reforming the patrols

[allangr1024 71]

Hi all,

 

I took over as SM last year, a troop that has only marginally been boy run. The troop had patrols, PLs and an SPL, but they had little to do but plan campout menus. The troop had a dynamic SM who left 5 years ago for a job in another city, and the troop coasted along for a while. But now we are down from 50 boys to 12, and I am determined to turn the troop from being adult led to boy led, and from being troop-centric to patrol-centric. I combined old unworkable patrols from 5 to 2, and am giving the boys more responsibilities for planning things.

 

We have had several boys leave in the past year. Some aged out (got Eagle just in the nick of time). Some moved, and some we just lost. So now I can count 12 active boys. Three are new, attracted by a troop open house we did earlier. Our two patrols are very lopsided, with 3 now in one and 7 in another. We have one SPL and one ASPL. I would like to continue recruiting and get 4 or 5 more boys. Next year we will do the Webelos transition stuff and the Den Chief contacts.

 

I need to form the patrols again. What is the best and most fair way to do this. I have thought of these methods:

 

- Appoint patrol leaders and assign the boys to the patrols. (Not very boy led, I know). Even the ages out so each patrol has equal numbers of 14 year olds, 12 year olds, ect.

 

- Let the SPL divide the boys into patrols.

 

- Lottery. Give the boys a folded piece of paper with a 1 or 2 written on it, and form patrols from these groupings.

 

- Let the boys pick 1 or 2, then step in and even it out if needed.

 

After I have the groupings, I will have them make the patrol decisions; pick patrol leader, pick patrol name, invent patrol yell, make patrol flag, assign patrol duties. I want them to camp as patrols, eat as patrols often, and have patrol leaders and the PLC involved in troop decision making more.

 

Any ideas?

 

[Beavah 205]

Why do you need an SPL and an ASPL for a troop of only two small patrols? I'd be inclined to dissolve those positions until yeh get bigger, eh? Two PLs can coordinate between themselves without needing one manager apiece, I reckon. Save da "Troop Method" positions for when yeh grow to 3 or 4 patrols.

 

As far as your options for creating patrols, can I vote "none of the above?"

 

I think yeh work with the lads to develop a "guided consensus." You set a few boundaries and make a pitch for a way of thinkin' about things (like each patrol has to be "viable" on every outing, and the coolest older guys are the ones who watch out for da young guys - service leadership).

 

Then you let 'em manage da rest.

 

But you're closer to this situation, eh? If there's some real need to break from a prior (bad) tradition, then sometimes yeh have to take the reins or push harder.

 

B

 

[kenk 11]

Let the boys run the troop. Have faith that they will do the right thing. Give them gentle guidance and TRAINING on the Scouting program. The patrol is the fundamental unit of Boy Scouts. Focus on the patrols and the troop will naturally come along just fine.

 

(1) Send out an announcement to the boys in the troop that the "next" troop meeting will be critical to the future of the troop and that their attendance is absolutely critical. You want to have every boy there. Offer to feed them pizza if necessary to get them there.

 

(2) Your troop needs a SPL. Sit all the Scouts down and read to them the descriptions/responsibilities of the senior patrol leader and assistant senior patrol leader.

 

(3) Have the Scouts elect a senior patrol leader.

 

(4) Have the elected senior patrol leader select an assistant senior patrol leader.

 

(5) Patrols work best when they form "naturally". Tell the remaining 10 Scouts that there needs to be two patrols with no less than, say, 4 Scouts in each patrol. Tell them to form their patrols - one over "there" and the other over "there".

 

If one of the patrols is too big, tell that patrol that some number of boys needs to move over to the other patrol, and let them decide who will move (maybe one, maybe two will go together). Its better to have patrol sizes 4 & 6 and have them happy then worry about each having 5 Scouts.

 

 

(6) Sit all the Scouts down and read to them the descriptions/responsibilities of the patrol leader and assistant patrol leader.

 

(7) Then have each patrol elect a patrol leader.

 

(8) Have each patrol leader select an assistant patrol leader.

 

(9) Provide the SPL, ASPL, PLs, and APLs with leadership training through your council.

 

(10) Make sure you put in the effort to have the following:

 

--If you haven't already, get a copy of the Scoutmaster's Handbook and read it from cover to cover. It defines how Scouting works. Attend Scoutmaster Training as soon as possible.

 

--Hold an annual Program Planning Conference to clearly define the upcoming year's plan. Make sure the Scouts are HEAVILY involved in the planning per the conference description in the Scoutmaster's Handbook. If it is THEIR program and THEIR activities, then they will LOVE it and enjoy it. A good program will easily draw in new Scouts.

 

--Schedule and commite to regular Patrol Leaders Council Meetings - allow the Scouts to run the meeting WITH YOUR GUIDANCE. Have them follow the agenda listed in the SPL handbook. Help them succeed.

 

--Do whatever you can to make sure the Troop Committee exists, that each key position is filled and active, and that they hold regularly scheduled meetings. Demand that the troop committee members are trained, or at least that they review the Troop Committee Guidebook together (self-training). It is critical that they understand how Scouting works.

 

--Work with the PLC do define the equipment the patrols need to camp. The SPL & ASPL will be eating with the patrols (suggest they get "invited" on a rotational basis - they should offer to help with cooking and cleanup, but when doing that they are listening to the PL). This could be done initially at the PLC level and then also at the troop level.

 

--Work with the Troop Committee to ensure that the money is there to fund the purchases of gear through fundraising and/or dues - whatever is decided. Keep the parents involved with the committee - not the troop (if you get my thinking).

 

--Make sure the patrols decide on their own menus, arrange food purchase (pick a grubmaster for each campout that determines who is going (including either the SPL or ASPL), does food purchases, splits the costs, and gets payments from each fellow patrol member). Decide well ahead of time which patrol "gets" the SPL and ASPL.

 

--Adults should form their own patrol. The adult patrol should function JUST LIKE the youth patrols. The Scoutmaster is the assumed PL. They should ID grubmasters, have a full set of gear, and so forth.

 

I'm amazed at how well Boy Scouts is defined. It works! The idea is to just follow the program and the results will come.

[John-in-KC 311]

I think I agree with Beavah.

 

Two Patrols. If you have a remaining older Scout, make him JASM, and let him be a tie-breaker if there must be one.

 

Look at SPL at 3 patrols.

 

Look at an ASPL at 4.

 

Leadership has two functions: Train the boys to lead, and help make things happen. In a small troop, your time with the youth can be close, and you can mentor freely. As your troop grows, you'll have to make each SM conference and PLC encounter matter more.

[Stosh 3452]

I'm with Beavah on this one 100%.

 

Get the patrols functioning as patrols BEFORE considering troop level leadership.

 

If the boys need an SPL at an event, let the 1 PL's decide/take turns to go and get the info and treats. It's not a big deal.

 

With 12 boys, let them decide how they should be divided, 6 in each patrol. Let them pick their leadership. Let them develop their program. Let them... Notice the common denominator here? If one is truly looking for boy-led, patrol-method, LET THEM is the most important key ingredient of the whole mix. Train them what boy-led, patrol-method is/means and then stand back, get out of the way and "let them" figure it out.

 

I have a situation now where I had three patrols of older boy led, mostly new boy members. The patrol with the most older boys had a major loss of older boys who all quit enmass. The 4 new scouts are scrambling to keep their heads above water, but they elected a PL and he selected an APL, they are continuing to put together their summer camp program as a "stand alone" patrol. They could have easily requested to declare the patrol defunct and move into the other patrols but haven't even considered that possibility at this time. It's tough on them, but I'm not getting involved, not making any suggestions, just sitting back waiting to give support whenever they ask/need it. In a year from now, they're going to be my "never-give-up" boys that will see the troop through any difficulty that comes its way.

 

Stosh

[Bob White 20]

Choosing a number at random is unlikely to yield results that will lead to functioning patrols unless you are just really really lucky. You need each scout to give a a list a three other scouts they would like toi be in a patrol with. Then you can graph those choices and create two patrols that will be composed largely of scouts who want to be together. Fiorat though I would have them elect an SPL and let him select an ASPL.

 

Then the scouts can choose their patrol teams.

 

Why have an SPL at this point? Because a troop is formed when patrols gather. You have more than one patrol so you have the need for troop junior leadership.

 

Next, I would have a recruitment contest to try and get both patrols up to 7 or 8 members.

[ozemu 10]

We have a lot of experience with small Troops.

 

You did the right thing dropping to two Patrols. I suggest that you resist the temptation to create another Patrol until the existingones are absolutely full strength. I'd even recommend going for up to 10 per Patrol. Why?

 

Because you have an unique opportunity to train your junior leaders for the next few years as a small and manageable group. You can give this training period all of your attention. And you want it to be successful. Imagine arranging a camp to find that a key member of one Patrol can't make it and that makes another anxious about coming. That takes a Patrol of six to four in one go. In a Patrol of 10 it makes no difference. Large Patrols can always camp alright. The jobs are distributed thinner and young Scouts aren't overburdened by preparing for and cleaning after a meal. There are other arguements about Patrol camping sizes. Take a look thorugh the archives here but that's my offering.

 

Use this opportunity to train your leaders for the future.

 

Leave the Troop positions vacant as Beavah suggested. Unless you have Scouts aged over 14 who are pretty together maturity wise. We don't have Troop leadership positions in Australia. Because our Scouts age out at 15. Below that age it is hard for a young fella to manage other leaders. PL is a good position but SPL etc is expecting them to be a CEO when they have yet to get their MBA. Some exceptional types do it - the rest cannot. Brain formation, personal expereience and even the hormonal drive toward other interests I suspect are involved in making this style of leadership hard for under 15 year olds. You don't mention Scouts older than that. Disregard this if you have older Scouts.

 

You will have Patrols that work really well. What happens inside a Patrol is the core of the Patrol system. Troop leaders will become of age in another year if I read your post right.

[Stosh 3452]

Unfortunately with a strong emphasis on troop method scouting, it would mean troop officers would need to be mandatory. One is correct to think patrols can operate just fine by themselves especially in a small troop, there always has to be some form of top down leadership directives. Thus one has 5 boys in a patrol/troop and one of them has to be the SPL. Go figure.

 

Stosh

[Lisabob 13]

Let me tell you what I have watched happen on and off in my son's troop with regard to patrol make-up.

 

Patrols in his troop are largely determined by the adults. I can't say I like this but that's the way it is done and it isn't something I'm really in a position to make change (I'm not the SM or CC and while I share my views with the SM from time to time, change happens slowly). Sometimes it is painfully adult driven, to the point where boys have been shuffled around without even being asked in advance if they mind. One result, among many, is that the patrols are often knots of contention. Boys who really do not get along or have very different styles and find it hard to work together, are lumped together anyway, seemingly without recourse. (Now if they went to the SM and asked to be moved I'm confident they could be, but I doubt they believe it). This makes the PL's job exceedingly difficult because some boys don't want to be in the patrol they're in and so they just refuse to cooperate with anybody who tries to lead them.

 

I'll admit that at first I thought it made a lot of sense for adults to assign boys to patrols. But after observing this for a few years I have come to the conclusion that it makes far more sense to give the boys maximum input into how patrols are formed, if the desired goal is patrols that really function on their own. Sometimes guidance might be necessary but simply imposing from above has second and third order consequences that aren't fun to deal with if you're serious about having functional patrols.