Gradual vs Sudden change & a Scouting Victory

[qwazse 4348]

From decades of work disentangling the machinations of befuddled psychologists, I've concluded that trying to describe "optimal" configuration based on the mean misses the vast bulk of universe that reigns in the variance.

 

In other words, for every patrol mix that someone's found to be a dismal mess, someone else has found a patrol with the same mix to be spectacular.

 

It's mostly a matter of finding the set of "little accomplishments" that a given cluster of boys need to achieve.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

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

 

 

AMEN. 

 

 

My troop has had some real issues of late. In regards to challenges, when one NSP member complained about the lack of challenging campouts of late, another member said "quit complaining. We want easy camp outs."   Not happy about that.

 

Found out the Philmont trip is cancelled due to lack of leadership being able to go ( VERY LONG STORY).  BUT we already had a weekend trip planned and are still going.

 

Same guy who did the prep trip planning, approached the group with an idea to do a 50 mile section of the AT. Catch is that some folks who were not qualified for Philmont would need to be going, so it would be opened up. Long story short, they were ecstatic to do it, and 2 folks who were not going to Philmont are doing the AT.

 

One wasn't going due to age. But he's been backpacking since age 8, including a 40 miler. Other has no interest at all in rank, so he can't go to Philmont.

[Krampus 696]

Found out the Philmont trip is cancelled due to lack of leadership being able to go ( VERY LONG STORY).  BUT we already had a weekend trip planned and are still going.

 

 

We had a few last minute cancellations. We are going this summer (August) and have slots for Scouts and Scouters. It's August 10-18th. It is a pretty easy trek focusing on the fun camps rather than through hiking 120 miles. Boys wanted fun over stress. 

 

Happy to save you a spot or two.

[blw2 433]

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

I think that's a very interesting twist to consider... and very true

I will say this, some youngsters do want to lead, although it's not always in the best way, and in one case I know of personally it's not with the best of intentions

 

@@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.

sure it happens, and it's great to read of your example.... but I'd bet that is an exception to the norm.... especially after reading other experiences here!

 

... with the norm being partially or maybe mostly driven by the influence of mixed patrols and the like... but also just personality dynamics.  I'm just theorizing, but i'd bet that if you were able to study say 10-15 dens that were genuinely given the same opportunity you described, that a good fraction would not have the good outcome.... but instead break-up for all sorts of reasons.

that being said, i still like the idea and would like to see more opportunities for it to happen.  It just makes good sense to me.

[blw2 433]

thinking more about my previous post, and Eagledad's post about the young naturally wanting to observe rather than lead...that is something that really makes me think.

 

In my theoretical thinking.... I'm of the opinion that this is surely a dynamic taht we need to consider and actively address.... but I don't see it solely a cause to not do a "patrol, that happens to be mostly young scouts".  It might just mean that we need to give that young PL a certain different consideration and coaching than we would an older scout.  just like a 6th grade teacher needs to have a different presentation style than an 11th grade teacher... 

[Eagledad 2780]

 

One wasn't going due to age. But he's been backpacking since age 8, including a 40 miler. Other has no interest at all in rank, so he can't go to Philmont.

This is the kind of example that drove us to change our minimum qualifications for just about everything in our troop.

 

You can't do much about Philmont's minimums, so we started looking for other backpacking treks at summer camps and found several good ones in Colorado and New Mexico that didn't have age requirements. We skipped the BSA boundary Waters guides and used our own. Our troop eventually developed what we call adventure crews (AC). These are temporary crews created just for a single trek then dissolved. Adventure Crews can be anything the scouts want. One year we had a snow skiing AC, back packing AC, Philmont trek Crew and a AC that went to Alaska. Over the years we have had river rafting ACs, scuba diving AC that went to Mexico and even an AC that went to six flags once. The only requirements to be in the AC are physical and mental minimums for the trek. Mentally means having the minimum skills for the trek. 

 

The troop also took out any age and rank requirements after above First Class in the all the PORs. Scouts only needed to qualify for just about anything based on their maturity and experience, not their rank above first class and age. Even ambitious new scouts with special skills have a chance for the more mature responsibilities. Although some young scouts found that members of their patrols wanted more from their leaders than just ambition. LOL

 

Barry

[Hedgehog 334]

This is the kind of example that drove us to change our minimum qualifications for just about everything in our troop.

 

 

We typically give the boys options with an adult override if we think the scout isn't qualified.  The only time I had to do something resembling an override is when a parent of a Webelos crossover asked if their son who had never backpacked before should consider doing the 50 miler.  I told them that he wasn't ready and they agreed.  That being said, I had a 12 year old accompany us on that trek and that was his first multiday backpacking trek (he had backpacked into a campout once before).  I knew the boy from Cub Scouts and knew he could do it.

 

We often set up outdoor adventures in two tiers.  Our council's COPE course has a segment for 14 and older boys, so the youger guys did the climbing wall instead.  We had a campout where we cycled 27 miles into camp.  A separate group drove into the campsite.  We have had backpacking treks where we start out on Friday night and the boys do 4 mile Friday night and 4 miles Saturday morning before meeting up with the rest of the group to do 5 miles on Saturday and 4 on Sunday with the younger scouts.  We are trying to plan a winter campout where they boys can build and sleep in snow shelters or sleep in tents or sleep in a cabin -- their choice.

[Eagledad 2780]

Sounds like you have a great troop Hedgehog. 

 

And I agree, just because a scout wants to do an activity, doesn't mean he is qualified physically or mentally, There are different ways for scouts to prove or improve their physical and mental maturity. And, we learned the hard way that even adults need to prove their mental and mostly physical capabilities. 

 

Barry

Edited February 9, 2016 by Eagledad

[Krampus 696]

thinking more about my previous post, and Eagledad's post about the young naturally wanting to observe rather than lead...that is something that really makes me think.

 

In my theoretical thinking.... I'm of the opinion that this is surely a dynamic taht we need to consider and actively address.... but I don't see it solely a cause to not do a "patrol, that happens to be mostly young scouts".  It might just mean that we need to give that young PL a certain different consideration and coaching than we would an older scout.  just like a 6th grade teacher needs to have a different presentation style than an 11th grade teacher... 

 

Leadership is also a spectrum. I have guys that will never be PLs but they make darn good Instructors. Others are not Instructors but excellent QMs. Some are so shy that Scribe is a better role.

 

I think we have to look at age, ability and strengths. For me, leadership roles should play to one's strengths, but allow for room to work on weaknesses. It should be inside their comfort zone but allow them the chance to be challenged. I agree that we should also encourage Scouts to at least TRY other leadership positions. Give being PL (or acting PL) a try. You may like it. You may find a hidden talent.

 

My two cents.

[Eagledad 2780]

 

 

I think we have to look at age, ability and strengths. For me, leadership roles should play to one's strengths, but allow for room to work on weaknesses. It should be inside their comfort zone but allow them the chance to be challenged. I agree that we should also encourage Scouts to at least TRY other leadership positions. Give being PL (or acting PL) a try. You may like it. You may find a hidden talent.

 

THAT IS EXACTLY HOW WE TRY TO DO IT.( Caps for applause). I couldn't have said it better.

 

Experiences in the troop develops the scout's confidence to step up to the next challenge. Before every election, I gave the same speech that if the scout thinks the office he wants is easy, he is too mature for that office and will get bored. Challenges are fun and it is OK to screw up in our troop because it's a sign you are trying. 

 

Barry

[Stosh 3452]

Minimum requirements seem to be an adult derived determination.  Philmont sets them down, BWCA does as well and I'm sure Sea Base has their requirements as well.

 

I never used them.  I have been in troops as ASM were they were imposed and being adult-led, troop-method it didn't make any difference.  Unless one has FC, First Aid, Swimming, and Canoeing MB, you weren't going to go to the BWCA.  Being adult led, they couldn't afford to keep their eye on everyone and so these requirements made up for adult shortcomings.

 

Now, the boys are given those opportunities and they tend to police themselves on the requirements.  If the PL doesn't feel he can take care of under-skilled boys on an outing, they as a group don't go.  They operate not as individuals, but as a cohesive group.  It's one of those Patrol Method dynamics we tend to emphasize in the troops were I'm SM.

 

I have witnessed boys who didn't do their prep work for Philmont and suffer the whole time there to the point of tears when they reached the end.  Boys that took their boots off at the end of the day so they could replace their bloody socks because they weren't knowledgeable hikers.  So yes, removing minimum requirements might sound pretty good and beneficial to the boys' opportunities, but one also have to take into consideration the downside to such decisions.

[Eagledad 2780]

In my theoretical thinking.... I'm of the opinion that this is surely a dynamic taht we need to consider and actively address.... but I don't see it solely a cause to not do a "patrol, that happens to be mostly young scouts".  It might just mean that we need to give that young PL a certain different consideration and coaching than we would an older scout.  just like a 6th grade teacher needs to have a different presentation style than an 11th grade teacher... 

You are exactly right. If you can understand the mind of the scout, than you can better understand how to improve the scouts' growth.

 

Think about the brave adults who start a new troop from a den of just crossed over Webelos. With the knowledge that boys this age don't want to lead, how do the adults develop a patrol or troop program that use the actions of leaders? We all have different styles, but the challenge is for those adults to give the young scouts enough leadership responsibility for develop habits and traditions without taking the fun out of the program. The adults have to be very understanding of the situation, very creative to encourage the scouts with challenging responsibilties, and very empathetic to know when the scouts have had enough. Starting a new troop is hard, I'm worn out just thinking about it. 

 

Barry

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

We had a few last minute cancellations. We are going this summer (August) and have slots for Scouts and Scouters. It's August 10-18th. It is a pretty easy trek focusing on the fun camps rather than through hiking 120 miles. Boys wanted fun over stress. 

 

Happy to save you a spot or two.

 

Thanks for the offer, but we have plan B going. 1 Weekend prep trip in May ( and I get to go on too )  1 seven day trip on the AT in July, and hooking up with the original contingent leader's old troop that has spots for 2017.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

This may seem odd, but I understand where the age minimums come from.  When I did BA 22 way back in the day, we had someone with an age waiver do the program. 12 years old and a brand new First Class Scout.  The kid was a major burden on an already challenging patrol situation ( 13 and 14 year olds from all over the council) and could not hack the program. he deliberately infected his blisters in order to avoid the backpacking portion of the program.

[Krampus 696]

THAT IS EXACTLY HOW WE TRY TO DO IT.( Caps for applause). I couldn't have said it better.

 

Experiences in the troop develops the scout's confidence to step up to the next challenge. Before every election, I gave the same speech that if the scout thinks the office he wants is easy, he is too mature for that office and will get bored. Challenges are fun and it is OK to screw up in our troop because it's a sign you are trying. 

 

Barry

 

Barry, one other thing we run in to often is that some adults get frustrated in "having to teach leadership/responsibility all over again" every year. I keep reminding them that leadership, will be cyclical (Think: Economic waves for the Econ majors out there). Some guys will be on one wave, others will be on a different wave. We, as leaders, are on a constant, always having to validate which wave of leaders needs help and which are fine and on the upswing.