Rotating Appointed PL's

[ajmako 10]

Stosh: 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.

 

This is a concern, but I don't buy it as a big enough concern to rework the whole patrol system over. Part of being a patrol is having comraderie. Part of being a Scout is being friendly, kind, helpful, and several other things. Too often we use "older boys have other interests" as an excuse. But what are we really doing? Seperating inexperienced Scouts from experienced Scouts. That means we need a stratified program to accomodate the stratification.

 

What we're really doing is isolating the responsibility an experienced Scout has toward an inexperienced Scout into one person--the TG. It relieves the rest of the older Scouts from the responsibility, guaranteeing they will have other interests. We seperate and set aside the new Scouts so they won't get in the way of the older Scouts' program. And we isolate one of those older Scouts' from his peers and make him stick with the new guys.

 

Those new Scouts need to interact with older Scouts, to be in the same patrol with them, because that interaction is what teaches new Scouts how to be Scouts. It's not just by the SM's example, the TG's example, and the SPL's example. It's not just by observing what those other patrols do. Yes, those older Scouts are more mature, and that greater maturity is one of the keys to learning how to be a Scout.

 

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.

 

Unfortunately, one of the PL's responsibilities is to keep tabs on the new boy's progress towards First Class. The PL has other responsibilities as well, but in a real patrol the PL isn't alone. Everyone in the patrol works to make the patrol a success. If you take away the new Scout, you take away one of the PL's greatest responsibilities. You take away one of the things that brings the patrol together--teaching less experienced Scouts and keeping the basic skills fresh. If older Scouts don't want to "hang" with younger Scouts, then I suggest we're not teaching them what a real Scout is.

 

On the other end of things, the more we stratify the troop program, the more different sub-programs adults end up having to contend with, and the more complicated we make the job of planning. This opens the door to a far greater possibility adults will pick up the slack--especially with regard to the NSP. If we adults are too hands on with the NSP, the Scouts will expect adults to be hands on with the "regular" program. We will forever be talking about what to do when our Life Scout cooking instructor has to miss out on the Venture Patrol's visit to the COPE course because he has to teach the NSP cooking. Some Scouters won't bother even asking, they'll just take over the job of teaching cooking and let the older Scout go off with his buds.

 

Now, if our Life Scout is in a real patrol and the new Scouts he has to teach are in the same patrol, the patrol can plan an activity on the COPE course and Scouts will be taught to cook by other Scouts without anyone missing anything. Those new Scouts won't feel like they don't quite belong yet because they do belong to the patrol and they aren't seperated out just because they're new.

 

[Stosh 3452]

Stosh: I have never been a fan of bringing new boys into existing patrols for a number of reasons....

 

ajmako: This is a concern, but I don't buy it as a big enough concern to rework the whole patrol system over. Part of being a patrol is having comraderie. Part of being a Scout is being friendly, kind, helpful, and several other things. Too often we use "older boys have other interests" as an excuse. But what are we really doing? Seperating inexperienced Scouts from experienced Scouts. That means we need a stratified program to accomodate the stratification.

 

>>> I see your point and for some groups this can work very well, especially very small troops where there isn't enough boys at each level to warrant a stratafied structure. Personally I don't use the older boy/other interest as an "excuse". I lean this way to try and maintain a commonality interest especially for the older boys. I don't have a problem with the older boys working with the younger boys, but not every meeting and every outing.

 

ajmako: What we're really doing is isolating the responsibility an experienced Scout has toward an inexperienced Scout into one person--the TG. It relieves the rest of the older Scouts from the responsibility, guaranteeing they will have other interests.

 

We seperate and set aside the new Scouts so they won't get in the way of the older Scouts' program. And we isolate one of those older Scouts' from his peers and make him stick with the new guys.

 

Those new Scouts need to interact with older Scouts, to be in the same patrol with them, because that interaction is what teaches new Scouts how to be Scouts. It's not just by the SM's example, the TG's example, and the SPL's example. It's not just by observing what those other patrols do. Yes, those older Scouts are more mature, and that greater maturity is one of the keys to learning how to be a Scout.

 

>>> I'm sorry if I left this impression, it's not the scouts that are slacking by dumping on the TG and Instructor. (When we ask the TG and Instructor, or they come forward and volunteer for that POR, to make a commitment for the whole year with the NBP. It's the boy's choice/commitment, not some adult's.) In order to insure a successful NBP, the TG and Instructor must draw resources and assistance from the other patrols and individuals on occasion. For example: the NBP is going to learn to set up the tents. After a brief intro by the Intructor, each boy is paired up with a cooperating older boy patrol member and the two of them work at the tent. There is no way a TG and Instructor can do NBP all by themselves (especially the hands-on parts). This is where the PLC comes in handy in coordinating this intra-patrol types of activities and on occasion the new boys get a chance to do a one-on-one with the older boys. The older boys get a chance to be introduced to a younger boy and the new boy gets an opportuntity for a one-on-one full focused attention of a older boy.

 

ajmako: 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.

 

Unfortunately, one of the PL's responsibilities is to keep tabs on the new boy's progress towards First Class.

 

>>> We focus the attention of the Instuctor on this task so that the instruction of the NB's is consistant, rather than relying on the variance of the different PL's time and talents. The PL focus should be on leading the patrol, not advancement for one or two new boys. This means each PL needs to address his attention on one or two boys and the TG and Instructor have their attention split into as many patrols as have new boys.

 

The PL has other responsibilities as well, but in a real patrol the PL isn't alone. Everyone in the patrol works to make the patrol a success. If you take away the new Scout, you take away one of the PL's greatest responsibilities. You take away one of the things that brings the patrol together--teaching less experienced Scouts and keeping the basic skills fresh. If older Scouts don't want to "hang" with younger Scouts, then I suggest we're not teaching them what a real Scout is.

 

>>> As I said before this interaction with the younger scouts can be done with intra-patrol cooperation and the older boys can focus on the new boys rather than hanging with his pards. The older boys seem to appreciate this because they don't have to do it every time the patrol meets. It is a lot easier to keep the older boys interest in scouting if they have, lets say half their time to helping with intra-patrol activities and the other half doing some things geared just for them. This can't be done with fragmented patrols because each patrol has older boys that would need to leave their patrol, rejoin with others for half their program. And who plans that opportunity? A venture patrol should plan program for themselves the same way a NBPshould plan program for themselves.

 

On the other end of things, the more we stratify the troop program, the more different sub-programs adults end up having to contend with, and the more complicated we make the job of planning.

 

>>> LOL! Yeah, and the less adult interference, the more the patrol method has a chance to be really boy-led! :^) Each patrol should be doing it's own planning! The stratified patrols can then plan age/interest appropriate plans and also group plans that entail intra-patrol activities if requested.

 

This opens the door to a far greater possibility adults will pick up the slack--especially with regard to the NSP. If we adults are too hands on with the NSP, the Scouts will expect adults to be hands on with the "regular" program.

 

>>> Adults... Step away from the boys!

 

We will forever be talking about what to do when our Life Scout cooking instructor has to miss out on the Venture Patrol's visit to the COPE course because he has to teach the NSP cooking.

 

>>> the Instructor facilitates instruction, it doesn't mean he does ALL the training. If the Instructor's partner knows more about first aid and could teach it better, would it not be a good idea to have the Instructor line-up his buddy for an evening of NBP instruction? Where does it say he (i.e. Instructor) dumps his responsibility on adults?

 

Some Scouters won't bother even asking, they'll just take over the job of teaching cooking and let the older Scout go off with his buds.

 

>>> and if the Instructor coordinates this before he goes off to COPE, great! He's fulfilled his responsibility, a vital aspect/dynamic of leadership delegation.

 

Now, if our Life Scout is in a real patrol and the new Scouts he has to teach are in the same patrol, the patrol can plan an activity on the COPE course and Scouts will be taught to cook by other Scouts without anyone missing anything. Those new Scouts won't feel like they don't quite belong yet because they do belong to the patrol and they aren't seperated out just because they're new.

 

>>> I think with the smaller troops, one needs to blend the patrols. However, if you have a larger troop it is, in my opinion anyway, an opportunity to give the boys the option of being more interest/age level programmed to keep the interest of the older boys. That way if you wish to do something more challenging, you don't take away 1-2 boys from each patrol to do it. They are already grouped, working and planning their program as a natural part of their patrol planning process. It's also a special treat for the NBP to have the venture patrol coming in to help with tent setup training and each NB get's to pick their favorite older boy to help them.

 

After all, isn't the whole idea behind a venture patrol and NBP meant to be stratafied? It allows a program focus that isn't possible with mixed patrols.

 

Stosh

[ajmako 10]

Well, we've gone a little far afield of the original topic, but that's to be expected.

 

Stosh: After all, isn't the whole idea behind a venture patrol and NBP meant to be stratafied? It allows a program focus that isn't possible with mixed patrols.

 

Historically, the venture patrol concept was created to deal with a problem of older Scout retention. It's not really a new concept since long, long ago the BSA had Senior Scouts, which turned into Exploring. The NSP concept was introduced to deal with two problems--one with low Webelos-to-Scout transition rates and the other with younger Scout retention (after the first year). If you're going to implement these two concepts you sort of have to have a stratified program, otherwise they don't really work.

 

Like so much of what we discuss here, if you use these concepts with an eye toward giving each boy the best Scouting experience, you can make them work quite well. My problem with them is that they seem to invite micromanagement by adults. They seem to confuse things a bit, making Scouting a lot harder than it should be. I mean, before we had NSP's we didn't have too much trouble with Webelos III patrols or anything like that.

 

Way back when a new Scout joined a patrol already in progress. The PL might be 14 or even 15. The bulk of the patrol would be 12 to 14. The patrol had within it a wide range of experience--enough to accomplish whatever they set out to do. One of the PL's responsibilities was to encourage the patrol members to advance. Notice I said encourage, not take sole charge of teaching and instructing.

 

So Bill joins the patrol and Sam, the PL goes to work. He gets George, the 2nd Class fire-bug working on 1st Class cooking, to teach Bill Tenderfoot cooking skills so he can be his assistant. He gets Drew, the patrol's resident genius with ropes, to teach Bill some basic knots. He gets Jim, the able APL, to teach Bill what he needs to be ready for the next campout. Bill learns the skills so he can survive the campout, but he learns them from members of his patrol. In the process connections are made between the new guy and the rest of the patrol. They need him to learn quickly, so they teach him well. On the campout Sam watches Bill closely, tests him on what he's learned, and pretty quickly a new Tenderfoot is minted--not on that one campout of course, but pretty fast.

 

Now obviously there are things the older guys in the patrol want to do that Bill just can't handle yet. That's okay. As a patrol they'll figure out a way to do them. That's what patrols do. Maybe it means getting Bill up to speed a lot faster than usual so they can do some backpacking. Maybe it means teaching Bill how to swim so they can do some canoeing. Whatever it means, the patrol will do it because Bill is a part of the patrol and it wouldn't be right to leave him behind. That is how it's supposed to work anyway.

 

Granted, in our modern world there are barriers keeping things from working that way. Older Scouts have a lot more opportunities to do those highly adventurous things they want to do, so maybe we do need a special sub-program for them. If we take out all the Scouts 14 and above and put them in Venture Patrols, though, we're actually making it easier for Sam's patrol to take care of a brand new Scout. The age range is narrower, and thanks to liability insurance and everybody wanting to sue everybody even 13-year-olds can't do some of the things 12-year-olds used to do 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

 

Now, when we chop off the lower end and take away all the 11-year-olds, we're left with patrols of 12 to 13-year olds. Hog heaven for those guys because they don't want to deal with any "little guys." What they really want to do is what the Venture Patrol does, and since they can't do it, they'll do whatever comes closest. If you need one of these guys to be TG or an instructor, you're in trouble. They just got out of an NSP, and the last thing they want to do is go through boot camp again. That means TG's and instructors have to come from the Venture Patrol ranks. Whether the TG gets one of his buds to do the instructing, he's still responsible for a lot more than just teaching skills. He can't just abandon the NSP to be with his Venture Patrol pals, even when someone else is teaching the skill. Not if he wants to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient and all that other stuff.

 

We've got Bill and his buds together in one patrol--not a problem, but it opens the door to one. It's easy to deal with this patrol because they are all essentially equal as far as being inexperienced and what they're allowed to do. Add in the First Class Emphasis (another retention fix, this time for mid-aged Scouts), and you have something that usually becomes intensive training. If the skills are taught completely; if the program is challenging enough and not soley focused on checking off requirements; and if the assigned adult doesn't get in the way, Bill and his buds will "graduate" from the NSP into a regular patrol without a hiccough--just like they graduated from Webelos into the NSP. Any one of those if's can mess things up. Don't teach the skills completely and Bill will have to be retaught in order to survive in a regular patrol. Don't make the program challenging and Bill won't stick around long enough to find out what a regular patrol is like. Focus on checking off requirements and Bill is on his way to being yet another Eagle Scout who can't tie a square knot (correction: doesn't know what a square knot is). Let the adult leader get in the way and Bill moves into the regular patrol without the faintest idea what boy-led is.

 

More troubling is the attitude of the rest of the troop. As I said, one reason the NSP was introduced was to ease new Scouts into the troop. Give them a chance to get used to Scouting in the company of friendly, equally nervous faces, and when they come up against the harsh reality of the early teen regular patrol years they'll at least know what's what's what. In other words, it was introduced to eliminate the initiation rituals and hazing that new Scouts often faced going directly into regular patrols. Missed in all that is the fact that you can't be successful creating comraderie and brotherhood if you seperate out the group that needs comraderie and brotherhood the most. The mental immaturity that caused the ritual hazing in the first place remains, it just has a bigger target.

 

Worse still, we've clearly defined three distinct classes in our little society. We've got the low-class new Scouts relegated to a basically isolated program. We've got the middle-class "regular" patrols focused exclusively on reaching for the upper-class. We've got the upper-class Venture Patrols who get to do the coolest stuff and are the coolest people. What must everyone think of the poor kid who gets to be TG? He sort of ends up looking like the people who join the Peace Corps--unless everyone assumes he's some sort of outcast. I'm certainly making it sound worse than it could ever be, but I've seen this happen (just like it used to with the Leadership Corps--one reason why they got rid of it).

 

As usual, I made my point way up there at the top and went overboard trying to explain it. To me all these different groupings and intricate structuring and stratification just makes things a lot harder than it has to be. I can't even link this all back to the original topic of this thread without hopelessly confusing the issue--not that I haven't hopelessly confused it already. I know, I'll quit while I'm behind. (This message has been edited by ajmako)

[EagleInKY 14]

We've tried both approaches (rotating and not rotating). Here's my experience.

 

We started the first two years by electing PLs. The first went from shortly after crossover (usually in April) until August, and the second term for the full six months. This worked pretty well, and usually the "natural leaders" of the bunch were the first elected to position.

 

I then went to Woodbadge and we used the rotating PL idea. I talked to some of the other scouters who said they did it with their NSPs. I thought it sounded like a cool idea. We implemented it for the past two years. Our results have been pretty disappointing. My general feelings are (1) the boy doesn't get to stay in position long enough to learn it, so the TG ends up having to do more than he should, (2) the boys don't take it seriously because it's just a temporary position and (3) it inevitably rotates to the most unreliable young scout who chooses that month to not show up to anything because of .

 

So, this year we are going back to the election approach and giving it another try. If it works as well as it did the first two years, we'll leave it in place.

[Beavah 205]

I then went to Woodbadge and we used the rotating PL idea.

 

AAA HAAA!!! That's where this thing comes from

 

Dat's really funny, eh? But it makes perfect sense. A technique we use in WB to "compress" experience for adults into a small stretch of time gets taken to be "a way to do things" for NSP's.

 

Just goes to show we always have to be careful when we're teachin' that people don't walk away with odd notions!

 

BTW, Thanks EagleinKY for gettin' back to the original thread, eh? Yah, you longwinded gents know there have to be half a dozen vertical vs. stratified patrol threads out there, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[kb6jra 10]

Holy Hannah Beavah, you're killin me! You're doing more thread spinning than a daddy long legs. )

 

And for the love of God everyone else, keep your posts below 1000 words (hello kettle, this is the pot, you're black!) I guess it's because we're all so full of...scouting that we can't hold back, hmm?

 

I started using the rotating PL in the NSP this last year. I had 12 new boys, tried splitting them into two smaller patrols, didn't work, put them back together, works better. Asked them to elect a PL, asked PL to appoint a successor, rotated on a monthly basis. Every one of them got a chance to experience the job for a month.

 

That coupled with providing a TG and ASM/PA seems to have gone well. Now that they're in their second year, they're doing well with the program (based on past history) and understand how to BE a patrol.