How does your Troop seperated into patrols?

[Beavah]

Most the boys that want out is because it's too much "work" to run the patrols for themselves and want the mommy/daddy adult leaders to do it for them.

 

Yah, I'm not sure that sayin' "tough winkies" in this case isn't what's causing you to lose too many scouts, Stosh, despite your worries about other troops who aren't really losing boys at all.

 

I've rarely seen a kid who fits da description you mention. Far more often, when an adult feels a boy is "lazy" or whatnot what's really goin' on is that the lad wants to do well, but he doesn't know how, eh? And boys being boys, they never ask for direction. They learn by seeing, not by being told. So they look lazy, but they're really just lost.

 

What the boys may be tryin' to tell you if yeh listen more closely is not that they want mommy, but that they need more support. That's one of the risks of goin' flat out youth run with same age patrols, eh? There's not enough experience there to be the guide and example. Yah, yah, a few self directed precocious youth figure it out, but that's just genetics and their family life, nuthin' we've accomplished in scouting. The only kids we're allowed to brag about are the ones who came in lost but managed to get a clue because of scouting.

 

If I were to tell you, a self-directed fellow, that we needed a factory in India, congrats, you're lead, hop to it, I reckon you'd be lost. It'd take yeh a while to get goin', yeh would wish for more support, yeh would probably quit after a failed start or two. But if I said "Welcome to the team", we're building a factory in India, Joe your team leader has had five years of experience with us, the other guys have been with us for a few years and will show you the ropes, and you'll be a big part of our success as you come up to speed, then I reckon you'd be more inclined to stay around. You'd have a few good friends who joined with yeh, but you'd have support and experience as well. You'd take on more responsibility as you learned, and eventually down the road yeh could see yourself becoming a great team leader like Joe. And all along da way, you'd be deeply proud of your team.

 

That's how yeh keep most all of your lads in a real youth run environment, not just da most precocious ones.

 

Of course, I may just be that furry fellow commenting from afar

 

Beavah

 

[Twocubdad]

I know this isn't your main point, Beav, but I'll have to back up Stosh regarding boys who don't want to work. Unfortunately, it's not at all rare. While some may not know what to do and are afraid to ask, the handful of boys I'm thinking of have been in the troop several years and are quite capable. They choose to use their knowledge of the system to avoid responsibility rather that take it. I bet you can name a bunch of adults who fit that description, too, eh?

 

I can imagine in a two-patrol, 14-scout troop there's no where to run, no where to hide, so they quit. Our troop is big enough that these kids can fly under the radar. With seven patrols and 75 Scouts they can make themselves scarce when the duty roster is being made or patrol elections are being held. Where the rubber meets the road in our troop is when they hit Life and I start pushing them to step up and start giving back to the troop. I lose guys to other, "easier" troops over their Eagle POR and overall involvement in the troop.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Alabama Scouter]

Our former scoutmaster would do a patrol fruit basket turnover every 6 months. Nobody liked it, but it wasn't boy lead. When I was made SM, the first thing I did was give the boys one chance to reorganize, then I froze the patrols. We've gone on 4 years now, and the next will be the CHANGE point. I've decided that the new scout patrol will merge with the oldest patrol. It needs the influx of scouts; we've decided to stay at 3+1 patrols, and the +1 is the NSP, which we'll have again this year. So, we'll have one aged mixed patrol, but the nucleus of the NSP will still be there, with their friends, and the (few 5) older boys. The new boys in this patrol will have a voting majority, so they won't be railroaded. I think it is important for the boys to stay with the group they came in with. Some of these scouts have been in scouts together since Tiger Cubs. Talk about building bonds of friendship that will last a lifetime!

Our scouts are happy with this arrangement. A question at the PLC inquiring if they wanted a mix up was roundly shouted down. Anyone have experience with this scenario?

[Stosh]

"If I were to tell you, a self-directed fellow, that we needed a factory in India, congrats, you're lead, hop to it, I reckon you'd be lost. It'd take yeh a while to get goin', yeh would wish for more support, yeh would probably quit after a failed start or two. But if I said "Welcome to the team", we're building a factory in India, Joe your team leader has had five years of experience with us, the other guys have been with us for a few years and will show you the ropes, and you'll be a big part of our success as you come up to speed, then I reckon you'd be more inclined to stay around. You'd have a few good friends who joined with yeh, but you'd have support and experience as well. You'd take on more responsibility as you learned, and eventually down the road yeh could see yourself becoming a great team leader like Joe. And all along da way, you'd be deeply proud of your team." - Beavah

 

While joining an existing situation is far different than creating one of your own, it does remind me of a story I read about Kiichiro Toyoda (1894-1952), founder of Toyota Motor Corporation and son of Toyoda Automatic Loom Works. It would seem that someone had once stole the design plans for a loom from the Toyoda loom works. In other words they already had a "team/idea/solution" in place. Here's what Mr. Toyoda had to say in response:

 

"Certainly the thieves may be able to follow the design plans and produce a loom. But we are modifying and improving our looms every day. So by the time the thieves have produced a loom from the plans they stole, we will have already advanced well beyond that point. And because they do not have the expertise gained from the failures it took to produce the original, they will waste a great deal more time than us as they move to improve their loom. We need not be concerned about what happened. We need only continue as always, making our improvements."

 

If every group of boys coming into a program only add to an already established program, 1) they are expected to start out with a high level of leadership in order to contribute, or 2) they don't learn because others already are doing it well.

 

On the other hand, they all start out together and learn from the ground up what leadership is all about, avoiding the mistakes of others (older patrols) they will gain ground quickly on their own efforts.

 

No student starts school in the 7th Grade. They all must start with kindergarten and work through the process. Putting kindergarten children in 7th grade will not produce educated students, only frustrate them and cause them to never be as good. But if this is the practice, then by the time those kindergarten students are in the 7th grade, they will have to lead because those older 7th graders will now be in college. Those younger boys will never catch up.

 

While I may not be building a company in India, I still think it's far more productive to start 5 year olds in kindergarten and work from there. Yes, they will need some guidance and training, but by the time they reach 7th grade, they will have had more opportunities than if they had started with students far more advanced than them. Those kindergarten students aren't lazy or irresponsible, but more along the lines of overwhelmed and frustrated.

 

Kindergarten kids have far stronger bonds with their classmates by the time they graduate high school than any other older students who may have interacted with them over the years. There is strong evidence that this process works, why mess with it?

 

Your mileage may vary,

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

>>While I may not be building a company in India, I still think it's far more productive to start 5 year olds in kindergarten and work from there. Yes, they will need some guidance and training, but by the time they reach 7th grade, they will have had more opportunities than if they had started with students far more advanced than them. Those kindergarten students aren't lazy or irresponsible, but more along the lines of overwhelmed and frustrated.

[dkurtenbach]

AlabamaScouter wrote: "I froze the patrols . . . I've decided that the new scout patrol will merge with the oldest patrol . . . I think it is important for the boys to stay with the group they came in with."

 

There are a lot of "gray areas" between: (a) the Program Oversight areas that adults control (making sure that the troop maintains a safe and solid _Scouting_ program within the rules and policies and methods of BSA and of the Chartered Organization); and (b) the Boy-Run zone within that protective and directive shell, in which Scouts get to make the plans and decisions about _their_ Scouting program, with the coaching of adults who may make suggestions and offer advice, but do not impose their views on what are matters that belong to the Scouts.

 

That the troop _has_ patrols of a certain size, each led by a Patrol Leader, seems to me to be a Program Oversight issue that adults are responsible for. Patrols are an important -- some would say critical -- aspect of Boy Scouting. But how patrol membership is decided? Well, we hear about lots of ways of doing it that are generally accepted or at least not inconsistent with the Boy Scouting program. BSA recommends one way, while many experienced leaders recommend another. Many troops leave it up to the Scouts, which indicates that Scouts are capable of handling it. Of course, letting Scouts make decisions can make things messy, and the Scouts might try things that don't work right away. But maybe they should be given the first crack at the problem anyway.

 

Not a sermon, just a thought.

 

Dan K.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, this was a nice thread to pop and match back up with your other thread about da parents of 6th graders in your program complaining to the DE, UC, and anybody else that too much is being expected of their kids.

 

That doesn't jibe with da notion of treatin' 'em like kindergarteners. More like throwin' 'em in the deep end without enough examples and mentors in a way that isn't age appropriate. Closer to my "go build a factory" example, eh? This seems to be causin' yeh grief and possibly losing you kids.

 

Boys bond by shared experience, not by age. If yeh put 'em in an age-stratified environment where all your experiences are with the same age fellows, then naturally they'll bond. If yeh put 'em in a mixed-age environment with mixed-age fellows who share their experiences, then those kids will bond. Only difference is that if yeh keep 'em all together by age like they do in school, yeh have to provide an adult teacher to help 'em to grow.

 

I'm not tryin' to be a pest, eh? I'm just readin' between the lines and offerin' a few suggestions that yeh might achieve even more success if yeh experiment with ways of offerin' a bit more support and structure to your first year fellows. Yeh can do that with da adult/troop guide/webelos 3/FCFY type thing, but that doesn't seem your style. So perhaps da older youth as patrol members and natural mentors would be a better fit. Or somethin' else. But it just seems to be a thing yeh would like to address, so we're offerin' ideas.

 

Beavah

[Stosh]

If new ideas don't work, then why after 100 years has GM fallen apart and Toyota keeps on getting better? If the newbies on the block (Toyota) had been thrown in with the older boys (GM) then both groups would be on the ropes today.

 

Back in the early 1900's Henry Ford perfected the assembly line approach to manufacturing. He was a newbie with nothing to go on except trying to improve what would be better in the long run. On the other hand, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., President of GM (1923-37), Chief Executive, 1937-46; Chairman of the Board (1937-56) is quoted as saying: "We are not in the business of making cars, we are in the business of making money."

 

Thus Ford and GM went their separate ways. GM fell apart and Ford is still hanging in there. If one translates this into Scouting, are we in the business of making Leaders (Ford) or are we just out there for the Eagles (GM). Toyota comes onto the scene 1950's and blows them both out of the water doing both at the same time. Everyone's sending their operations over seas and Toyota is building successful plants in the US! What does Toyota know that the rest of us are sitting around scratching our heads about?

 

What did BP back in the early 1900's know that Ford knew? BP nor Ford had older, more experienced boys to work with. They didn't have a track record. They didn't have patterns that the boys just kept learning over and over again. No, they were innovators and constantly were seeking ways of improving the system rather than accepting the status quo.

 

Rote learning of skills and passing all the requirement skills will get one an Eagle, but it doesn't mean they learned leadership along the way. Struggling, problem solving, goal setting, stumbling along the way are all lessons in leadership we have come to the conclusion we don't need to teach our boys. As long as they behave and learn the requirements, they are successful. They get a star on the chart (Eagle). But true leadership is developed on the journey, not achieved at the destination.

 

6 weeks ago a "business meeting" was added to our routine at our meetings. The scribe made a report of last week's discussions (minutes), the treasurer made a financial report, our various leaders made reports on all their projects they were working on, etc. Then the discussion was opened up to old and new business discussions. The first meeting it took the whole meeting time. Last Monday, after one of the boys told his buddies they were wasting time, managed to get their meeting down to half the original time. They decided they need to get it down to 10 minutes with no screwing around so they can get on to more important things like training and games. THEY came to that conclusion on their own, not some adult. When the boys themselves are setting goals, it's a lot different than some adult telling them what they have to do.

 

Now those older boys know something that this year's new Webelos boys know that isn't written in some handbook for them to check off for advancement. If they join in with the older boys, when will they get their chance to learn that lesson?

 

It varies from boy to boy, but some of my boys (not necessarily the older boys) think for themselves, problem solve, set goals, adapt, and do what it takes to make it happen regardless of the obstacles along the way. With this much experience learned from the ground up by each boy, I'm very interested in what their Eagle projects are going to look like. How does the (FC) popcorn chair, or the (Star) summer camp organizer top that with a challenging Eagle project? My boys aren't interested in building someone else loom, they want to make one of their own.

 

Your mileage may vary

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

Nuthin' wrong with any of that, jblake (well, except for the Toyota analogy, which lost me completely ). Kids workin' hard, figurin' things out, learning to be independent, being able to determine their own rules and such are all important ingredients and outcomes of Scoutin'.

 

Da only question is how to successfully support that development. How to put up temporary supports when needed or a set of group norms to allow that to happen, and how to avoid expectin' new fellows (and new parents) to go from zero to 60 in 4 seconds or less. We want lads to be able to think for themselves, problem solve, set goals, adapt, etc. by the time they leave scouting, eh? Not just some of 'em, but all of 'em! That doesn't mean we can expect every boy to do that from the time they enter Boy Scouting.

 

So whether within a patrol, learnin' from the example of independent-thinker older boys, or within a troop, learning as a patrol class from adult and youth instructors and guides, it takes a progression of skill development and practice and time for each lad to get there.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

Beavah,

 

We agree pretty much on the outcome, just the process to get there. I find that the younger boys in mixed patrols just sit back and wait to develop while the older boys exercise leadership. Then somehow after sitting and watching, somehow they are able to grab the reins and carry on with no prior experience once the older boys move on. Observation is a good way to learn, but hands-on (EDGE) requires more than just the E and D parts, and G will come when you're older. I just think it's all one process and the boys need to start with small projects right from the git-go. If the new boys want to have an older PL for a while, so be it. If they want to go it alone, so be it. That decision is probably going to be their first lesson in leadership scouting.

 

Stosh

[Venividi]

It is interesting how experiences can be so different. My experience with same age patrols was that patrol leaders in same age patrols didn't do much leading. I contribute that to 1)the boys didn't know how, so they didn't do anything unless an adult led them, 2)the PL scout was reluctant to lead because he was afraid that his patrol members might not like him or his ideas, 3)young PL's did not have the disciple to come prepared to PLC's, so PLC's became boring.

 

Older scouts then no longer wanted to become PL's because they remembered the boring the PLC's.

[Eagledad]

>>We agree pretty much on the outcome, just the process to get there.

[Eagle732]

We put new Scouts in a "New Scout Patrol" where they work with an ASM, and Troop Guide. They stay in this patrol until all new members reach Tenderfoot or until after summer camp (about 5 months after joining) at which point they can choose to go to another patrol or stay in the New Scout Patrol. If the NSP remains in tact they become a regular patrol. Interesting that we have done this for three years and the NSP has always stayed together and even had Scouts from other patrols join them.

 

Aside from the NSP. Scouts can change patrols with reason and approval of the SPL and SM.

[Troop22]

Back to the car manufacture analogy.

I have studied Toyota's philosophy, what to know what it is?? I will tell you. Toyota's employees work in Teams with a high emphasis on teamwork where different teammates hold different positions of leadership. The teammates will swap positions around from time to time (sound a lot like patrols).

The teams also decide how they will get their work done themselves with minimum guidance from supervision. They discuss the task and as a team come up with a plan to accomplish the task. They save tons of money by not having middle management (Sounds like a boy lead organization).

Toyota operates using the LEAN manufacturing method. This method scrutinizes every little detail to cut costs and production time (a Scout is Thrifty)

They also practice a method called 5S. 5S is a way to separate out thing not needed in you working area and to make sure the thing you do need are there and neatly stored ( A Scout is Clean).

I can keep going but I will get to my point. Toyota is doing what the Scouts have been doing for over 100 years. It worked 100 years ago and it works now.