The Old New scout patrol debate

[Thomas54]

 

I have read many of Kudos posts.

 

I will agree that we have a weak (as compared to what I want) patrol association.

 

I see the folly of a new scout patrol requiring adult help. That scares me. I also see kids the same age flocking together.

 

 

The one thing from all of Bob White's posts that still rings in my head is, "patrols are supposed to be cliquish". With a same age patrol I won't have to work as hard on developing patrol bonds, that will be there naturally. They won't want to sleep in other patrols. They will naturally be us vs them. I will only need to build upon the scout skills. This is easier than the bonding issue.

 

So we have a show down, adult direction for developing patrol cohesion or adult direction building scout skills.

 

 

[Beavah]

With a same age patrol I won't have to work as hard on developing patrol bonds, that will be there naturally.

 

Nah, not really. Some same-age friendships will be there naturally, eh? As well as some same-age rivalries or enmity or social levels. That's different from what a real functioning patrol with patrol spirit is like.

 

I think one of da best examples of a patrol-like thing is the Hogwarts Houses in the Harry Potter books & movies. Gryffindor, Hufflepuff and da rest are much like patrols. You're proud of your patrol. It's where yeh live and who you eat with. Older fellows in it lead as prefects, others give yeh advice or support. Yeh have some same-age friends in your patrol, but yeh can also have some friends from Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw patrol and even some way cool older scout friends from Gryffindor. When yeh compete in scout skill Quiddich, yeh compete by patrol and cheer your patrol's flag and colors. Each patrol has its own character a bit. Those brave Gryffindors might really like rock climbing while those snakey Slytherins take special pride in water sports.

 

So I think yeh have it backward Thomas54. Boys bond because of shared experiences and shared interests, not shared age. If lads are competing together, working together, cooking together, having adventures together they will bond automatically because of the shared experience. Yeh can put a mousy know-it-all like Hermione Granger in with da likes of Harry and Ron, and they'll bond because facing a giant troll in a bathroom just sorta does that to yeh.

 

That's some of the beauty of the boy scout program, eh? Yeh can just set up the system and the magic happens on its own, without needing "adult direction." Patrol competition and patrols livin' together leads to patrol pride and bonding without any adult help. All yeh need to do is set up and follow the program. Same with scout skills, eh? If da patrol competition depends on each member having good skills, then Hermione is goin' to teach Ron the spell or Fred & George are goin' to practice quiddich plays with young Harry. Again, no adult direction required.

 

Just look at da mixed-age friendships kids make playing online games these days, or how hard they work to learn all the skills necessary to do well at DOOM or WOW or whatever they're playin' now. Again, no adult direction required, beyond settin' up da parameters of the game.

 

That's what Scouting is like done well - like popular movies and video games. Yeh set up the program, maybe give 'em a few hints to get 'em started. Then the kids take off with it and help each other. Pretty soon you'll be surprised when they can even face Voldemort on their own.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Venividi]

"Patrol competition and patrols livin' together leads to patrol pride and bonding without any adult help."

 

This is what I sometimes often missing from troops; - the competition of patrol vs patrol. I think this is where mixed age patrols have an advantage over same age patrols. A patrol of 14 year olds will win against a patrol of 11 year olds. So rather than having real patrol competition, troops may do a school yard pick among whomever is present.

 

In that environment there never is any real need for patrols to spend any time in practicing skills in preparation for the next inter-patrol competition, because the odds are so stacked in favor of the older patrol that practice becomes a minor factor, or inter-patrol competition becomes game time or hanging out time instead.

[BadenP]

Well said Veni, look if you were starting a brand new troop from scratch and you had say 30 boys of various ages show up to the first meeting with no prior scouting what do you think would make this group bond as a patrol and a troop the fastest? If your answer is mixed patrols you win the prize, and why because as Veni said age based patrols would result in the older boys dominating the younger ones in competitions and other activities. If you mix them then each patrol has to learn to work as a team to be competitive as well as let each boy show off his natural leadership skills as the patrols plan for each activity.

 

In my six years as a scoutmaster we tried NSP's twice both times they lasted less than a couple of months before the boys begged to be split up into the other patrols. As you can tell I am a big fan of mixed patrols because in my experience it worked the best in bonding the troop and it was what the BOYS really wanted. Sometimes we adult leaders are guilty of leaving the "boy" out of boy scouts in the running of our troops, bad mistake.

[Venividi]

There is a challenge with youth leadership when new scout patrols continue on, and a troop ends up composed of mostly age based patrols.

When learning leadership, the scouts need an environment that fosters success. Individuals are willing to be led by someone that they look up to, have respect for, and have skills that are greater than their own. This exists in mixed age patrols, where older scouts have learned and practiced skills, and the other scouts recognize this and are willing to follow their lead. They want to be like him someday.

With same aged patrols, scouts don't have the same willingness to be led by the patrol leader, (even though they elected him), because the leader likely doesn't know any more than they do.