PL for the New Scout Patrol

[Eagle92]

Forgot to add, even if you do have training, and prepare for just about anything, unexpected things can happen. As I mentioned I had more expereince than my buddy. We worked together, and we made it. But he didn't recognize that I had hypothermia despite the training, another scout with both training and experience did.

[Beavah]

Yah, perhaps jblake.

 

Da thing is, most troops don't feel comfortable telling some boys they aren't welcome on da troop outing, let alone excluding a whole patrol. So the NSPs do come out.

 

Consider this... if yeh have a NSP and your troop goes on a day canoe outing, yeh have a problem. 1 boy knows how to paddle and be safe (the TG), maybe half have passed swim checks. So the only way you can support the NSP is to introduce a bunch of adults to support the new scouts and/or run a very limited shallow-water "class" for the NSP while others head off to the big boys activity.

 

If yeh have mixed age patrols and a day canoe outing, then the two older scouts with canoeing MB and BSA Lifeguard can take the two new fellows in their boats, the other boys can split up into other boats where a slightly stronger paddler can balance a slightly weaker one, and yeh have a functional and safe group without needin' to introduce a bunch of adults. In fact yeh have better than 1:1 experienced:inexperienced ratio, compared with 1:8.

 

So a troop doin' mixed-age patrols doesn't have to limit its troop activities to car camping or what the NSP can handle (or leave da NSP behind to be "baby sat"). So those troops and their PLCs tend to plan more adventurous and varied outings.

 

As Eagledad says, there's an additional advantage. In da first scenario the young boys in the NSP class get to learn "about" canoeing basics; in the mixed-age patrols the young lads get to really participate and "see" what good canoeing (and canoe safety, and...) look like and to practice it. They learn much faster and better.

 

Yah, to bring it back 'round to the topic of da thread, yeh might make the same sorta claim about an inexperienced new boy PL, eh? It's "irresponsible", especially the rotate-around thing. Why would yeh put an inexperienced new fellah in a situation where he's clearly unprepared and over his head?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Twocubdad]

Only way to avoid da problem is to run "classes" where all the boys in da patrol sit around while one or two boys try the activity, supervised one-on-one. That's what often happens for cooking, eh?

 

Naah, but it does take a little more planning and organization.

 

There are a couple strategies for dealing with inexperience NSPs, first is to split the troop for campouts. Honestly, our troop doesn't do a lot of backpacking (we're more into aquatics), but for the big backpacking weekend last year we sent the older patrols off 15 mile weekend trip and took the NSPs to our council camp for a more basic campout, but including a 7 mile day hike. We had plenty of older Scouts who either couldn't or preferred not to go on the backpacking trip to lead the younger guys. The biggest problems was that it doubled the work for the adults.

 

The other thing we do is to schedule the more challenging trips September to April, after the new guys have had 5=6 campouts and summer camp under their belt. The PLC knows that beginning in April we do light-stuff to accommodate the new guys, but by fall the new guys should be up to speed.

 

Of course this excludes hard-core high adventure stuff. We're not going to put an 11 year old on Mt. Hood with four months experience. But for example, this fall the whole troop did a pretty strenuous canoe trek. Any of the new Scouts who hadn't earned canoeing MB was require to attend one or two extra instruction days and get signed-off on their canoe skills before they were allowed to go.

 

Back to the NSP patrol leader topic, the key to a good NSP program is really good Troop Guides. Let me say that again -- the key to a good NSP program is realy good Troop Guides. In our troop, TG is an 18 month commitment at minimum. New TGs start in the fall working with the existing TGs. They take point with the Webelos on our Web campout in November and again on the Web open house in Jan. Of course, they take on the new NSPs in March when the new boys crossover and eat, sleep and breathe with them through summer camp. Starting in the fall, they still work with the NSP patrols, but they are in more of a mentoring role, not so much hands on. By the end of they year, they should be back in their regular patrols, helping the NSP as needed.

 

In practice, for the first six months the Troop Guide IS the NSP patrol leader. I think some troops give them that title, which really doesn't matter. We don't. We do as has been suggested and have the new Scouts rotate through PL. They attend PCL and hold the flag when the patrol lines up. They're sorta Corporal to the Troop Guide as Lieutenant. We used to do the monthly election thing, but frankly it was a pain in the butt and more times than not was forgotten. So now we just make a schedule with everyone being assigned a month alphabetically. After 7 or 8 months, after everyone has had a turn at PL, the NSPs will elect a PL for the remaining couple months with the TG supervising.

 

This is the system we've been using since I've been SM (6 years) and all I can say is it works for us. Troop Guide has become a rather sought-after position, probably more so that SPL. The word among the Scouts is that SPL is too much work and the Troop guides have all the fun anyway. From my point of view, I think the kids who want to be TG generally had really good TGs themselves and try to re-create that relationship and legacy with the new Scouts under their care.

 

Kinda like a lot of good Scoutmasters, no?

 

 

[Stosh]

When the smoke settles the question always remains, do we have NSP's that are trained separately, progressed in training together, develop bonds in Scouting and hang out with their peers, or do they get mixed in with other patrols, progress at various rates, miss out when the patrol goes on HA, etc.?

 

Mixed patrols must cater to their lowest common denominator in order to remain together. If little Joey can't handle the trip, 1) he stays home or 2) someone in the patrol babysits him on the event. All responsibility for Joey remains with his buddy. Not a good formula. But then let's have an adult ready to step in if there's a problem. Even better? Not really a working solution in my book.

 

I hear so many of the dynamics of adult-led being bantered around under the disguise of boy-led, it is almost comical. If the new scout is not prepared, are we not going against everything BSA is founded upon? An unprepared new scout, is he not opening up all kinds of litigation doors for everyone when it comes to safety? Of course the adults have to step in and take over, it's the only way it's going to work. Theoretically the have the experience and training to handle it. It is my contention in a boy-led program, the boys should have this experience and training.

 

NSP - All newbies with a PL or TG that will train the boys in the scoutcraft ways. When the boys are ready they make a small foray into the woods, pushing their skills, but not endangering them. Next time we go deeper into the woods because now they have experience, but it's experience that is controlled by a PL or TG that is looking out for them.

 

Older boy patrols - All trained, experienced and jumping at the bit wanting to take on HA challenges that they are entitled to have. If they are going to be retained in the program, this enthusiasm should be encouraged and cultivated.

 

Mixed patrols - New scouts in over their heads and older boys bored out of their skulls. Yes, it's an over-generalization, but to a varying degree very valid.

 

The boys should be deciding what they want. If a group of older boys wishes to take on a couple of Webelos boys, recruit them into their patrol? No problem, but it's their decision! Maybe a bit of attrition has knocked their numbers down anyway. They take charge of the training and development of the new boys. They forgo a lot of HA opportunities because their little buddies aren't ready as yet, but they aren't doing it necessarily for themselves. Maybe the newbies get pushed to their limits, but the majority of boys around them have made a commitment to take them under their wings and through training and experience get them up to speed. On the other hand if the older boys don't want that responsibility, but prefer to do nothing but plan and go on HA, why not? If the patrol of Eagles were to sit around waiting for the Troop to do HA, they might have to wait forever because there will always be newbies that can't go or will be told they have to stay behind in order for that to happen, or in the interest of troop camaraderie, no HA is ever on the schedule. The whole troop is catering to it's lowest common denominator, not just a patrol.

 

For me, a lot of the attrition of the older boys is not because of girls, cars and sports, it's because they are bored to death and want out. They'll hang around long enough to get their Eagle and then they're history. Under this mixed system, I don't blame them one bit.

 

Give me a group of 8 boys that want to do HA and they can plan and do anything they want as often as they want. Yes, I have been involved in two HA trips in one summer. It can be done! The NSP goes off to summer camp and the older boys go off to Philmont, BWCA, Isle Royale, Sea Base, etc. Not a problem for anyone. Otherwise in mixed patrols, half the patrol goes to summer camp and the other half goes to Philmont. Maybe two half patrols merge up to make a contingent. That does nothing to promote continuity in the patrols. Patrols of convenience do not build strong ties that retain scouts.

 

A few studies in group dynamics might do well for some of these troops. Right now in my troop, I have more boys over 17 in my troop than I have under 12. It works.

 

Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh

[boomerscout]

Our new scout patrols are adult-led in co-ordination with two troop guides apiece. We have found this necessary because, in the past, the older pros frequently thought it funny to teach the newbies that which isn't so.

on campouts, the new Scouts don't stray far because the TGs & adults are teaching them Scoutcraft (including first-aid). One of their first outings is a new Scouts only weekend.

Once they are signed off on T'foot, they move into a regular patrol

[Eagledad]

>>Mixed patrols - New scouts in over their heads and older boys bored out of their skulls. Yes, it's an over-generalization, but to a varying degree very valid.

[Beavah]

Mixed patrols must cater to their lowest common denominator in order to remain together. If little Joey can't handle the trip, 1) he stays home or 2) someone in the patrol babysits him on the event.

 

Nah, not the way it works in the troops that do it. It works da way I described in the canoe example above, eh? The whole patrol goes on the harder trip, with the older scouts taking real responsibility for leadership and instruction and the middle-aged scouts for being good team members and examples and the younger fellows for workin' hard to live up to their role. Those young guys are our patrol, we would never leave 'em behind! In fact, little Mikey won the patrol competition for us last week because he was light enough to be lifted on my shoulders and jump over da obstacle, and Jimmy totally wasted that kid from the Shark Patrol in building a fire! The older boys are proud of helpin' the younger ones achieve.

 

I think yeh make the mistake of believing that older boys want packaged high adventure trips. I don't think that's the case. I think they want real responsibility. In a NSP environment, yeh give real responsibility to one Troop Guide. In a mixed age patrol environment, yeh give real responsibility to each PL, APL, and patrol member.

 

They'll hang around long enough to get their Eagle and then they're history. Under this mixed system, I don't blame them one bit.

 

But da funny thing is, I've never seen it happen that way. I've seen and worked with a lot of troops, eh? And the ones that do the Eagle-and-out thing are always from da same-age patrol world. There's just not enough real responsibility and leadership opportunity for 'em. So maybe if yeh run a high adventure program they come back for that, then wander off again. High schoolers are ready to stand out, to be looked up to. In a same-age patrol, that means one guy gets to do that. In a mixed age patrol troop, all of the older boys get to do that.

 

In fact, I've never seen a same-age-patrol unit that doesn't have to start "consolidating" patrols by early high school because of attrition. Then where does Patrol Method go?

 

On the other hand if the older boys don't want that responsibility, but prefer to do nothing but plan and go on HA, why not?

 

Yah, hmmm.... perhaps because that doesn't develop the same sort of servant leadership that the unit wants to build in terms of developing character. Maybe that's the difference here, eh? Da troops I like the best are the ones that really develop that in the boys. But I understand if other troops don't have that same goal.

 

I do think yeh have to make room for some older-boy only stuff. In a mixed-age patrol system, that's the PLC/Leadership Corps/Venture patrol (run as a pull-out). The PLCs tend to develop more collegiality, because they aren't burdened by havin' a know-nothing NSP PL and a few immature 7th and 8th graders on 'em to drag things down and make meetings/planning a hassle.

 

Otherwise in mixed patrols, half the patrol goes to summer camp and the other half goes to Philmont.

 

Nah, the whole patrol goes to summer camp, but perhaps the whole summer camp is run by the PLs, with independent patrol outings and inter-patrol competitions and such, instead of leaving all of the young scouts to be baby-sat by the adults. Maybe a bunch of fellows also do Philmont, but they wouldn't want to miss camp. They're needed.

 

As yeh know, I'm mostly agnostic about how troops set things up. I support troops that do things every which way. The right sort of adult leader with vision can make almost any setup work, and the wrong sort of adult leader can cause any approach to fail. But if yeh were to ask me to choose what I think works best for the lads independent of the personality of the adult leaders, I'd prefer the mixed age setup. I reckon there's a good reason we did Boy Scouting that way for 80 years before the BSA execs introduced the newfangled notion of NSP/Webelos 3 and the need to entertain the older boys with high adventure experiences. Marketing studies gone awry, eh? We certainly never saw the growth that was promised from that change.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

Two contingents of Jambo participants, a mix of ages, a mix of troops, a mix of programs. I said to the boys, divide yourself up into 4 patrols.

 

Strange, but they naturally divided themselves up pretty much by age.

 

Of course the contingent SM wouldn't go for that so he broke them up into mixed patrols. There were no magnanimous mentor leaders, they stuck the young boys with the poorer jobs, made them do the work and basically hung out with each other anyway. Now the group only had to tolerate each other for the two weeks of Jambo. They did not meld as a group because there was no commonality, and with longevity in the process everyone could survive 2 weeks. Maybe time would have resolved some of the issues, but from evidence of most troop membership rosters, they seem to indicate the common resolution is a general use of the exit door.

 

It's not just Scouts, youth of this age pretty much do it regardless of the program. They have been well indoctrinated into caste levels of age since they were in kindergarten. It isn't college that the playing field begins to level off as it is in the adult world. It only takes about a week of school to know who all's in what class and then they further break it down into all their little cliques (i.e. non-mixed patrols) BP talked about this gang mentality, it hasn't really changed much in the past 100 years.

 

If you have trouble wrapping your mind around this. Imagine how you would react if a senior boy wanted to date your freshman daughter. Nope, not gonna happen. But if your 25 year old daughter brought home a man who was 28, you wouldn't even bother with the math.

 

Or maybe your 5th grade son is hanging out with a bunch of 8th graders in school? Same type of concern comes to mind.

 

So, then what's the big deal with putting my 5th grade son with a bunch of high school juniors and seniors to mentor him in the ways of the world.

 

Sorry, after working with youth for 40 years, I just don't see it happening in any effective way. But like some have stated, if it's working for you, fine, but don't use one or two anecdotal references as broad sweeping statements of proof positive.

 

Stosh

[Twocubdad]

It's important to remember what we really mean by "mixed patrol." It doesn't necessarily mean that the fifth graders are hanging out with the high school seniors.

 

Generally speaking, a "mixed patrol" troop should still have new Scout patrols for the first year, 10- and 11-year-old boys, venture or leadership patrols for the older guys and regular patrols for everyone else. Consequently, the patrol will be of 10 and 11 year olds, 12 to 14 year olds and 15 to 17 year olds. Of course the margins between those age groups are a bit fuzzy and depend on other factors too.

 

Interesting observations about the jamboree patrols, Stosh. My experience was remarkable similar. Our patrols were organized before I joined the troop, but our four patrols would up like this:

 

Patrol A was rather homogeneous with both the oldest and youngest boys in the troop. It was a disaster, and ran about as you described, with the older guys sitting on their butts treating the little guys like servants. The adults spent as much time dealing with that patrol as the others combined.

 

Patrol B was a lot of younger boys and a couple 14-15 year olds. At shakedown they were a disaster but really came together at jamboree. The required a litte extra training on procedure, but ultimately did a great job.

 

Patrol C was all the older guys and ran like a well oiled machine. They got to the point where they would take turns one guy getting up and having breakfast ready so the rest of the patrol could sleep late.

 

Patrol D had all 12- and 13-year-olds and one poor 14-year-old patrol leader. The young guys were in full cub scout mode and wouldn't listen to a thing. The poor PL spent his days either screaming at the kids to do stuff or would give up in frustration and do everything himself. I took this guy on as a personal project and spent a lot of time working with him on how to organize and motivate his patrol. (I also had a few conversations with the patrol members about fulfilling their responsibilities.) After a rough week, the PL really came into his own and did a good job. I don't think anyone grew more at jamboree than he did and I really enjoyed working with him.

 

Sorry for a bit of a ramble, but I thought the interaction of different aged patrols was an interesting observation.

[Eagle92]

A few thoughts.

 

1) Older kids want both resposnibility AND adventure. Yes going to the same campground doing the same instruction can get a little boring. BUT it you allow your older guys to do some things on their own, and coordinat with with other units and council for HA activities, your older scouts will stay.

 

2) In reference to jambo troops, how long before jambo and how often did you meet? I know for my trip we met 12-18 months prior, had one or two troop meetings to go over skills that coudl be done indoors as well as talk about the trip, and also had several prep trips to go over basic skills, learn and practice advance ones, and "gel."

 

3) Ok maybe my troop had an aged based patrol after all. We did have an older scout patrol, sometimes 14-17, mostly the 15-17 year olds. You had to be 1st Class, and had to be a PL for a year, if not longer, get voted in by the patrol members, and you served in a troop level POR (actually if memory serves the Leadership Corps WAS an acceptable POR). Now we did have a few 15 y.os not in the LC, usually those who hadn't been PL, weren't 1st Class, or liked staying with their friends. Not many but a few.

 

 

4) I've never seen the servant mentality before, but can imagine it if the older scouts do view the younger oens as serfs. SPL would definitely need to fix matters

[Beavah]

Strange, but they naturally divided themselves up pretty much by age.

 

Of course they did. They've pretty much been forced by adults into age-based groups since they were young. It's a management technique adults use for school and sports. As youth activities have become more and more adult-organized, da age stratification thing has become more and more pronounced.

 

By contrast, kids left on their own in a neighborhood mix a fair bit. I remember pick-up baseball games from my youth that involved boys of multiple grades. Yeh even made up rules like adding extra strikes for the younger fellows just to even things out.

 

I'm not surprised yeh had the experience yeh did with jambo. Boys who are used to same-age environments do develop a caste system by age as you describe, and there tends to be more hazing and lookin' down on the younger fellows. The younger guys are "them", not "us".

 

Da parents of lads in mixed-age troops tend to come to appreciate it pretty quickly, actually. It's "cool" to have 7th and 8th grade friends when yeh first move into middle school. Makes that hard transition for a boy just a bit easier. It's reassuring to have junior and senior friends as a freshman. They tell yeh all the secrets about what classes to take or avoid, who is easy or hard and all that stuff. They invite yeh to join a team or an extracurricular activity. Works wonders for a lad who is shy or has special needs.

 

Beavah

[Stosh]

Beavah,

 

Recognizing the natural tendencies of the youth and accommodating it is necessary to focus the boys' attention on the tasks at hand. Thus the goal of a NSP is not the same goal as the VP groups.

 

However, it is necessary to work leadership into the process and the only way one is going to do that is to have the older scouts have meaningful contact with the boys. That's a given of the BSA's leadership program emphasis.

 

One can still have such contact if the PL of the NSP is an experienced scout who in fact makes a commitment to the goals necessary to the NSP. That means for a period of time he lays aside his goals for HA, etc. and focuses his leadership attention on the goals of the NSP, i.e. advancement, orientation, etc. A TG would also need to make such a commitment. It doesn't, however, change the goal of the VP to have one or two of the boys step out of their patrol roles on a temporary basis to do such commitments. The disruption in the programs and goals of the VP are far less affected. This will have a major impact on the NSP to have mature boys leading them and have minimal impact on the VP. However, if all the patrols took on one or two of the new boys, then all the patrols would have been impacted by the introduction of new boys. The goals of all the patrols will need to be adjusted and would necessitate the watering down of the program for the VP to accommodate the needs of the new boys. People who are doing two or three things at a time are not as effective as focusing on just one goal at a time. It would also have an impact on HA activities whereas all the patrols would need to break off the new boys when the activity happens to make it work. Age limits set by come of these activities mandates it. You're not yet 13, so you need to stay home. So you have all the new boys staying at home doing nothing. But if they were a patrol of their own, they could be doing an alternative scout activity at the same time and won't be sitting at home feeling left out.

 

I just feel that the "segregation" of the boys by their goals (naturally falling on or hear the ages of the boys) will have less impact on the total operation of the troop if it only affected individuals in the troop and not entire patrols.

 

It can work out through the PLC that maybe a VP might take on an occasional activity whereas they interact on the beheft of the NSP, such as taking them under their wing to get them up and running for the next camporee. Teaching them the necessary skills would be a great way to get the two patrols to interact and would be by definition temporary and not have a long term affect on the operations of the VP. Individuals from the VP could be doing this especially in the short run as well. John might be the Instructor who regularly helps with the NSP, but still keeps his duties and responsibilities in the VP.

 

Ideally the Troop Officers' Corps "patrol" (TOC) would be doing this on a regular basis, providing TG, and instructors, while still maintaining their focus on helping out the entire troop, not just the NSP's. By virtue of their ages, maybe the VP could work out the details of the HA activity and invite the TOC to go along as their guests. That way you also have meaningful interaction between the older boy patrols, too.

 

Those individual boys with leadership focus on the younger boys would still be expected to maintain their focus in their home patrols and would be available for common camping, HA opportunities, and the such.

 

One maintains each patrol with it's goals intact without annually introducing new blood to continually drive the goals towards helping out the new guys all the time. It doesn't preclude it if the patrol desires this, but if a VP decides that this year they want to go to Philmont, BWCA or some other HA activity, they not be "strapped" with doing double duty of getting that organized AND trying to help young boys get through FC who will still be too young to go as a patrol with them anyway.

 

Maybe by pure definition I need to be using the term "focus group" to indicate the patrol's goal setting rather than ages. When I say "segregated" patrols it is more on the basis of interest rather than saying all the 11 year-olds in one patrol, 12 year-olds in the next, etc. I'm under the standard that patrols with multiple goals do not function as well as those that have only one or two they are working on at any one time.

 

This is of course, as I stated already, predicated on the principle that the individual scout may in fact have multiple goals, but it would be by choice, rather than having an entire group need to be making such choices. Far less disruption if Johnny goes and does occasional Instructor duties with the NSP and still have him available for the Philmont trip next summer. A good leader should be able to individually juggle a couple extra goals/duties along the way. However, not everyone in the patrol is affected and so you have quality interaction rather than half the patrol onboard with the NSP activity and the other half standing around with their hands in their pockets wasting time or causing disruptions.

 

Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh

[AvidSM]

So if you don't have mixed aged patrols, the older boys are not teaching the younger ones - at all? The younger boys in the new scout patrol are left behind for the adults to "watch" them? So, NSP's are Webelos III and more work for the adults?

 

This may be true if your troop is adult run. Boy run troops give responsibility and the work to the boys and let them make the decisions. It means having as many youth leaders as possible making those decisions. Take away the new scout patrol and you are taking away the position of Troop Guide and the decisions that he would have made. Go to mixed patrols and you have taken your first step away from 100% boy led.

 

A new scout patrol gives more decision making power to those new boys. And, boys work better in small groups. The "work" for a NSP is learning advancement. The "work" for an older scout patrol is HA. The NSP is taught by the youth leadership, in whatever patrol they happen to be in. It's their job because they took on their particular position, whether it be Troop Guide or Instructor - not because what patrol they are in.

 

If an older boy is not interested in or is not good at teaching younger boys, it does not matter what kind of patrol he is in, he will not be teaching the younger boys. To say that by forming mixed patrols will foster a change in this older boy is nonsense. And it won't make a difference if your troop is boy run or not. The older boy will get what he wants out of the troop, whehter it's HA or his Eagle rank.

 

If an older boy is interested and is good at teaching younger boys, then it also does not matter what kind of patrol he is in. He will be encouraged to teach, whether he's a youth leader or not. But, he would be less encouraged to do this in an adult run troop.

[Eagledad]

AvidSM, I dissagree with just about everything you wrote and I base it from experience. That's OK, all scouters have their own way of building successful programs and should be happy with that. But the reason I replied to your post is while you were slamming the tradional patrols, I realized the Boy Scouting has been using mixed age patrols (traditional) for 100 years. The BSA only started suggesting same age patrols in the early 90s. When did boy run start?

 

Barry

[Stosh]

AvidSM, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the NSP's, or any patrol for that matter, be left in a void to fend for themselves. But just because a group is in a NSP doesn't mean there is not going to be interaction between them and other boys in the troop. The TG will be most primary contact with the group. An older boy can be put into the PL position with the purpose of rotating APL's from the young boys to teach leadership along with the advancement requirements. The QM will assist the boys in getting their gear together for their campouts, the Scribe will help them with record keeping and advancement information, the Instructors will come in and teach scout skills, etc. All these interactions allow for the young boys to be assisted and helped by the older boys, boys that are specifically identified in roles that reflect their knowledge, skill and maturity. Did I mention any adults? No, they are not needed to babysit the NSP.

 

I see the advantage of the NSP as a focused group with older boys coming in and giving leadership to them until they can develop leadership on their own. If the older boys are only wearing a patch, obviously they are not going to be very useful to the new boys. But by accepting a POR they are saying they are willing to give their time and talent to the younger boys to get them up to speed. They can then return back to their own patrol responsibilities and let the young boys absorb the the information and try it out without the older boys interfering or turning them into newbie slaves in a mixed patrol. It's bad enough being the new kid on the block without having to leave your buddies and take on the grunt work of the patrol.

 

Like anyone else, I want to hang with people who are in the same boat with me, at least it allows me an even playing field to operate out of. I guess I don't want to be fetching water for a year until the new guys come along and I can dump that important leadership development on to the next guy.

 

I like the boys all having an equal opportunity in their own patrol, with support and assistance from the older boys as needed and even requested on occasion. If they have a good older boy PL, a good TG and interesting Instructors, they will get to know who in the troop is there to help and will find their orientation a good experience. If you get put into a patrol that you don't know anyone, maybe someone will help, but if they don't and if I can't get out of that patrol, it's just a few steps away to getting out of the troop.

 

Your mileage may vary.

 

Stosh