person.

 

Have the lads make patrols that total up to at least 6 "persons". They can figure out how. If yeh want to do the mixed thing, have 'em also try to shoot for roughly even ranks between the patrols.

 

That way yeh get some experienced, gung-ho campers and some part timers in each patrol. Yeh need the experienced, gung-ho kids to keep da patrol lively with its own identity. A patrol with just a bunch of part timers will never gel, and will do less, and so will fall behind, and then have less attendance, and....

 

That's also why I disagree with jblake on one point, eh? I think there are reasons to split up a group of gung ho kids that get on well together (or, well, to gently suggest such a course of action to them). That's to provide servant leadership to others who need 'em, which also gives more of them the opportunity to actually use their skills leading rather than just one or two of 'em. We're not just a camping club where yeh go camping with your buddies. In Scouting, we help other people, we serve others, and we challenge ourselves by stepping up to new things.

 

Beavah

[thriftyscout]

After much discussion both here and locally, here is our plan for avoiding ad hoc patrols and more fully implementing the patrol method. This is, admittedly, an adult driven plan but we need to start somewhere in order to get out of the Troop method.

 

We will reorganize the Troop this next fall into (3) Patrols. The Troop at large will elect a Senior Patrol Leader just has we have done in the past. We will also have the Troop elect (3) Patrol Leaders, these Patrol Leaders will each appoint an Assistant Patrol Leader and a Patrol Quartermaster. This will ensure that each leader has several friends that can help him run the patrol. The remaining boys will buddy up into twos or threes that they want to stick with. These buddy groups will then be divided amongst the three Patrols ensuring that every Scout has at least one friend in his Patrol. These three patrols will then plan menus, work on advancement, and camp as Patrols. They will be what is called vertical Patrols that have Scouts of each age in them. (As opposed to horizontal Patrols that have all Scouts the same age.) They should be more self-sufficient with the older Scouts providing leadership to the younger Scouts. Each Patrol should end up being about 15 or so Scouts which hopefully will translate into at least 5 or 6 on each campout.

 

We are also setting money aside to replace the heavy patrol boxes and a large dinning fly with smaller, patrol sized equipment. We want our patrols to be able to walk off a bit and develop more independence.

 

I am sure there will be some snags along the way and I am still open to advice and suggestions. Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts on this subject, this forum really helps develop ideas and perspective.

[JMHawkins]

Good luck, thrifyscout. Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. How have the boys responded to the idea?