How does your Troop seperated into patrols?

[Troop22]

When we first crossed over into the Troop 2 years ago the new Scouts where separated into 2 different Patrols. 2 New Scouts into each Patrol. I do like mixing young Scouts with the older Scouts. I feel it teaches many lessons and the older Scouts will educate the new Scouts.

What I had an issue with is the method used to decide which Scout went to which patrol. The Scouts picked the patrols themselves. What the patrols ended up with in my view was very unbalanced. I had 1 patrol of athletic and popular Scouts and the other patrol was "challenged". What I noticed over that first year was one Troop did very well and the "Challenged" lagged behind and was not motivated even with extra help from the leaders. The Challenged group had all the Scouts with behavioral issues and the patrol spent a lot of time dealing with that.

A year ago I was ask to take over as Scoutmaster. Right after I took over we got 2 new Scouts 1 to each patrol but I had them play a game of chance to decide which Scout went to which patrol.

 

Do you all think it is OK for leadership to "HELP" form patrols so every Scout receives the same opportunities for success?

How does your Troop separate into patrols?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Every couple years or so the troop "reorganizes" we have new patrol night. There are 4 to 6 places depending on troop size marked in the room and after opening the SPL tells the scouts that they can go to any of the designated places in the room to become a new patrol. Then the kids scatter, elect a Patrol Leader,select a name and yell.

 

We used to try to limit the size but that just didnt work, the kids are pretty good at knowing who they will mesh with and the less spirited scouts know to stay away from the ones who take scouts seriously, works for us

 

Your Mileage may oscillate

[Beavah]

Yah, I hate oscillating mileage. Also don't really care for the whole-troop "patrol reorganization" bit. Can't imagine how that works with real patrol method. It's one of the things I don't care for in age-based patrols, where inevitably the patrols "consolidate" as the lads get older, just when it seems the boys are ready and comfortable with the group so as to be able to lead.

 

Troop22, I think yeh can accomplish what yeh want by introducin' just a few things for the PLC boys to consider as part of their thinking in taking on new guys. They have one of 'em: the "good fit" notion in terms of personality or whatnot. Probably then yeh just need to add one or two other things for them to balance. The boys can pretty early on make a guess as to whether a new lad is "timid" or "fearless", or perhaps "gung-ho" or "quiet". Just gently encourage 'em to try to balance the distribution of "gung ho" guys while still thinking about good fit. From what you describe, yeh might try "focused" vs. "bonkers" to try to capture da behavioral challenges .

 

Just the addition of somethin' "tangible" like those quick tags helps the boys to include that thought in their planning, and is often enough to sort out the problem.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

Our guys encourage new scouts to join a patrol with a friend or friends. I'm not sure how the PLC in our troop would know the more athletic boys of the new group. It would be dumb luck if your situation occurred in our troop.

 

While I was SM, the SPL and I sat down before the meeting to strategize placing new scouts. Usually the SM or some other adults learned as much as we could from the den leaders and sometimes parents. Anything we think can help the PLC work successfully is discussed with the SPL. But, the smallest group of scouts that joined our troop while I was SM was 18, so placing new scouts was a lot of work. I usually let the PLC do their job and waited for the SPL to present me the final list at the end of the evening. I was there of course to advise if the SPL asked. Honestly I think the PLC and I looked at this process more as a team effort, not a SM PLC relationship. It's a lot of work getting new scouts placed where they are excited for their future.

 

Barry

[dkurtenbach]

In December at our troop planning conference, which was well-attended by Scouts, I gave the boys a list of issues I wanted them to deal with. One of those issues was the organization of patrols. Our troop has never had "permanent" patrols, and there was usually a reorganization at least once a year. Over the last couple of years, however, the "reorganizations" had become chaotic, with boys constantly wanting to shift around as friendships evolved (or devolved), and almost weekly efforts to change patrol names. So I handed this problem to the boys and sat back. My only instruction was that I wanted the patrol organization to be fair -- I didn't want to see a "cool kids" patrol and a "geek" patrol.

 

The discussion was fascinating. One idea discussed briefly was organizing patrols by rank, so that all the members of a patrol would be working on more or less the same advancement requirements. Ultimately, their decision was -- grade-level patrols.

 

Dan K.

[Beavah]

Ultimately, their decision was -- grade-level patrols

 

So now yeh introduce patrol competitions (which I'd guess yeh probably haven't had much of) and then see how fast before their decision changes. Boys are pretty conspicuous about fairness, eh?

 

Or yeh do a challenging campout without providing a lot of adult support, then let 'em see the younger kid patrols struggling and getting frustrated. Your good servant leaders will step forward to help out and feel some real pride in doing so, and quickly become the older boy PLs and APLs of the "younger" patrols. Because now they see that it matters, eh? And there's nuthin' a young man wants more than to really count in others eyes. Then those patrols will become desirable because they're cool, and yeh get back to the natural mixed-age gang that was da core of scouting for 80 years.

 

Kids generally make da right decision for their circumstances. Our role as adults is to set up da circumstances so that they most readily develop toward our goals in the process. If da circumstances are "be led in instruction" then they of course want same level kids in a patrol, or some would be bored while others were lost. If da circumstances are "take on a challenge!" whether competition or truly challenging outings then they naturally choose differently.

 

Sounds like yeh might be overemphasizing advancement method in your troop, dkurtnbach. Boys are seeing da core of scouting in your troop as being rank instruction. Yeh should perhaps think about how to re-balance your use of da Methods.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Stosh]

6-8 boys in a patrol.... they are allowed to figure that out anyway they want anytime they want. Adults stay out of the process.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[Venividi]

Interesting discussion.

 

Stosh,

Do you have a guided discovery conversations with the PLC to help see advantages and disadvantages of various options? How do your scouts handle inter-patrol competition when they divide themselves up by age/grade level?

Thanks,

Venividi

[dkurtenbach]

Beavah wrote: "Sounds like yeh might be overemphasizing advancement method in your troop, dkurtnbach. Boys are seeing da core of scouting in your troop as being rank instruction. Yeh should perhaps think about how to re-balance your use of da Methods."

 

Quite a conclusion to draw from that one little story. And incorrect. Actually, I'm constantly being pestered by ASMs and parents about my UNDER-emphasizing advancement (in their view) -- requiring that boys who want to advance have to take the initiative. No "classes," no pushing Scouts to finish this or that requirement, no pointing out what requirements they still need, no "stealth" advancement ("Surprise! I bet you didn't know that by doing that just now, you competed a requirement!").

 

"Kids generally make da right decision for their circumstances." Yeah, I'd agree with that. Kids constantly surprise us by totally smashing our preconceived notions about what they'll do, and by constantly jumping out of the boxes we try to put them in.

 

Dan K.

 

 

[Beavah]

One idea discussed briefly was organizing patrols by rank, so that all the members of a patrol would be working on more or less the same advancement requirements.

 

That was da quote that caught my eye, eh? In seein' other troops, I can tell yeh that there are a fair number where the lads would never come up with that "by rank" suggestion, eh? Just because that's not the way they think about scoutin' in their unit.

 

So da options yeh mention the lads considered were by grade level (like school) or rank. Regardless of what you feel or da parents feel, they are thinking of the troop as centering around advancement or being like school. Leastways, that's what I get from what yeh wrote, eh? Yeh might not have been a good reporter.

 

Like I said, try some patrol competitions and pretty quickly those age-based patrols will fall apart and you'll find the lads making different choices. Or try some non-car-camping outings that are more challenging where the younger fellows need the support of the older scouts in their best servant-leader character. You'll get different results, because you've changed da parameters of the boys' decision and the way they think about scouting. If they think of how to make the outing work first, they get a different answer than if they think about how to make advancement work. Same if they think about patrol pride first, instead of advancement.

 

Ain't about what we think, it's about what they think. We know that our own troop is never as focused on advancement as that badge mill across town. They only see their troop.

 

Our job is just to set up da circumstances so that they are drawn into developing good character. If advancement is how they and you see good character, then that's fine, eh? Nuthin' wrong with it, and you're doin' great! Continue on! If servant leadership is how they and you see good character, then their choices perhaps aren't yet reflecting that, so yeh might consider a different approach. Like Eagledad says, it just depends on your goals. I have my personal feelings, but yeh have to serve your CO and its values.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[dkurtenbach]

Oh, my. A case of distantus punditus maximus. They rejected the "patrols by rank" idea, which, by the way, required some real creativity and intelligence from the Scout who came up with it on the spot like that. As should be abundantly clear, they were looking for an objective organizing criterion, rather than a subjective one, or one that relied on chance. And they found one. Sorry they didn't conform to the "mixed-age patrols is the only good way" adult preconceived notion; but their decision stayed within the bounds of BSA rules and policies and the Scout Oath and Scout Law, in addition to being the product of mature and serious discussion. Isn't that the sort of thing we're striving for? And if it doesn't work out, they'll learn from that failure. Isn't that the sort of thing we're striving for? Let's not let adult fixations and assumptions get in the way of boys showing us what they can do when given real responsibility.

 

Dan K.

[Stosh]

Venividi:

 

My boys live and die by their choices. 6-8 is the only "rule". Everything else is whatever they want. I don't get involved in any of the deliberations, decisions, etc. connected to patrol operations. I only support what the boys decide.

 

Competitions? My boys don't seem to be much into the competition thing, but simply strive to do better than last time. They cheer and applaud for the other guys just like they would if they won it themselves. I also find the younger boys groups tend to be more focused on improving than the older boys. It's not always an uneven match then.

 

I can't even say the boys always pick by age/grade levels either. They generally pick according to their friends. Some brother pairs want to be together, others don't. I'm not always privy to their rationale.

 

Boys can "recruit" any new boys into their patrol or the new boys can hang together and form a patrol of their own. If one boy becomes unhappy with one patrol, if there's enough room in another he's free to jump ship.

 

I don't seem a whole lot of difference between how the boys pick patrols than they did when it was time to pick a troop in the first place. They hang together in a group and that may or may not last, but it's the individual boy's decision, no one else's.

 

We don't have a PLC, normally we run 2-3 patrols, not enough to warrant a PLC. This again is a boy's decision. Unlike other structures, including the BSA recommended one, no one person "runs" the troop. We are a confederation of patrols with the PL's the highest ranking officers in the troop.

 

I find that the boys that take on the POR's generally hang together because they are older and need the advancement, but maybe then they form up their patrol (Troop Officer Corps) and hang out together, camp, mess, etc. together. They don't have to, but it's okay to consider it.

 

I do notice that the longer the boys stay together and bond, the less likely they are to move around in the different patrols. 7 older boys looking to take on a new patrol member might spend some time looking over the potential other scouts and pick one that they think might be okay to have with them to invite.

 

Another older boy may be asked by the NSP to be their PL or their TG and so he might jump ship even if just temporarily to help out the new guys, but after a while go back to his original patrol because that's where his friends really are.

 

This is the way I have observed the boys doing it.

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[Troop22]

It's good to see everyones thoughts.

Our Troop is mixed ages, just the way it has always been. It might stem from beeing a small Troop with only one patrol and all at once getting 4 new scouts. Now the Troop needs an aditioal patrol so the Troop elects a PL. The new PL choose an APL, these 2 Scouts go to the new patrol and the new Scouts are split up to even out the patrol size. Next thing you know we have mixed age patrols with older Scouts leading and teaching and the new Scouts learning.

My initial concern is making sure that the new Scouts get the same oppurtunity by being put into a patrol that is well balanced.

[Twocubdad]

Just finished this process last night. We've been adding a lot of new scouts every year for the past couple and will be gaining another 14 at crossover this month. First year we put the new Scouts in a new Scout patrol, but at the end of that year they disburse into the regular Scout patrols. Because we keep adding patrols, we have to reshuffle about every two years.

 

This year we started the process by having all the Scouts organize their own patrols. One patrol in each corner of the room, one in the center. Only rules were 10 Scouts or less in each patrol. There also needed to be one, preferably two, ready, willing and able patrol leaders in each patrol. And we wanted them to consider balance. The patrols don't have to be absolutely homogenous, but ideally we want a mix of ages, ranks and abilities. This is the first time we've formed patrols like this so we were very clear that this was an experiment. It if totally crashed and burned, the PLC reserved the right to tweak the final patrols and/or start the process over.

 

GO!

 

They actually did pretty well. Three of the five patrols were acceptable. One patrol was top heavy in older guys -- age wasn't so much the issue as it was too clique-y. Another patrol was all first year guys and one older Scout who saw what was going on and joined that patrol out of a sense of obligation -- too much like a NSP with a Troop Guide.

 

Consequently, the PLC took that roster as a starting point and did some horse-trading. In the end, when the final rosters were announced, only two boys complained that they didn't like their patrols. They were given the opportunity to arrange trades with other patrols, with the SPL's approval.

 

We wrapped up the night with PL elections. Life is good.

 

Until next week. Traditionally that's when I'll catch hell from a couple parents whose sons either didn't bother to show up and were left out of the process or were too shy to insert themselves into the process.

 

 

[Beavah]

We don't have a PLC, normally we run 2-3 patrols, not enough to warrant a PLC.

 

Yah, jblake, seems like I read in another thread that yeh only have one patrol. And I remember yeh saying that your troop is pretty small. So what is it?

 

It may just be helpful to folks if yeh remind us of your conditions to put your comments in context. What works for one size troop with one style of program might not work for another. Often for small troops in particular yeh can be a bit more free-form, because there's so much more opportunity for a SM to provide subtle guidance directly to individuals. That doesn't work as well as yeh get bigger. I'd guess, for example, that dkurtenbach's troop is a bigger-than-average one, which is why his lads are lookin' for a more "objective" setup. Of course that may just be me being philosophus longinquum socordis, the stupid long-distance philosophizer.

 

 

Another patrol was all first year guys and one older Scout who saw what was going on and joined that patrol out of a sense of obligation

 

Yah, TwoCub, keep an eye on that fellow, eh? He's goin' to be one of your good ones.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)