Sentinel947

Basement: to me it's a gray area, because all I know is what the OP has told me. I can't possibly know every bit of this scenario. There are two positions here, one where the Lad stays, and one where he gets the boot. Again. The Parents, Scoutmaster, and Committee need to make that determination. Not just for the Scout, but the entire Troop. Threats and Violence are serious matters. Certainly this Scout#3 could be a dangerous individual. He could be a real danger to other kids. Without his history, without any sort of context or information about him, I'm not ready to jump on the kick him out bandwagon. There needs to be more information for me than: Scout3 gets hit with a taco(but seriously, who gets hit with a taco and decides to pull a knife out? Overkill????), Scout3 grabs Scout1 and threatens him, (what does threaten mean? What did the Scout actually say?), Scout1 mouths off, and Scout3 pulls his knife). With so many critical details I haven't reached a conclusion. Certainly either way this kid needs to be facing consequences for his actions. The whole "boys will be boys" thing doesn't apply here. Respectfully yours, Sentinel947

I've got no experience in the matter. When I was a Scout (14-15) another Scout from a different troop threatened me with a knife at Summer Camp. I just laughed at him, and told him there was no way he was going to be able to hurt me with such a small knife. He looked at me kind of dumbfounded and put his little knife away. I'm on the fence with this one. I'm going to cautiously point out that a Scout threatening with a knife isn't the same as an attack, isn't the same as the usage or attempted usage of the knife, in my completely inexperienced opinion. More information on the situation may be needed perhaps, I dunno. Zero Tolerance has zero intelligence. Zero Tolerance is a system set up so people in the field (whether it be Scouting ,Daycare, School or anywhere) have zero discretion and don't have to exhibit a single scrap of intelligence. I don't like the laughable behind-covering of zero tolerance. Ultimately in this situation, the parents of both Scouts, the Committee, and the Scoutmaster need to come together and make a determination on this boy's future. Clearly threatening another Scout is completely unacceptable. In my mind, if this lad doesn't have a history, and doesn't have some sort of mental disorder that would cause him to become unhinged, I don't see this as something to kick him out of Scouting. He made a stupid choice. A choice made on the spot in a moment of embarrassment and anger. What concerns me more than anything is the physical contact the OP described between Scout 1 and Scout 3. That for me starts to raise additional warning flags from being a stupid threat to something a bit more sinister. Sentinel947

Lets not stereotype so blatantly here please. Whether or not a child is resistant to trying something new isn't based on ADD/ADHD.

5 gold rings!

Eagle92, Emphasis or shouting, your point has been made. What I meant was that I don't have that kind of influence. I have soft influence. The kind where when the SPL is struggling, he asks my opinion. When the Life Scout is thinking about his Eagle project he comes and asks me. I think when I've seen my Troop in alot of these discussions. I've seen alot of Beavahs points and Fred's points be extremely valid. In my troop due to the flux in patrol members. (Since they can and sometimes do switch patrols, and new members are brought inmass every 6 months) I can't pin us down as being either "mixed age" or "same age". I'd say when the patrol's are operating more efficently, the ages are more mixed. I'd certainly believe that the NSP's are designed to help with advancement. Advancement is kind of an elevated point in the Troop. I don't think it's overemphasized. (I was First Class for almost 3 years) but it's certainly elevated just by the concept of the New Scout Patrol. We have 45 Eagles since 1992. So averaging a bit over 2 a year. Certainly not an "Eagle Mill" by any standards. My troop does patrol membership by the Fruit Salad membership like twocubdad described. I'm curious what other methods are out there. Anybody care to help me out?

I have not been to Woodbadge. Someone care to explain the hubub with the game of life?

"5) Usually da adults recruit boys for the TG / ASPL for younger division / JASM / Instructor roles. They try to make those jobs high prestige, with adult-like perks (eat with adults, special recognitions, etc.) " I was following you up until there. I don't think I've ever even heard of that before. Perhaps you have? I'd find that shocking. Not shocking in a good way mind you.

The age based patrols aren't as workable for younger Scouts. As far as my experience, they don't end very well. As Boys get older, basically forming Venture Patrols, it works. But it's a hard thing to operate with younger boys. If you assign an older boy to lead em, then it's a mixed age patrol then.

"I think that mentoring scouts in meal planning, in selection of destinations, and in patrol structure is within the purview of the ScoutMaster, as part of helping to achieve the aims of scouting." I wish I could have been that succinct with my words. "So in my mind, I see little difference between guiding scouts to select meals that need to be cooked and guiding scouts in structuring patrols." That's certainly valid. As Beavah said, it all depends on goals and expectations. I liked your analogy of cheerios and poptarts. It made me laugh because We had a patrol when I was lad that tried something similiar with donuts. And when the December Klondike derby rolled around, they weren't very pleased with their donuts. Needless to say they learned something from that experience. On the flip side, after I aged out, we had a new Scoutmaster. When a different patrol tried something similiar to the poptarts, donuts, whatever scenario, he told them to remake their meal plan. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's expanding their knowledge, their cooking abilities, and forcing them to try something new. Not bad at all. However: You made a great point... Let me see if I can find it: AHA! here. "Cooking requires scouts to work together; it helps them become self confident by learning and continually practicing a skill. Something we want, so adults either require it, set expectations, or use a socratic method to help the scouts arrive at the same conclusion." " or use a socratic method to help the scouts arrive at the same conclusion" I really like that. I think part of my problems on this forum is I fail to fully capture my whole opinions on subjects and leave posts not fully explained. Sentinel947

Not sure what it would cost, but there is the possibility of maybe flying into Buffalo, New York and then driving to Toronto? Best of luck, Sentinel947

"If a patrol wanted to order pizza on every campout, or eat only poptarts and cheerios for every meal because the didn't like to cook, would you let them? If you didn't let them, would that be an indication that the troop is not boy led?" If a patrol wanted to order pizza on a campout, that's certainly not Scouting. Or camping really. I don't think myself or the Adult leaders shooting that down is not being Boy led. With regards to Poptarts and cheerios. Sure. Why not let em try it? They'll find out really quick when other patrols are eating dutch oven meals that poptarts and cheerios aren't really all that tasty and would be really not fun in the winter. We had a patrol that always wanted donuts for breakfast. When it got to be 20 degress in December, they realized that donuts aren't a great breakfast choice. However I do see your point. If the boys want to hike Mount Everest, is saying no not being boy led? I certainly don't think so. I'd say the Scoutmaster needs to step in. Perhaps steer them to a more feasible adventure, like the AT? I think you've taken my position on letting boys pick what patrol system they'd like to operate and grossly exaggerated it. Perhaps I havn't been very clear in one of my other posts. I'm certainly not advocating that the Scouts can literally do ANYTHING they want. There is a program that the adult volunteers do have to carry out.(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

I think I've been talking past myself for a while here. Falling victim to my own observation. Taking things too personally on this forum. I apologize Eagledad. I think I specifically said in a different post in this thread that your troop seems boy led to me. Anywhere else where I might be implying otherwise is not true. "I notice you seem very offended with my opinion of dying patrols, but does it not make sense why you feel dying patrols are normal and I wouldnt sense aged based patrols have to die when the same group reaches age, while mixed age patrols are constantly being fed new blood. Its not even a matter of agreeing to disagree, our different opinions of dying patrols are each logical based from our experiences of the two different styles of patrols. However, the OP was asking the question from a mixed age patrol perspective. My answer would have been like yours if he was asking from a same age patrol. " That pretty much sums it up for me. I can't elaborate any better than you did. I misinterpreted some of things I read earlier on. Certainly from a mixed patrol perspective, having patrols die is not normal. It would be a sign the troop is doing poorly. In a same Age patrol troop, it's completely normal. The OP asks about Age based patrols. He asked how they ensure the patrols don't die. In an age based patrol system... they do die. That's my opinion on the matter based on experience. And Eagledad, I certainly respect your experience. I respect everyone on this forum, almost all of whom have more time as Adults in Scouting than I do. Yours in Scouting, Sentinel947

Eamonn:

Fair enough. His observations are accurate. I see some of his observations in my own troop sometime. I think Fred's post is rather interesting as well.

I think your observations are spot on there Eamonn.

I think the biggest issue on this forum is that people take the expression of a different opinion as an attack on their model. Everything on this forum has to be "I'm right", "my troop does it right." Eagledad: If a Troop has mixed age patrols, and the Boys themselves, or the PLC makes that decision, than it would be boy led. If you, being an adult, are making the decision, I think I would be more than implying that isn't Boy leadership. Correct or no? Through my time in Scouts, I was in a mixed age patrol (besides my first year in the NSP). I was in the Cavalry Patrol. Still have the little golden sword pin we used instead of a patrol patch. Furthermore, On who's authority is it that patrols staying around forever is a good thing? That's your opinion, not a verifiable fact. Boys don't always stay in the same groups. They don't always keep the same friends. They don't always keep the same interests. 7 years of Scouting is a large amount of time in the life of a Boy. The people I considered to be my friends have changed quite a bit since I was 11 years old. "Just because a program has a pre-designed long range structure does not mean in any way that the adults are controlling or that its not boy run. I will match our boy run program to anyone here. Our patrols were camping 100 yards apart long before that became popular on this forum. Successful mature programs require some kind of structure that uses the methods of program to reach the aims." Again. At least with me, there I'm not advocating an I'm right, you are wrong sort of argument here. By all accounts, your Troop is boy led. They use mixed age patrols. That's their decision. Other Troops have Boys who have reached a different conclusion. Nothing wrong there. Except you and Beavah keep saying it is. "Like Eamonn, the PLC picked the patrol for me and my best friend when I was a boy." That's right. Thats boy led. "A Brief history lesson here, the BSA didnt start encouraging the aged based patrol structure until around 1990. That is also when they switched to the tradition of crossing over new scouts in one group at the beginning of the year. The intent of the changes was to decrease the first year scout losses which were, and still are, the BSAs largest single loss of scouts. Eagle92 knows the history better than I, but that is why the literature is written the way it is. " And in the Scoutmasters handbook post 1990's they actually talk of having New Scout patrols and Regular patrols. With kids of similar ages and interests. What of it? If having mixed age patrols in your troop has worked, and the results are good why change it? Respectfully yours, Sentinel947(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

Beavah, Fred, and I have been having a back and forth in a different thread. My question is, how long do patrols in YOUR troop last (not the ideal, Norman Rockwellized version). My troop has 5 patrols. about 45-50 active members. In my troop, most of the patrols stay constant, but probably one or two patrols a year folds. Part of it is that Scouts leave the troop or have an athletic season. Integrating the new Scouts (We use a NSP) also adds to a bit of shuffling. Our PLC has decided that patrols are allowed to add or drop members every Troop election. My opinion based on my experience is that if a patrol or two goes under due to lack of activity, lack of group cohesion it's no big deal. So to reiterate my talking points here: This is not a thread about NSP, or mixed/same aged patrols in your troop. This is a thread about Patrol cohesiveness. Does Patrols in your troop stay together for a long time, or are the members moving around a bit more? Do you feel like this is a good thing for your troop or not? What does your troop do with an inactive or disfunctional patrol? Who does it? The SPL and PLC or the Scoutmasters? I'd like to add I'm not the Scoutmaster, I'm not on the committee, I'm Unit College Scouter Reserve. So my opinion counts for about a spoonful of hot spit. So yea, I don't expect my troop to be leaving this model. Whether or not I think it should. Please be respectful and courteous! Sentinel947 (edited to fix grammar, spelling, and a typo!)(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

Beavah. I can if you'd like, However, I think we do have a "full throated patrol method". I just think that if a patrol folds every once in a while, it's not a big deal. The Troops give Scouts the chance to switch patrols if they'd like to. I think we're arguing for roughly the same ideal. But lets go ahead and get this new discussion going. I'm snowed in the house for the evening.

Beavah, you keep stealing all my points! Darn it! =P I concur with what Beavahs been saying. Sentinel947

I've been considering WB, it's kind of out of my financial ability this year. I went to NYLT 5 years ago. I don't know what your troop is like Beavah. I think my post was written for brevity, and you don't understand my whole position on it. My Troop, (the one I grew up in, and the one I currently volunteer with) has had between 45-60 kids for as long as I can remember. We have plenty of patrols that stay together for years. My patrol was called the "Cavalry" patrol. I was in it from my second year till I aged out, except for when I was Senior Patrol Leader. However, in a troop so large, we sometimes have patrols that lose members and simply don't have the numbers to function properly. This is maybe one or two patrols out of 7 or 8. Therefore we do reorganization with every election cycle. Some patrols have more spirit and comradery than others. Some stick together. Sometimes the Scouts realize that they didn't really like the patrol they were in the last election, and jump patrols. I can't exactly say how many Scouts that is. The comment of mine that you quoted I'll attempt to explain again "Patrols dieing is normal and natural. It should not be feared. If you do patrol reorganization with each election, the boys in "dieing" patrols will simply jump to a new one. " What I mean by that is simple. It doesn't mean that EVERY patrol will be reorganized. It does accept the reality of a large troop such as mine. Scouts leave, new boys join. Since we have NSP they have to be integrated into the troop every year. Sometimes they stay in their NSP after their first year, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes patrols don't change after a election. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are same age patrols, sometimes they mix ages. In our troop that's a choice the Boys themselves make, without adult's telling them what's up. I think that's the best. Therefore, Patrols dieing is normal and natural, and it's not scary nor the end of the world. It's not optimal, and if all the patrols are constantly forming and collapsing over and over, it's not a good sign. But if a patrol or two comes apart at the seams, the boys making new patrols or joining exsisting ones isn't a bad thing. Maybe I'll go to Woodbadge and have a relevation sometime. In the meantime, I'll stick with what I know, even if that isn't much. Respectfully yours, Sentinel947(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

two turtle doves.....

I'm gonna come bat for Freds team here. When I was a Scout, I joined in 2005 and aged out in 2011, My troop had the first year Scouts in patrols led by the Troop Guides. Not sure how close to the BSA guidelines that is. After our first year we were free to join whatever patrol we wanted to. I had a buddy who was year older, and instantly jumped into a patrol that was with mostly older guys. I was 12, they were 13-14. From there I made more friends, most of whom were younger than I was. After my second year, the patrol I was in always had kids ranging from 12-17. It just kinda happened, It varied. Sometimes the patrol had younger Scouts 12-14, sometimes it looked more like a Venture Patrol. Sometimes my buddies and I invited in people who needed a friend, and sometimes we didn't have to. I think mixed age patrols are wonderful. I think patrols were the Scouts are roughly the same age is equally as wonderful. I think Scouts should be free to experience both if they so desire. I don't think Adult intervention or manipulation should be done in anyway at all with patrols. There are lessons to be learned in each type. What's important is the Scouts get to choose how their troop and patrols operate. That's part of the beauty of Scouting. If a Troop elects to use a NSP, all the power to them, and if they don't great. If it works, it works. As to the OP: Patrols dieing is normal and natural. It should not be feared. If you do patrol reorganization with each election, the boys in "dieing" patrols will simply jump to a new one. As for New Scouts, that could really warrant it's own topic. It's a classic argument between New Scouts only patrols or bringing the New Lads into fully cohesive mixed age patrols right away. Both have their merits. My troop uses a New Scout Patrol. We like the results. There isn't a right answer or a wrong answer. Yours in Scouting, Sentinel947

thanks Fred for correcting me. What you posted is exactly what I meant. I hope reviving a thread after 4 days isn't necroposting... Sentinel947

"Pack, finely crafted ideals...but what will you do if you run across the thug who doesn't care what you think of him? Or your view of the world? He's up to no good, pulls his gun on you. Or a knife. Or attacks you. " If I come across a thug and he attacks me, I'm giving him anything he asks for, and if he wants to kill me, I doubt I can draw my weapon before he decides to do so. I live on a College Campus in a really rough neighborhood. I don't really fear getting mugged or just attacked out of the blue. I don't go out early in the morning, I try to travel in groups, and I keep situational awareness. I don't feel the need to carry a weapon of any sort. There isn't anything anybody is going to say that will convince me that leaders should be packing heat on a Scouting Trip. Very similarly to the Aurora theater shooting, I doubt my ability to locate the shooter in the dark, and send rounds downrange safely without putting the youth in even more danger than they already are in. With all guns, you can't hit what you cannot locate. I'll take my chances with the psychos. Bringing my fists to a gunfight, Sentinel947

Our Troop has a small handful of kids with mental disability. Whether diagnosed or not. I was diagnosed with ADD, and I'm not sure how "different" I really was from any of my peers. Sometimes it's interesting to see "normal" boys acting worse than boys with confirmed diagnosed mental disorders..... I think it comes down to whether or not they are violent. Violence has no place in the Boy Scouts at any time ever. Kids will be kids, but if someone is getting beaten up ( which I thought I read in another post) they need to be removed. It's a safety issue. If the Adult leaders don't feel comfortable bringing em in or working with em, I don't think that's a bad thing. If you can't handle them, everyone including the handicaped Scout gets shortchanged. Basementdweller: In a Troop like yours, urban, small, a child like this is more than you need to handle. It's not fair to you or your Scouts. In my troop with the 3 ASM's and SM, plus a handful of experienced Scouters, it's not so big an issue with us. I think these mentally challenged lads get more from Scouting than anybody else, but their needs can't trump the other boys. Anyhow I'm not the Scoutmaster, it's not my call anyways. Being one of those kids who had a "label" I'd have to say everything turned out ok. It's certainly a case by case thing. Yours in Service, Sentinel947