Rotating Appointed PL's

[Beavah 205]

In another thread, OGE writes about the BSA new scout patrol system, but with a big tweak:

 

They have a Troop Guide and an ASM assigned to them and they rotate the Patrol Leaders job on a monthly basis until all have been in the position...

 

Yah, I had never heard of/seen this particular permutation of the system, where you rotated individual new scouts through the PL position for a one month stretch, before I started lookin' at this forum. It's not in any of the regular literature, where the BSA states the NSP runs just like a regular patrol, with a long-term, elected patrol leader. And no troops around here do it, so I haven't been able to watch it in action.

 

So I'm curious to learn a new trick. For those of you out there who do this appoint-a-rotating PL method, how does it work for you? What are the advantages you think you're getting from it? What are the downsides?

 

Do yeh find that it's at all rough on quieter/less experienced lads? Is one month really enough time for a lad to make mistakes and learn from 'em, with a chance to do better? Are the boys better followers havin' been in the "hot seat"? Do they do a better or worse job with elections (no election experience, but have seen everyone in the hot seat to know how well they do)? How involved do your TG and ASM-NS need to be?

 

Thanks!

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Yumpin' Yimminy, I suggested a tweak?

 

::as dumbfounded a look as I possess::

 

The way the New Scout Patrol was "taught" to me was with the rotating Patrol leader, for one month so each new scout could go to a PLC meeting, be a Patrol Leader for one campout and manage the patrol for 4 meetings

 

Thats not how it's supposed to be? The guy lied to me? Well, thats it, back to my Child of the 60's mode where I question all authority all the time...

 

I throw myself on the altar of the BSA police and beg forgiveness (if I am wrong that is, of course)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[ajmako 10]

Beavah,

When the NSP concept was originally created it was advised that the positions of PL and APL be rotated monthly until each member of the patrol had a chance to experience at least one of the positions. This gave them an opportunity to understand how difficult the job was and how important it was for patrol members to be followers first. At the same time the TG had the opportunity to train each Scout for leadership in a hands-on way that didn't take over the whole program. Once each Scout had this opportunity, the patrol was supposed to elect a "permanent" PL who would hold the position for the rest of the existence of the NSP. It's the same basic concept used for Woodbadge or JLT patrols.

 

I think the NSP concept is still taught that way, although there's no mention of it in the SM Handbook or Boy Scout Handbook.

 

Keep in mind that the idea is simply to get a taste of leadership. In this early stage of the NSP the TG is doing most of the work of the PL. The rotating PL is just learning how the patrol and troop works. The young Scouts aren't being given all of the PL's responsibilities, just enough to get the idea.

 

As for whether or not the boys become better followers this way, or do a better job with elections, theoretically they should. If the TG is really teaching and everything else boy-led in the patrol and troop is real, then the boys will be better for it. If the NSP is just a way to check off requirements and teaching isn't really being done, the boys won't be better for it. But then, they wouldn't be better for it even if PL/APL wasn't rotated.

 

The TG should be like a guy looking to be replaced. That is, in the beginning he should be basically a Patrol Leader. Gradually he should be move away from the PL role to an Instructor role. The NSP-SA should be just like the Scoutmaster of a truly boy-led troop. He should be in the deep background, only coming forward to make the occasional inspirational message or present a recognition. He should be available to the TG and PL for advice and guidance, but they should have to come looking for him. And of course he should be available for the usual conferences with individual Scouts.

 

AJ(This message has been edited by ajmako)

[Venividi 35]

I had tried this. I don't recall where I saw that it was recommended; I think in BSA literature, but am not certain.

 

It has been a few years, but as I recall, I didn't think that any of the new scouts came away with anything beneficial. The troop guide had the responsibility to accompany the the new scout PL to PLC meetings. A new scout as a PL for a month came to the PLC meeting and was typically bored and started fidgeting. So perhaps it was the SPL that got something out of it, as he had a more challenging time in running the PLC meeting and keeping it flowing.

 

 

 

[hotdesk 10]

This year we have six new scouts and twelve months of the the NSP.

 

Therefore our troop has decided to give each scout 2 months as Patrol Leader and then rotate.

 

This gives them a chance to lead group discussions (menu planning, patrol flag building, team building games, and skills instruction), attend 2 Patrol Leader's Council meetings, and be a PL at atleast 2 activities.

 

Even though we have only had 1 PL so far (the next one starts at the end of April) it seems to be working so far as the scouts are learning what the duties of the Patrol Leader consists of and how to work together in a patrol.

 

I'm actually quite satisified watching a group of 6 scouts (4 from 1 pack and 2 from another) come together as they have and work as well as they have.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>The TG should be like a guy looking to be replaced. That is, in the beginning he should be basically a Patrol Leader. Gradually he should be move away from the PL role to an Instructor role. The NSP-SA should be just like the Scoutmaster of a truly boy-led troop. He should be in the deep background, only coming forward to make the occasional inspirational message or present a recognition. He should be available to the TG and PL for advice and guidance, but they should have to come looking for him. And of course he should be available for the usual conferences with individual Scouts.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Last year we had 24 new scouts. This year we currently stand at 17 with the possibility of getting more. As the lead ASM for new scouts, my desire is to have the boys out of the new patrols and in regular patrols in about 9 months. At the suggestion of the SM who has been doing this far longer than I have, we do not rotate the PL position in the NSP(s). They have enough on their plate learning skills and no example or experience to draw on. Our TG's not only teach them skills, but basically function as an acting PL. In our world, learning leadership thru the TG's example is as important as learning any other skill. Yes, the difference is they don't get to practice what they are learning in this instance. From experience, boys at that age just do not accept their peers in leadership roles. Our troop has requirements for each leadership position that are dependent on rank, experience, activity level, etc. You can't be a PL without first being an APL. You can't be an SPL without first being an ASPL. You can't be an ASPL without first being a PL. New boys integrating into patrols are not going to be PL's right off the bat, so watching and learning is more important than actually doing in this instance.

 

In our troop, there is little benefit to being a PL for a month at 10.5 years old when you most like won't be an APL for another year to year and a half.

 

I'm not against rotating new scouts thru the PL role, we just have not found much benefit when we've done it.

[Eagle76 10]

To quote the Scoutmaster Handbook, Chapter 3, from the Troop Guide position description:

 

"The troop guide is both a leader and a "mentor" to the members of a new-Scout patrol. He is an older Scout, at least First Class in rank, who helps the patrol leader of a new-Scout patrol in much the same way that a Scoutmaster works with the senior patrol leader - providing direction, coaching, and support as determined by the skill level and morale of the patrol leader and members of the new-Scout patrol."

 

And from Chapter 4, from the paragraph on Patrol Leaders:

 

"Most troops select patrol leaders and other boy leaders twice a year, though a troop might want to hold elections more frequently in order to allow more boys the chance to lead, particularly in the new-Scout patrols."

 

Taken together, I would conclude the troop guide is not intended act as patrol leader, but to provide that close support to introduce the new Scouts to the duties required of a patrol leader, and that rotating the position every month to give that introduction to each Scout is perfectly acceptable.

[Beavah 205]

When the NSP concept was originally created it was advised that the positions of PL and APL be rotated monthly until each member of the patrol had a chance to experience at least one of the positions.

 

Yah, ajmako, I'm not one of the Scoutin' historians around here, but I was on council training staff all through that transition. I can't remember ever seeing this version. I know it's not in any of the current materials (where as Eagle76 points out, NSP PL is supposed to be an elected, not an appointed/rotated office, though the election can be more frequent, like 3 months. The boys are of course free to elect the same boy again).

 

I don't keep my old stuff around when the new stuff comes out (too easy to get all confuddled), so I can't look it up to see if it was a brief blip.

 

But back to the question, ajmako, have you used this appoint-a-rotating-PL thing in your troop, and if so what was your experience with it? Theory and speculation are OK things to muse on, but the proof is in the pudding of hard reality and experience.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[CNYScouter 46]

In the syllabus of SM/ASM Leader Specific Traing in the Troop Organization session under Patrol Descriptions New Scout Patrol

 

(A new-Scout patrol may hold frequent patrol leader elections so that each boy has the opportunity to serve for one or two months.)

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

It's kind of strange how each example seems to cast the TG in different roles. One he's a substitute PL, then moves to being an instructor, and finally stepping back out of the picture.

 

Why not have a PL and Instructor and have the TG do the TG role?

 

It sounds like someone is appointing a "real" patrol leader (TG) for the NBP. The boy elected "PL" is nothing but a training session for the boy and not really a POR.

 

If it walks like a duck.... No amount of smoke a mirrors can change the reality of the situation.

 

Maybe it's a lesson in having a POR and having someone else usurp you as they see fit. The NBP PL just follows along the leadership of the TG.... Sorry, but it doesn't sound like leadership to me.

 

Stosh

[ajmako 10]

Regarding Stosh's questions about the TG, perhaps I didn't say what I meant quite right. The rotating PL thing was only supposed to be the first half of the NSP tenure. During that period the TG has many but not all of the roles of a PL--he teaches skills, and makes sure the PL's responsibilities are met. The PL does the job as far as he's capable, with the TG holding his hand, and picking up the slack. Once all the patrol members have had their taste of PL or APL, the patrol elects a "permanent" PL and the TG takes a step back. His role is strictly Instructor/Mentor.

 

That is theoretical of course, and as Beavah points out, not much use in making it happen. I've never gotten it to work that way, partly because I never really thought much of the NSP concept. Even when I was NSP-SA my orders were simply to "help them build a patrol." The TG assigned to the patrol was a no-show, and he wasn't replaced. We rotated PL's for a while, but it was just six Scouts, and I didn't see where it did much good. It didn't hurt anything either.

 

That patrol--they called themselves the Beaver Patrol BTW--wasn't the greatest patrol in the troop when my job was complete, but they were a patrol. I guess I did a good job since they gave me their patrol flag when I left the troop a couple years later. Personally, I think those Scouts would have done much better going directly into an experienced patrol. That wasn't my call.

 

The NSP formed the next year fared a lot better since they had a TG with an excellent grasp of the job, and they had been together all through Cub Scouts. They rotated PL's, but I wasn't their SA, so I couldn't say whether they gained anything from it or not. Just my luck, I get the NSP full of misfits, and the next guy gets the NSP full of squared away Scouts.

(This message has been edited by ajmako)

[Stosh 3452]

"Regarding Stosh's questions about the TG, perhaps I didn't say what I meant quite right."

 

Nope, your explanation is very good.

 

"The rotating PL thing was only supposed to be the first half of the NSP tenure. During that period the TG has many but not all of the roles of a PL--he teaches skills, and makes sure the PL's responsibilities are met."

 

But listen to the comment I made. TG acts as PL, that means no one else can be PL and the TG has usurped the rotating PL responsibilities and more importantly - authority. I get the feeling the rotated PL isn't really a functioning PL, just a ego building training tool.

 

"He (the TG) teaches"

 

An Instructor POR should be doing this for the boys.

 

"Make sure the PL's responsibilities are met"...

 

It seems to me that the TG (with emphasis on GUIDE) is actually in the role of leader rather than guide by insuring the PL's responsibilities are met. Whereas it is surely boy-led, it's in reality an TG assigned as a functioning PL who really runs the NBP.

 

"The PL does the job as far as he's capable, with the TG holding his hand, and picking up the slack."

 

Yes, the rotating PL is following, not leading.... The directive and authority flows from the TG.

 

"Once all the patrol members have had their taste of PL or APL, the patrol elects a "permanent" PL and the TG takes a step back. His role is strictly Instructor/Mentor."

 

Having their "taste" of PL/APL is not a real taste. It seems rather contrived and not very effective. What it does teach is that there's someone else who's really running the show that's watching over your shoulder and who will have the final say-so in the long run. If the pattern is taught this way, then one will have an SPL with a SM watching over his shoulder when he gets older. This is what he was being taught from the beginning. Once the PL gets elected and the TG steps back, the new PL is in virgin territory the same as if he had simply started out that way. However, I'd bet good money someone's still going to be close by looking over his shoulder.

 

"That is theoretical of course, and as Beavah points out, not much use in making it happen. I've never gotten it to work that way, partly because I never really thought much of the NSP concept. Even when I was NSP-SA my orders were simply to "help them build a patrol." The TG assigned to the patrol was a no-show, and he wasn't replaced. We rotated PL's for a while, but it was just six Scouts, and I didn't see where it did much good. It didn't hurt anything either."

 

In a practical sense, there really wasn't any real leadership training. It was just a "lets see what you can do without any training" kind of approach that the new boys aren't ready for. It offers a greater risk of failure for the boy than success. (as you unfortunately found out)

 

"That patrol--they called themselves the Beaver Patrol BTW--wasn't the greatest patrol in the troop when my job was complete, but they were a patrol. I guess I did a good job since they gave me their patrol flag when I left the troop a couple years later. Personally, I think those Scouts would have done much better going directly into an experienced patrol. That wasn't my call."

 

The boys appreciated the leadership you gave, but did they develop leadership of their own or relied on your leadership? I think they gave you the flag because of their appreciation of your leadership, not theirs.

 

"The NSP formed the next year fared a lot better since they had a TG with an excellent grasp of the job, and they had been together all through Cub Scouts. They rotated PL's, but I wasn't their SA, so I couldn't say whether they gained anything from it or not. Just my luck, I get the NSP full of misfits, and the next guy gets the NSP full of squared away Scouts."

 

I'm not so sure you can rightly conclude that. Boy-led will always have a better chance of success than adult-led. Cubs frequently develop an strong affinity to their Den Chiefs more so than their Den Leaders. You just weren't going to win that one from the beginning. A good TG will function in the NBP like a DC will in a Den. Once we realize that the boys themselves will function better with our (adult) support rather than leadership, the happier everyone is going to be. You did the best you could under the circumstances, you just weren't going to win this one. :^)

 

Stosh

 

 

[ajmako 10]

Stosh wrote: But listen to the comment I made. TG acts as PL, that means no one else can be PL and the TG has usurped the rotating PL responsibilities and more importantly - authority. I get the feeling the rotated PL isn't really a functioning PL, just a ego building training tool.

 

I guess it depends on the TG, doesn't it?

 

I'll say this much, you won't get an argument from me. To me the whole idea of the NSP is badly thought out. You end up with a patrol, but it's a patrol of Scouts who have a different status than the rest of the Scouts in the troop. If, at the end of the first year, you move the new Scouts into "regular" patrols as the BSA suggests, you undo a lot of the work you've done. Those Scouts now have to gain acceptance by their new patrol. If they're First Class, they also want POR's, and only very limited understanding of what it takes to hold one. If you simply make them a "regular" patrol, you don't lose the work you've done, but there will be other challenges later on.

 

I imagine the idea behind the NSP came from training courses liek Woodbadge and JLT; the patrol starts out rotating the PL and APL positions each day. Halfway through the course the patrol picks its "permanent" PL and APL. Even though the positions are rotated early on, the people holding those positions are still expected to do the job. The training course TG helps them learn the position, reminds them of their responsibilities, and takes a rather active role in making sure the job gets done early on. The TG is also the primary instructor for the patrol. As the patrol gains knowledge and experience the TG becomes less important, so he steps back and lets the patrol do its thing.

 

Back in the dark ages when I was a Patrol Counselor on my council Brownsea 22 course, early on I had to basically hold the PL's hand and make sure he did his job. The smart guys learned from observing the previous day's PL, but I still had to nudge and remind them to do the job. In the middle of the week when they picked their permanent PL, I could take a step back. It's easy to work that way within a week because everyone in the patrol learns from each other.

 

When you try to translate that sort of training system into real life Scouting, it doesn't work anywhere near as well. The biggest reason is because the training patrol is also in the process of learning the skills of leadership, while the real life patrol is trying to apply leadership skills they haven't learned yet. The real life patrol is focused on learning the basic skills. Pretty obviously, training course participants also are rarely 10 1/2 or 11 years old.

 

Since the NSP is all about learning the basic skills and advancing to First Class, responsibility for most of the program falls on the TG's shoulders, instead of the PL. Since the TG is an older Scout, the NSP PL usually defers to the TG to manage the group, keep the group together, and communicate with the group. That means the NSP PL has about a quarter of a real PL's responsibilities, and the PL of a regular patrol has about half of a real PL's responsibilities. It doesn't matter if the job is rotated or not, there isn't much for the PL to do in the first place.

 

As I said, I'd rather new Scouts go directly into "regular" patrols. That way the SM can give PL's responsibility for teaching skills and signing off early rank requirements, and let the Scouts learn how to be good leaders from the example of more experienced Scouts in their patrol. It would give the "regular" patrols something to focus on in their patrol program. It would give the PL's much greater responsibility and raise the level of expectation. That seemed to work just fine for something like 75 years before the BSA thought up New Scout Patrols.

 

[Stosh 3452]

ajmako, you are correct. Yes, like a good/bad Den Chief, the TG can have a major impact on the NBP. It would bode well, to appoint a well qualified person for the POR. Our TG is Star rank while the NBP PL is 2nd Class and the APL is Tenderfoot. The PL/APL are younger boys, more the age of the new boys, while the TG is older and sets more of an older brother image for the patrol.

 

I don't like the idea of a NBP designation either, but I do like some of the things it brings to the troop as a whole. Unless one has multiple feeder packs, the boys generally come into the troop with a leg up on working together as buddies/teamwork. It offers them a place where those directly around them are not a leg up on them. Kinda like safety in numbers where those around you feel like their in the same boat as you. We place older boys into the NBP to give real leadership and the new boys look to them for it. Our NBP also has a TG. His responsibility is not to lead, but to guide the Target-First-Class program for the boys. He is responsible for working with the Instructor who does the teaching, and the TG is there for support in their learning. The TG becomes the liason between the boys and the PL/APL if necessary, the Troop and the Adults. He's their protectorate and advocate when they need one. Each POR person the new boys come into contact with do so for different reasons. PL/APL for leadership examples, Instructor for learning scout skills, and TG for counseling and advocacy. All four of these POR's provide the NBP a safe, learning, developing environment their first year. After the first year, these boys step back the NBP becomes a regular patrol. They have had a year of learning skills, watching qualified leadership, given mentoring and protection and now they are ready to do it for real for themselves. If their numbers have dwindled, they can on their own initive, petition other patrols for membership or merging.

 

I have never been a fan of bringing new boys into existing patrols for a number of reasons. Obviously the boys are now separated from those they have been with in scouting for many years, the older boys have other interests and operate on a different skill/maturity level. The older boys will hold the POR's and out vote the new boys who may need the POR experience. It also doesn't allow the PL/APL to keep tabs on the new boy progress towards first class because he has responsibilities to other patrol members at the same time.

 

I guess it's just a matter of what each SM/ASM's skill level is and what works best for their troop. Not all troops can support a NBP and so they shouldn't have one. Our troop as a whole has difficulty supporting a NBP so the responsibility is focused into the hands of the NBP PL/APL, TG and Instructor. We've done it both ways over the years and this seems to work better for us. Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh