Gradual vs Sudden change & a Scouting Victory

[KenD500 77]

I'm a big proponent of gradual changes in the Troop.  But in order for that to work, the SM, SPL & PLC have to have a road map/goal in mind.

 

Right now, one of my goals is to have an SPL running things and for me to only speak when asked & SM Moments.

 

I had a small step/victory towards that this past camp out.  We normally retire a flag or 2 during the Saturday night camp fire.  In the past, I led the flag detail and would say a few words.  This past camp out, I had a Scout volunteer to lead the flag detail.  He did a good job with it.  I was swollen with pride.  And I was able to shut my mouth 1 more time and take a step back.

 

The only snag I found (minor) - I normally dig the grommets out of the fire, clean them up & give them to the flag detail to wear on a shoulder cord on their uniform.  There's only 2 grommets per flag and now I had 3 Scouts participating.  Solution - I made a grommet with a red cord inside it to set it apart from the others.

 

It's the little victories that I really love/cherish.

[Sentinel947 1205]

The little steps forward we take are awesome, and it's important to stop and smell the roses. Otherwise we drive ourselves nuts trying to constantly improve things, and never appreciate the accomplishments the boys make. 

[Stosh 3452]

I can never figure out why it is so difficult to understand the blending of ideas in scouting and how it is often segmented out into it's many parts.

 

TRAIN 'EM, trust 'em, let them lead!

 

Adult-led program that moves to boy-led.... this doesn't mean one flips a switch and now by some miraculous action, the boys are up and humming like a well-oiled machine.  No, it means the adults associating with the boys, not directing, not guiding, not mentoring, but simply associating with them, train them in the duties the adults are doing so the boys can take over.  It's the Train 'em part of the formula.  Once the boys have been trained, then get out of the way and Trust 'em.  Yeah, one still associates with them, but the training is done, no more guiding, mentoring, etc. unless a boy comes to an adult for a more specific training needed to do the job.

 

So where's the switch flipping?   Shouldn't be any.  Where's the training?  heavy duty in the beginning, tapering off to nothing within a short period of time.  Most of the jobs the adults get in an mess with aren't that difficult,  lining up potlucks?  making phone calls? signing up for summer camp? we aren't talking rocket science here!  Keep that for the Rocketry MB.

[Krampus 696]

Have a camp out coming up. All the older Scouts have other spring events to attend and cannot be there. The younger Scouts were a bit scared about camping without the older guys to lead. When I told them that THEY were in charge since the older guys were not there, their eyes lit up.

 

They are now VERY excited about camping and cooking.

[Stosh 3452]

this is one of the "problems" I find with mixed aged patrols.  The younger boys don't get a chance right from the beginning to experience leadership.  It also identifies at an earlier age who those boys are that will be "taking" over the unit at a later date, and it also means one knows that those boys have more actual experience too, they started at a younger age! 

[Krampus 696]

this is one of the "problems" I find with mixed aged patrols.  The younger boys don't get a chance right from the beginning to experience leadership.  It also identifies at an earlier age who those boys are that will be "taking" over the unit at a later date, and it also means one knows that those boys have more actual experience too, they started at a younger age! 

 

The younger guys get a chance to lead. The issue was one of the training wheels coming off. They've always had the older guys there as back up, even when the younger guys were leading. Now the older guys are out, so the fun shall begin.

[CalicoPenn 729]

this is one of the "problems" I find with mixed aged patrols.  The younger boys don't get a chance right from the beginning to experience leadership.  It also identifies at an earlier age who those boys are that will be "taking" over the unit at a later date, and it also means one knows that those boys have more actual experience too, they started at a younger age! 

 

Alternatively, in non-mixed Patrols, the younger Scouts don't get an opportunity to observe how their older PL(s) lead the Patrol.

[blw2 433]

Alternatively, in non-mixed Patrols, the younger Scouts don't get an opportunity to observe how their older PL(s) lead the Patrol.

ok, valid point I guess

but couldn't the young inexperienced PL gain a lot of that from his work on the PLC?

and wouldn't that same PL along with his entire patrol observe the other patrols from day to day?

and wouldn't that same young PL get some guidance from the little bit of extra attention from a good troop guide and or ASM or SM early on, in the form of point outs to the handbook or elsewhere to define the  program.... & guide him through suggestive questioning?

and if that's a seriously big hole, then couldn't that young patrol be invited to join a more experienced patrol for certain meetings or events to observe?

.... all while maintaining their patrol identity....

 

I get that the NSP often fails.... and is a dirty word among most folks here.... for good reason I suppose.... but I see advantages in the logic anyway too.

 

I'm coming to think that a lot of the problems with them come from the name, which defines a lot of constraints.

Maybe it makes more sense to think of it as a patrol.  One that happens to have mostly inexperienced scouts.

 

that doesn't lock it into all the same age.... or all the same rank

and it doesn't define some special leadership structure

or into some special program.

 

The only reason my mind keeps defending this NSP idea, is the core definition that was the foundation of BP forming patrols in the 1st place.  friends 'hanging out' together and so on....

and for his desire to instill strong patrol spirit and identity to have good roots, the patrol would need to be a long term thing....

 

So what is now the "NSP".... let's call them the flaming arrow patrol

 

So the flaming arrows are all new boys....

in a few months they might pick up more or loose a few either to drops or to other patrols

but since they are mostly new, they need a little more special coaching form a guide or SM for a little while, but that doesn't change anything....

 

Next year when the new batch of recruits comes aboard, .... or maybe even before that happens when they get up to speed...the flaming arrow patrol silently become just another patrol

 

4 years, 5 years down the road the flaming arrow patrol is a strong spirited group of friends together through anything. Mostly the same plank owners from the early days, but with a few pickups and changes through the years as friendships bonded with boys in other patrols and boys left for other patrols or joined from other patrols....or an odd new 11 year old joined the troop mid year and was taken under their wing like a little brother might be.  He's a proud member of the flaming arrows too.

their patrol historians through the years have by now amassed a pretty good set of stories from all of their patrol adventures, and troop adventures...

 

Now when the original scouts age out at 18, if there were enough pickups of younger scouts they can continue on and keep the patrol's flag flying....

or if not, the flag might be retired or picked up by the next NSP.

 

I know this is all pie in the sky thinking, and all too perfect..... but I'm pretty sure based on what I have read, was the foundation for the idea of the patrol concept.  Lots of reasons why it might not work, sure, but there are some good reasons to that make it seem like a strong patrol that will spark some really strong lifelong friendships too.

 

I don't know.  I think it could make for a good movie anyway.

[Stosh 3452]

Alternatively, in non-mixed Patrols, the younger Scouts don't get an opportunity to observe how their older PL(s) lead the Patrol.

there are good examples and there are...well, lets just say "other" examples.  Older boys don't lead the same as younger boys would because the requirements would be different.  Older boys are more mature and they will interact differently for the PL, help out more, think ahead, etc. whereas the younger boys will rely heavier on the PL for leadership and guidance.  A mixed patrol would require a higher degree of heavy lifting for the PL than one of their own peers who are picking up more slack in the patrol.  The TG would be the backup person for the younger patrols and participate a bit more as the younger PL's develop.  Also if the SPL were functioning in a PL support role, they too, would have a greater impact working with the PL of the less skilled PL's.  Older patrols would be able to take care of themselves more.  If all are mixed patrols, the SPL would be either equally very busy or nothing to do.  I'm thinking that with the combo of TG and SPL the younger patrols would have plenty of older boy experience to glean from.  I don't use SPL's very often, but my TG is always a great help to the younger patrols.  One also has to remember that the TG isn't just for the young patrols, he is the TROOP Guide.  My TG functions in the SPL role of supporting the PL's in their leadership of the patrols.  Maybe this is why I have gotten away all these years without having to worry about SPL's "running the show".

 

The younger guys get a chance to lead. The issue was one of the training wheels coming off. They've always had the older guys there as back up, even when the younger guys were leading. Now the older guys are out, so the fun shall begin.

My boys don't get training wheels.    I never had them as a kid, my kids never had them either.  After a few bumps and scrapes, we were ready to go.    And surprisingly, I learned to ride a bike on a regular 24" bike so I rode a year or so before I could sit on the seat.    Maybe this is why I have learned to think outside the box.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Stosh

[Eagledad 2780]

Young guys don't want to be leaders, they want adventure. Young PL leaders is a new idea that came along with the NSP patrols. The nature of pre puberty boys is adventure in groups with their friends, not standing out alone as the leader away from their friends. That all changes with puberty. Pre puberty boys learn 90% of their behavior by watching those around them. Once they reach puberty, that natural learning switches off and their instinct for independent thought is driven by what they learned from observing. A troop doesn't have to teach leadership if the older scouts are seen doing it. Trust me, I've watched it work over and over many times. New leaders will basically mimic the habits they observed over the years from the leaders before them.

 

 

I got all that from my child psychologist Scoutmaster buddies. Let the new guys enjoy the adventure side of the program, which is why they joined and let the older guys lead which is why they stay. Of course you can force the new scouts to lead and it will be fun for them at first, but it gets old really fast. They get bored, then frustrated because they are performing up to somebodies expectation. They don't have fun and they want to leave. It is the cycle of life. Even when we have NSPs, we don't make them lead. 

 

Barry

[Stosh 3452]

@@blw2

 

It's not pie in the sky theory.  My Webelos I boys had been together since Tigers.  I kept them together in Web I and II.  They moved into the troop with 6 boys, just enough to be a patrol.  They stayed together and all of them Eagled while still in the same patrol.  After they began aging out, the patrol "fell apart" and the flag was eventually retired.  The last couple of boys were doing POR's on the troop level so they really didn't have a patrol to speak of anyway.  They just camped with the other LC boys.

[Stosh 3452]

in my Child Development studies back in college it was noted even back then that there are going to be some 14 year old adults and 45 year old children in this world.  I have always found that to be true.  Parent dies at a young age, the child has to step up earlier in life.  Others with overly indulgent parents have been known to dwell in basements for quite some time.  Can't really make a blanket rule for all 11 year olds only want adventure.  There are those who are seriously looking to grow up and every opportunity should be afforded to them and not held back by preconceived adult theories on child development.

[Eagledad 2780]

:)There are those who are seriously looking to grow up and every opportunity should be afforded to them and not held back by preconceived adult theories on child development.

Of course, that is what patrol method does. But a program should not be restricted for the few, rather it is designed for the many while not restricting the special talents of the few.

 

Barry

[Stosh 3452]

Isn't that the definition of "dumbing down"?

[Eagledad 2780]

Dumbing down is not allowing for the exceptional minority to accel to their level of challenge. The reason patrol method works is because the individuals of the patrol are not limited to a single level of challenges.

 

Barry

Edited February 8, 2016 by Eagledad