Patrol Leader Selection

[Kudu]

Every Scoutmaster should at least once in his life observe Baden-Powell's advice to always keep Patrols 300 feet apart.

 

If you finally work up the courage to rise to Baden-Powell's standard and your Patrols do not function like well-oiled machines then perhaps the practical Traditional Scouting methods that produced such working Patrols are worth looking at.

 

But first let me reply to a couple of Tahawk's points:

 

Tahawk writes:

 

This is all vintage history, but I have the 1916 Handbook. It does say that Patrol Leaders may be elected or appointed by the SM.

 

However, in Scouting for Boys, Part I, BP says the PL's are "appointed."

 

Actually, Baden-Powell's official rule requires the Scoutmaster to consult with either the Patrol in question or with the Court of Honor (the Patrol Leaders in Council) before making the appointment.

 

An example of a Troop in which the Scoutmaster and the Patrol Leaders discuss such an appointment in passing can be found in the following "transcript" of a typical COH:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/court_honor/coh_session.htm

 

Most Americans are puzzled by this procedure (which B-P stuck to all his life, by the way). Tahawk and others demonize such Scoutmasters as victimizing Patrol Leaders by "pronouncing them inferior and overriding the decision of the Scouts."

 

Of course the whole point of having real criteria for Patrol Leader Selection is to inform the decision of the Scouts. For all practical purposes the main difference between B-P's appointment procedure and Hillcourt's version of Patrol elections is that in B-P's method the Scoutmaster takes responsibility for the decision, and in Hillcourt's version the Scoutmaster is left to veto a disastrous choice.

 

Casting the selection of Patrol Leaders in moralistic terms ignores the question:

 

What do Patrol Leaders Actually do?

 

In Baden-Powell's Scouting (and to a lesser degree in William Hillcourt's BSA Scouting):

 

1. Patrol Leaders are responsible for teaching & "signing off" Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class skills.

 

2. This is done primarily during individual Patrol Meetings and Patrol Hikes without adult supervision.

 

3. Patrol Leaders are trained to conduct adult-free Patrol campouts. In practice this usually occurs during Troop campouts with Patrols a minimum of 300 feet apart.

 

In Traditional Scouting, # 1-3 is what Scouters mean when they use the term "Patrol System" or "Patrol Method."

 

Given the potential for something to go wrong without adult supervision it is helpful to think of a Patrol Leader as requiring the same maturity and the same level of specialized instruction as a lifeguard.

 

In addition to safety issues, in Baden-Powell's "Patrol System" a Patrol Leader once appointed is a member of the Court of Honor (COH) which has most of the adult powers of a BSA Troop Committee.

 

The "Court of Honor" is so named because the Patrol Leaders are responsible for the Troop's reflection on Scouting's ideals, and the quality of skills-training (this means no Scout Spirit advancement requirements, Scoutmaster Conferences, or Boards of Review).

 

As demonstrated in the above sample COH session, adult leaders first hear that a Scout has been promoted to Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class from the Scout's Patrol Leader, not the other way around. But if a Patrol Leader starts to slack off (always hiking his Patrol to the same old destination, for instance) he gets feedback in the COH.

 

After reaching First Class a Scout must ask the COH for permission to meet with a Badge Examiner. If the Scout has not been pulling his share in the Troop, the request is delayed until he pitches in (most jobs except Patrol Leader are performed ad hoc by any Scout with the appropriate Proficiency Badge, as opposed to fixed terms for Quartermasters, Scribes, Instructors, etc. To continue to hold a Proficiency Badge, it must be kept current).

 

The COH is responsible for the logistics of meetings and outings (which they can delegate to the Scouters in attendance). The Court of Honor also holds the Troop's bank account!

 

So which model fosters the greatest degree of youth empowerment?

 

You can answer in moralistic terms, OR you can judge the issue in terms of a loose equation:

 

The degree to which a Scoutmaster allows a Patrol to elect anyone it wants is inversely proportional to the responsibily he gives his Patrol Leaders as measured by their authority over Advancement, the frequency of adult-free Patrol Hikes, and the distance between Patrols at Troop campouts.

 

So as a practical matter how does a modern Scoutmaster work toward the degree of youth empowerment in Traditional Scouting if he feels obligated to elected leadership?

 

Young William Hillcourt faced exactly that dilemma when he arrived here from Denmark.

 

Tahawk writes:

 

It would be accurate to say that Scouting in both the UK and US thankfully found its way to elected PL's as the official methodology, in the U.S. and reached that place no later than Bill's HBPL of 1929. Not sure when they got straight about that issue in the UK.

 

and:

 

Your expressed attitude is also contrary to the Patrol Method...You strongly suggest that you would use means NOT approved by the BSA to reach your ends of empowering those who are, in your opinion, ideal leaders.

 

"Where a man cannot conscientiously take the line required, his one manly course is to put it straight to his Commissioner or to headquarters, and if we cannot meet his views, then to leave the work."

 

Strong moralistic stuff!

 

In fact election of Patrol Leader has its origin in the six methods that were the "official methodology" of the very first edition of the BSA Handbook for Scout Masters.

 

But what the BSA "got straight" was the opposite of Baden-Powell's Patrol System: The Patrol Leader as a symbolic "team captain" in a rigidly adult-controlled program:

 

The Six Principles of Boy-Work

 

1) A Clear Plan, Well Thought Out, Progressive in its Stages;

2) The Leader Should Tell the Boys What the Game is and How it is to be Played;

3) Application of Self-Government;

4) The Scout Master as a Real Leader;

5) Differences, "Scraps," and Misunderstandings;

6) Rules and Infringements of Rules.

 

In the BSA's "democratic" system, the "Scout Master" was required to divide the Troop up into Patrols. The "means approved by the BSA" were called "Grouping Standards," and allowing Scouts to simply pick a Patrol in which their friends were members was NOT an option.

 

The BSA "Scout Master" could divide the boys up 1) by their social class, 2) by their hobbies, 3) by their ages, or 4) by the "scientifically correct Height and Weight Standard":

 

If this method is used for grouping, the standards for athletic competition among the boys might be used, that is, all the boys of ninety pounds and under might be put together, the same being true for those under one hundred and ten, one hundred and twenty-five, and one hundred and forty pounds.

 

If height is used, boys of fifty-six and a half inches in height and classifying under ninety pounds in weight, might be grouped together. Also boys of sixty-three inches in height and coming within the one hundred and ten pound weight.

 

Presumably a dutiful Scout Master would periodically make the rounds with a tape measure and a scale to make sure that no boy 56.75" in height or 90 pounds remained in the 56.5" Patrol!

 

To "get in on the deal," a boy had to agree before admission to the Troop that the Scout Master decides "what the game is and how it is to be played":

 

First, there must be a clear plan well thought out, progressive in its stages with an aim for each stage. In other words no man need try to work with a group of boys unless he knows what he wants to do, not only in outline but in detail. He must have these details in mind and so well worked out in his thought knowing exactly what comes next....as to be master of the situation at all times and to be the recognized leader....That is to say, he should tell the boys what the game is and how it is to be played, getting their approval and agreement to get in on the deal [emphasis added].

 

Therefore, once the Patrol Leaders were elected, the BSA required the Scout Master to distrust their judgment and to control the activities of the Patrol himself. To this end, when the Scout Master delegated decisions, the BSA instructed him to delegate to the entire group rather than to the Patrol Leaders!

 

The Patrol Leader and the Scout Master

 

Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader. There is also a danger, in magnifying the patrol leader in this way, of inordinately swelling the ordinary boy's head. The activities of the patrol should not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader, and if the Scout Master wants to delegate the work of the patrol and troop, the whole group should reach a decision in regard to the plan [Handbook for Scout Masters first edition, page 85, emphasis added].

 

So I ask again: Which model fostered the greatest degree of youth empowerment: Baden-Powell's method of Scoutmaster appointment (after consulting with the Patrol and/or the Court of Honor) in which the Patrol Leaders performed most of the Troop jobs currently done in the USA by adults; or the BSA election model which was by any fair assessment the very opposite of the Patrol Method?

 

No wonder that when the BSA finally adopted the Patrol Method on September 21, 1923, James West described it as "a radical change in the management of troops"!

 

The elected but powerless "team captain" Patrol Leader was the legacy that William Hillcourt inherited when he arrived here from Denmark.

 

Kudu

 

 

[Kudu]

Here are some of his suggestions:

 

Finding the Patrol Leaders

 

by William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt

 

The leaders are there: right within your Troop. The way to find them is by looking for the attributes which are common in the boy leader.

 

Personality and Popularity: Naturally, it is of prime importance that the boy possess some of the characteristics which indicate him as a natural leadercontagious enthusiasm, a measure of executive ability, a little knack of organizing, dependability.

 

Physique and Health: If he is strong and healthy, interested in sports and an "all around boy," so much the better. Boys respect athletic prowess and physical courage.

 

Age: Few boys are apt to follow willingly another boy materially younger than themselves, unless they recognize particular skills in him.

 

Tenure in Scouting: Only a reasonable tenure in Scouting can develop in a boy the loyalty to the Scoutmaster, to the Troop, and, first of all, to the principles of Scouting which will make him fit for Scout leadership.

 

Intelligence and Scoutcraft Knowledge: A Patrol Leader should have the brains and push to set the pace in advancing in Scouting. If he is outdistanced by his Scouts, he is in grave danger of losing their respect.

 

Initiative and Energy: You cannot have a leader that has to be pushed. He must be equipped with a self-starter, with initiative that will get things going in the Patrol, and he must have the energy to carry through what he has started.

 

Common Sense and Self-Control: He should feel instinctively when "rough house" and when seriousness is in place. He should set a proper example to the others, without being "preachy." He must take no unnecessary chances. Good judgment and self-control will take care of most situations which may arise in a Patrol's life. They will help the boy leader to look philosophically on slight hurts, misunderstandings and jealousies, and together with a nice sense of humor will deflect any shocks which might hurt a more sensitive personality.

 

Helpfulness: He must have a sense of helpfulness toward each Scout in his Patrol, the Patrol as a whole and his Troop.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm... guess I missed a fun thread in da other section.

 

I think all of Kudu's bit above boils down to this:

 

The degree to which a Scoutmaster allows a Patrol to elect anyone it wants is inversely proportional to the responsibily he gives his Patrol Leaders as measured by their authority over Advancement, the frequency of adult-free Patrol Hikes, and the distance between Patrols at Troop campouts.

 

If a Scoutmaster appoints PLs after consulting with the boys he is to lead and with other leadership boys, then what you end up with is a guided consensus decision, eh? Most importantly, the SM is able to select a lad that he/she and other adults trust in terms of skills and maturity to be independent.

 

I suspect Kudu is right. Indeed, I'm pretty certain of it.

 

So da question for Scouters is this: Do we get more mileage in terms of character development fully utilizing Patrol and Outdoor Methods, with youth acting independently of adults... or do we get more mileage in terms of citizenship development by giving them many direct experiences with democratic elections and their outcomes and consequences?

 

I reckon there's a lot to be said for PL elections in teachin' citizenship, eh? But we shouldn't feel that it's cost-free. We lose some things doin' it that way, too.

 

I suspect most troops do somethin' that's a hybrid in one way or another. They screen potential candidates in some way as adults (by rank, by interview, by age or participation or spirit, etc.), and then only let the kids elect from the screened group.

 

Kudu, you've got to be aware of da downside, too, eh? Not every SM is necessarily a virtuoso at selecting natural leaders. Some SMs would prefer PLs who were compliant; others PLs who were "favorites." Given that challenge, elections might provide a "check", just like they do in the real world.

 

Beavah

 

[Kudu]

Beavah writes:

 

Kudu, you've got to be aware of da downside, too, eh? Not every SM is necessarily a virtuoso at selecting natural leaders. Some SMs would prefer PLs who were compliant; others PLs who were "favorites." Given that challenge, elections might provide a "check", just like they do in the real world.

 

A check against what? The Scoutmaster's commitment to the Patrol Method is the weakest link either way, isn't it?

 

A Scoutmaster who prefers compliant Patrol Leaders will use Scout Spirit or other sanctions to manipulate strong elected Patrol Leaders.

 

On the other hand a SM who is committed to the Patrol Method but is aware that he is not very good at appointing natural leaders can confer with his PLC about prospective Patrol Leaders, as in the example "transcript." Smart young leaders tend to be overly critical of their peers which serves as a check against an open-minded Scoutmaster's blindness regarding his "favorites."

 

The difference between Hillcourt's elections and most present-day elections is that unlike the usual criterion of rank, the Traditional BSA Scoutmaster had more relevant leadership criteria like the eight points above.

 

I see a lot of magical thinking now.

 

Either way, the real-world test is to break up the Troop Method (if only once a year at first) by getting those Patrols 300 feet apart!

 

Kudu

[Mike F]

Kudu,

Fascinating. The troop of my youth operated much as you describe back in the late 60s, early 70s. The PLC (with SM input) selected new patrol leaders and the grooming of up-and-coming leaders was a frequent topic of discussion. I'll never forget the night I was called into PLC to discuss my new assignment as an APL to prepare me to take over as PL in the future. This meant a move to different patrol where I worked closely with the PL, being allowed to take on more and more responsibility until we went back to the PLC and he made the case I was ready for his job. Pretty amazing time for a 14 yr old. I had forgotten some of those details until I read your notes.

Thanks!

-mike

[Gold Winger]

What I've observed is a lot of "Johnny needs to be PL so he can advance so let's elect him. Okay, guys?"

 

Better yet, in New Scout Patrols, we have "elections" every month, forced upon them by some idiot "advisor", so everyone "gets a chance."

Looking back a my son's troop, in five years, I can't think of one PL that got the job because he wanted to lead or even just motivated by the idea of being "in charge." All were drafted and all just went through the motions.

[TAHAWK]

KUDU POSTS:

 

"But first let me reply to a couple of Tahawk's points . . . ."

 

"Actually, Baden-Powell's official rule requires the Scoutmaster to consult with either the Patrol in question or with the Court of Honor (the Patrol Leaders in Council) before making the appointment"

 

REPLY:

I don't believe that you did reply to my point about appointing PL's.

 

BP said in Scouting for Boys that PL's were appointed. Where do you find his "official rule" of consultation, whatever "consult" means, and when was that "rule" promulgated? [And now that I have come to your advocacy of the Patrol System as a program "rigidly controlled" by adults, "consult" must be simply window-dressing.]

 

From BP's writing over the decades, I conclude that his ideas underwent gradual changes as to the details of the methods he advocated until he came to see the patrol as "the practical school of self-government." (BP, The Scouter, June, 1918) So to, Boy Scouting here has evolved, although certainly not to anything like perfection.

 

(Interesting script that. Lots of examples of boy leadership BUT the ASM was in charge of a Patrol. Hmmm.)

 

KUDU POSTS:

"Of course the whole point of having real criteria for Patrol Leader Selection is to inform the decision of the Scouts. For all practical purposes the main difference between B-P's appointment procedure and Hillcourt's version of Patrol elections is that in B-P's method the Scoutmaster takes responsibility for the decision, and in Hillcourt's version the Scoutmaster is left to veto a disastrous choice.

 

Casting the selection of Patrol Leaders in moralistic terms ignores the question"

 

REPLY:

What do you mean by "takes resposibility"? Or could you quote BP, citing your source?

 

In Boy Scouting's version, the adults live with the Scouts' choice so long as safety or violation of Scouting ideals is not involved.

 

I believe that one obvious reason why demoncracy is part of the Patrol Method in Boy Scouting here is that Boy Scouting is not about producing "well-oiled" patrols. Our aim is to turn out better citizens (as in BP's "practical school of self-govenment").

 

When the objective is boys learning to be good citizens and good people, mistakes are part of the process. Do the "voters" sometimes elect the wrong candidate? You betcha. Say the Owls elect "Joe" because he is Mr. Popularity. The Owls will then have the enlightening experience . . . .of Joe. If the adults and/or the SPL take mercy upon the Owls, a meeting of that patrol before the end, otherwise, of Joe's term of office can inquire as to how things are going and do the Owls want, perhaps another election. Zip! Joe is out. THAT is an illustation of the Patrol method in action. Lesson learned -- hopefully for application in adulthood at the ballot box when some pol is trying to "buy" their vote with "promises" of $$$ and $$$$ and yet more $$$$$ (all financed with taxed paid by "others."

 

Obviously, as you say, there are things that the SM's can and should do to reduce the risk of a choice outside the range of the acceptable, a choice like Joe. The SM can coach the PLC to develop standards of rank and experience for PL candidates. The SM can counsel the "electorate" about the seriousness and importance of their choice.

 

Of course, if you reject the concept that there is a "range of the acceptable," and want the "perfect" (that is, your personal) choice, then you must be very good at using these means of influencing the outcome. You have no authority in Boy Scouting to simply substitutute your "superior" judgment for that of the Scouts.

 

If you advocate solving the problem of "mistakes" or potential "mistakes" by assuming the authority to veto the Scouts' choices, you are not a demon. Gotta' do more to earn that Demon. Swimming in Molten Lava MB required, among others, plus one hour a week for eternity cleaning the Road Paved With Good Intentions. Instead, such a Scouter would be just another example of an adult that has to be in charge -- 'cause, hreally, honest, absolutely -- you can do a superior job of making HIS unit run smoothly. That would be just a poor fit to be a Scouter commissioned by the B.S.A.

 

KUDU POSTS:

"In Baden-Powell's Scouting (and to a lesser degree in William Hillcourt's BSA Scouting):

 

1. Patrol Leaders are responsible for teaching & "signing off" Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class skills.

 

2. This is done primarily during individual Patrol Meetings and Patrol Hikes without adult supervision.

 

3. Patrol Leaders are trained to conduct adult-free Patrol campouts. In practice this usually occurs during Troop campouts with Patrols a minimum of 300 feet apart.

 

In Traditional Scouting, # 1-3 is what Scouters mean when they use the term "Patrol System" or "Patrol Method.

 

Given the potential for something to go wrong without adult supervision it is helpful to think of a Patrol Leader as requiring the same maturity and the same level of specialized instruction as a lifeguard."

 

REPLY:

In Boy Scouting, adults are present. That is an absolute requirement. Your advocacy is unlikely to change the mind of anyone involved in the process that brought us to that rule. The problem is to keep the adults' cottin'-pickin' hands off the process.

 

PL's did not lead "adult-free" campouts in 1954 when I became a Scout. They did run sorta' adult-free Patrol meetings each and every week (Mom was usually somewhere in the background and would respond to serious crashes.). But there was always an adult (dad)or two on a patrol campout or hike, and we were supposed to have at least six such activities per year. Now, as most know, one adult is not enough (and coverage for liability by the BSA depends on compliance).

 

Couple of things missed: PL's in Boy Scouts also represent their patrol in the PLC (I guess that would be a COH for you and "Traditional Scouting.") and, in the PLC, they help plan the Troop's activities, including campouts and troop meetings -- unless the adults "know better" and won't let it happen.

 

In comparing 1950's to today, I do see a decline in patrol activities. I would say that it's a shame that Scouts spend relatively greater time in Troop activities than Patrol activities, but that just spurs me to greater efforts to train adults to use the Patrol Method.

 

As for your image of a PL vs. a lifeguard, I think Scouts are capable of much more than they are given a chance to do today in the Age of Lawsuits. Once, Scouts fought brush fires, did crowd-control, and helped in wilderness searches. I have even seen a few Scouts who match your lofty model. But most of them are not miniature adults (or replica adults). They are kids. That makes them years away from the final development of the part of ther brain that maximizes their ability to make good judgments. So Lifeguard B.S.A., sure. But adults should be present, and that's the law in Boy Scouting. Mistakes are expected in Boy Scouting.

 

KUDU POSTS:

"In addition to safety issues, in Baden-Powell's "Patrol System" a Patrol Leader once appointed is a member of the Court of Honor (COH) which has most of the adult powers of a BSA Troop Committee."

Not possible."

 

REPLY:

Well, in Scouting for Boys, the PL's report to the Scoutmaster. The SM fills the SPL slot. There is no Troop Commiteee. In contrast, in Boy Scouting here, the Troop Committee, supposedly raised by the Chartered Institution, "hires" the commisioned Scouters and can "fire" them. Hard to compare.

 

One thing is sure true. Those Committee Adults, like Commissioned Scouters, can reserve campsites, hire trucks, arrange to sell lightbulbs - none of which can be done by a minor because a minor is incompetent as a mater of law to enter into a contract.

 

On the other paw, Scouts in a Boy Scout patrol and as members of the PLC in a Boy Scout troop have authority that is not to be overruled by adults -- IF one follows B.S.A. methods. That seems to differ from "Traditional Scouting," but I naturally defer to you on that topic. [i take that back. You get REAL clear later about rigid adult control.]

 

KUDU POSTS:

"As demonstrated in the above sample COH session, adult leaders first hear that a Scout has been promoted to Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class from the Scout's Patrol Leader, not the other way around. But if a Patrol Leader starts to slack off (always hiking his Patrol to the same old destination, for instance) he gets feedback in the COH."

 

REPLY:

Yup. That's different. Passing a Board of Review seals the deal on advancement in Boy Scouts, not the Scout leader who signs off the requirements. Used to be that Board was composed of Scout leaders. We lost faith in Scout leaders in that role due to, in my opinon, the failure to properly train the Scouts to peform in that role. That would be lack of "Leadership Development." Shame on us. We need more leadership development, not less.

 

In any case, up to First Class, the Scout never gets to a Board of Review unless his PL has passed him for the rank, so that guarantee of Scout leader judgment informed by "day-to-day" experience with the candidate for advancement, remains to that extent.

 

KUDU POSTS:

"After reaching First Class a Scout must ask the COH for permission to meet with a Badge Examiner. If the Scout has not been pulling his share in the Troop, the request is delayed until he pitches in (most jobs except Patrol Leader are performed ad hoc by any Scout with the appropriate Proficiency Badge, as opposed to fixed terms for Quartermasters, Scribes, Instructors, etc. To continue to hold a Proficiency Badge, it must be kept current)."

 

REPLY:

And a Scout today who seeks rank above First Class must demonstrate much the same, although the person to be convinced is the SM. It would be a poor SM who reaches such a decision without consulting with the Scout leaders. I would have no problem with expressly teaching that such consultation should or must be done. But in the final analysis, it's the SM's responsibility in Boy Scouting.

 

KUDU POPTS:

"So which model fosters the greatest degree of youth empowerment?

 

You can answer in moralistic terms, OR you can judge the issue in terms of a loose equation:

 

The degree to which a Scoutmaster allows a Patrol to elect anyone it wants is inversely proportional to the responsibily he gives his Patrol Leaders as measured by their authority over Advancement, the frequency of adult-free Patrol Hikes, and the distance between Patrols at Troop campouts.

 

So as a practical matter how does a modern Scoutmaster work toward the degree of youth empowerment in Traditional Scouting if he feels obligated to elected leadership?

 

REPLY:

A question in the grand tradition of "Have you stopped beating your wife"? It assumes facts that do not exit. There is no "either or" choice between elected patrol leaders and "proper" Boy Scouting.

 

I would say, in line with BP's urgings to place responsibility on the boys and his charaterization of the patrol as a "practical school of self-government," that the degree to which a Scoutmaster allows Scouts to elect whomever they wish is directly proportional to the responsibiltiy placed on them for the consequences of their actions.

 

That, to me and BP and the B.S.A., makes sense. If they live to eighteen, they may vote for President: "As nearly every man will now have political voting power, one of the aims of education should be to prepare the young citizen for his responsibilites in this line." BP, The Scouter, June, 1918. Compared to voting for President, the experience in electing a PL is a relatively low stakes example of BP's "education by experience."

To fail to empower Scouts to elect their own leaders robs them of this priceless experience of the "patrol as a practical school of self-government" (BP, Id.).

 

Furthermore, the Board of Review exists to inquire into whether the Troop and its patrols are operating in accord with the methods and aims of Boy Scouting.

 

I POSTED:

"Your expressed attitude is also contrary to the Patrol Method...You strongly suggest that you would use means NOT approved by the BSA to reach your ends of empowering those who are, in your opinion, ideal leaders."

 

"Where a man cannot conscientiously take the line required, his one manly course is to put it straight to his Commissioner or to headquarters, and if we cannot meet his views, then to leave the work."

 

KUDU POSTS:

"Strong moralistic stuff!

 

In fact election of Patrol Leader has its origin in the six methods that were the "official methodology" of the very first edition of the BSA Handbook for Scout Masters.

 

But what the BSA "got straight" was the opposite of Baden-Powell's Patrol System: The Patrol Leader as a symbolic "team captain" in a rigidly adult-controlled program:"

 

REPLY

Well, at least "moralistic" has replaced your use of cognitive dissonance and "ends justifying the means" as all-purpose knocks. Progress. Slowly.

 

Let's see, BP is the FINAL AUTHORITY --- UNLESS what he says does not suit the position you take in opposition to Boy Scouting. So if BP, in your view advocated "The Patrol Leader as a symbolic "team captain" in a rigidly adult-controlled program," that's Holy Writ. But if he says an adult who cannot support the offical methods needs to leave the organization, that's "strong moralistic stuff," which seems to equate to you with Bad (capital "B") Stuff. OK. Got it. Well, shame on BP.

 

I believe that BP's writings, taken as a whole, do not in fact advocate a rigidly adult-controlled program. Adult-influenced? Absolutely. But how could BP "put responsibility into the hands of the Patrol Leaders" (BP, The Scouter, June, 1910) if the program is "rigidly-controlled" by adults? Did BP means to merely PRETEND to treat the boy as "a responsible being" (BP, The Scouter, December, 1913)who is actually leading his patrol (BP, The Scouter, May 1914) BUT REALLY "RIGIDLY-CONTROL" the patrol? That would be contrary to BP's admonition that we must "practice what we preach." (BP, The Scouter, July 1910).

 

But, this discussion is irrelevant to Boy Scouting because this is not the UK at the time that you contend that BP held such views. Nor is it Boy Scouting in 1929 when Bill wrote his first PLHB.

 

KUDU POSTS:

"So I ask again: Which model fostered the greatest degree of youth empowerment: Baden-Powell's method of Scoutmaster appointment (after consulting with the Patrol and/or the Court of Honor) in which the Patrol Leaders performed most of the Troop jobs currently done in the USA by adults; or the BSA election model which was by any fair assessment the very opposite of the Patrol Method?

 

No wonder that when the BSA finally adopted the Patrol Method on September 21, 1923, James West described it as "a radical change in the management of troops"!

 

The elected but powerless "team captain" Patrol Leader was the legacy that William Hillcourt inherited when he arrived here from Denmark

 

REPLY:

Another "have you stopped beating your wife" question.

 

You contend the Patrol System was rigidly adult-controlled. Is THAT better than the Boy Scouting Patrol method wehere the elected PL, coached by adults (and older Scouts) is responsible (again, short of safety and values issues)for his Patrol, mistakes and all? I'll take the Boy Scouting approach every time, and I believe that BP came to a place where he prefered it as well:

 

"I had stipulated that the position of Scoutmasters was to be neither that of a schoolmaster nor of a Commanding Officer, but rather that of an elder brother among his boys, not detached or above them, but himself joining in their activities and sharing their enthusiasm, and thus, being in the position to know them individually, able to inspire their efforts and to suggest new diversions when his finger on their pulse told him the attraction of any present craze was wearing off." BP, Lessons From the Varsity of Life, CH. IX.

 

But forget appeals to authority. Let's take your position on it's own merits. Peace is war. Love is hate. A patrol System characterized by "rigid control" by adults is empowerment of the boys. I think I heard that all before -- somewhere -- along with "some are more equal than others."

[TAHAWK]

"So da question for Scouters is this: Do we get more mileage in terms of character development fully utilizing Patrol and Outdoor Methods, with youth acting independently of adults... or do we get more mileage in terms of citizenship development by giving them many direct experiences with democratic elections and their outcomes and consequences?"

 

The Patrol Method, one of the current "Eight Methods," requires youth election of PL's and the SPL. As a Commissioned Scouter, you commit yourself, on your Honor, to following these Eight methods.

 

"I reckon there's a lot to be said for PL elections in teachin' citizenship, eh? But we shouldn't feel that it's cost-free. We lose some things doin' it that way, too."

 

On balance, an adult, with her greater expereicne and superior judgment, will make better choices in the sense that the Patrol will run like a "well-oiled machine." The nation, community, and the Scouts will lose some things doin' it that way.

 

"I suspect most troops do somethin' that's a hybrid in one way or another. They screen potential candidates in some way as adults (by rank, by interview, by age or participation or spirit, etc.), and then only let the kids elect from the screened group."

 

Troops are all over the lot in terms of the range of approaches within and outside Boy Scouting. I once asked for a show of hands at a Roundtable, and 40% of the Troops allowed elections of PL's and 10% allowed election of SPL's. That outlines Scouting's biggest problem - adults - not enough and quality of. It's seems instinctively harder to do it the Boy Scouting way than the "dad" way. Heck, kids burn water, much less pancakes. But no one dies from burned food on a campout or from electing Joe as PL. And we are not after perfect pancakes.

 

"Kudu, you've got to be aware of da downside, too, eh? Not every SM is necessarily a virtuoso at selecting natural leaders. Some SMs would prefer PLs who were compliant; others PLs who were "favorites." Given that challenge, elections might provide a "check", just like they do in the real world. "

 

Or their sons. One Troop had three SPL's in a row who were the SM's son. Same SM. Nothing new. When I umpired, one High School had a left-handed catcher -- the coaches son - of course (Some will understand this).

 

Thought for the day:

"[E]ach Patrol should have its own separate tent, at some distance (at least 100 yards) from the others." BP, The Scouter, October, 1909.

 

Revised thought for the day:

"Hide. The adults are coming."

 

 

 

[Stosh]

If one were to look carefully at effective use of leadership in an organization one would quickly find that elected personnel are there because of popularity not necessarily talent. Assigned leadership organizations are extremely tight with their leadership effectiveness and when that effectiveness wanes in the least bit someone else can step in and move the organization along once more.

 

The problem for me seems to be in choosing between a lesson in citizenship, i.e. voting or a lesson in effective leadership, i.e. appointments.

 

I am in a major reorganizational movement in my troop, 6 members to 23 members overnight and so I need to have effective leadership, but that doesn't mean the process couldn't change sometime in the future.

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

"If one were to look carefully at effective use of leadership in an organization one would quickly find that elected personnel are there because of popularity not necessarily talent. Assigned leadership organizations are extremely tight with their leadership effectiveness and when that effectiveness wanes in the least bit someone else can step in and move the organization along once more.

 

The problem for me seems to be in choosing between a lesson in citizenship, i.e. voting or a lesson in effective leadership, i.e. appointments.

 

I am in a major reorganizational movement in my troop, 6 members to 23 members overnight and so I need to have effective leadership, but that doesn't mean the process couldn't change sometime in the future.

 

Stosh"

 

Hi, Stosh.

 

I have looked carefully at the issue of adults failing to deliver on boy leadership since 1959. It is hardly a new problem. After all, most Scouters are dads. Dads are not used to taking a vote on their decisions vis-a-vis their kids. Or they may have the military model in mind - adult Paltoon Leader and Scout NCO's leading "squads."

 

First, I don't think you have a dilemma because the Scouts, properly coached by an effective Scouter on the role of the PL and what a good PL should be like, will typically make an acceptable choice.

 

If they should happen to make a bad choice, as has happened twice in the last 21 years in our Troop, an interim election directed by the PLC will correct it. The way can be smoothed by SM conferences with the members of the Patrol that can get them to talk about/think about the deficiencies in the current "regime." ("Do the Owl's get their meals on time as compared to the other Patrols" Are the Owls advancing as fast as the Scouts in the other Patrols?" etc.)

 

Again, the Scouts can learn as much from a bad example as from a good example, and learning is the goal - not a well-oiled machine, and so says BP and Boy Scouting. The Patrol is to be a "practical school in SELF-government."

 

Finally, the BSHB expressly promises the Scouts that Patrol members elect their PL and all the Troop's Scouts elect the SPL. When you take on a Scouter's job, you commit to keeping those promises. A Scout is Trustworthy. Deliver on the promises.

(Maybe that's why BP urged adult leaders to read the "book" at least once a year.)

 

We are not discussing an optional feature of Boy Scouting.

[Kudu]

jblake47 writes:

 

I am in a major reorganizational movement in my troop, 6 members to 23 members overnight and so I need to have effective leadership, but that doesn't mean the process couldn't change sometime in the future.

 

I have made the transition a couple of times when at the request of District Commissioners I became Scoutmaster of "Troops in trouble."

 

Once your 1) Patrols camp apart and 2) the Troop understands that the bottom line is effective leadership, you can transition to elections if you follow Hillcourt's Patrol Method (including teaching them the criteria and requiring a significant trial period between the election and the formal installation ceremony).

 

The enemy of leadership effectiveness is not elections, the problem is regular elections!

 

If a Patrol only holds an election when they need to (the Patrol Leader can no longer camp regularly for instance), then if they are accustomed to excellence in leadership and camping as a well-oiled machine, you can get them to concentrate on who can best take the place of their best leader.

 

With regular elections the Patrol thinks in terms of time periods and whose turn it is to get POR credit.

 

jblake47 writes:

 

The problem for me seems to be in choosing between a lesson in citizenship, i.e. voting or a lesson in effective leadership, i.e. appointments.

 

Let me address some of Tawhawks points in that context.

 

The assumption of most BSA Scouters is that Scouting teaches citizenship through a) elections and b) those three boring school instruction Citizenship Merit Badges.

 

Baden-Powell taught that Citizenship is learned through a) self-government under the best Patrol Leader (adult hands off after a PL was appointed), b) adult-free hiking and camping under the leadership of the best Patrol Leader where Scout Law (rather than adult intervention) is the best practical guide for getting along...

 

I received a couple of Private Messages that indicate that I have not explained that very well. Maybe Beavah will take a stab at it if he replies to Tahawk.

 

...and c) selfless public service without thought of compensation, what in Christian venues Baden-Powell called "Practical Christianity".

 

I witnessed a Troop election this Monday where ALL of the older Scouts declined nominations for office unless they currently needed POR credit.

 

To understand how counting hours of public service and months of PORs for advancement undermines the public service aspect of adult citizenship, try this simple experiment:

 

Get your Troop Committee to declare that Scouts learn best by example and from now on all of the adults in the Troop will also run for office every time the Scouts do.

 

As Tahawk says there is no reason why the same people can't be re-elected every six months, but the adults should nominate a token candidate to run against the current Scoutmaster (SM), Committee Chairman (CC), Treasurer, etc.

 

See how long they stick around!

 

The simple truth is that if you have those Patrols 300 feet apart and hiking without adults, a good Patrol Leader is as important as a dedicated, gifted CC, Treasurer, and SM. And simply put:

 

"If you want something done, ask a busy man!"

 

Every gifted leader --boy or adult-- has many demands on his time outside of Scouting. If you have a small Troop and are fortunate enough to have a good CC or Treasurer, then you should be aware that they are constantly asked to volunteer their time to other equally deserving causes.

 

If you train them to think in terms of six month commitments, then when some other worthy cause asks them for their time they are more likely to step down at the next election and let someone else have "their turn," just as your Scouts do.

 

That is human nature, not just an adult thing. We complain that Scouting competes with other interests but we force them to run for office on a regular basis and dumb the program down to lessen the risk.

 

Can you afford to loose a good CC or Treasurer to teach your Scouts a lesson? If the "Scouts run the Troop" then why do you think that you can afford to loose a good Patrol Leader?

 

Most importantly when we added months of POR requirements to advancement (to get more Scouts to go to manager school), we cheapened the Citizenship of public service by teaching Scouts to put a price on their contribution of time.

 

Kudu

 

[TAHAWK]

This thread illustrates one thing at least: a moving target is harder to hit. BP understood that too.

[Stosh]

Hmmm, somehow I get an uneasy feeling when the only reason the older boys will accept a nomination is if they are getting something out of it, i.e. POR requirement fulfillment. Surely somewhere along the way the servant leadership lesson was missed on these guys. This popularity/reward system of citizenship is not a good formula for developing real leadership skills. As we can all attest to, popular condidates don't always make the best leaders.

 

I find this dynamic reflective in both the election process as well as the leadership styles of many scouts. When a nasty job needs doing, they dump it on the scout that gives them the most problems. This process of a base of popularity of course isn't immune to SM's picking their favorites in a placement system either. Or worse yet, the scout that gets placed just because he needs a POR.

 

Sure, ideally election of PL's and SPL's is a great thing, I'm all for it, but I'm even more for having a troop of trained officers that are excited about what they do, do it well, and can teach this kind of leadership to others. It is a truly waste of scouting to have a boy fit that bill and yet because he isn't very popular and never gets a chance to try out his wings in that situation. Instead of it being a waste, more often than not, the boy simply leaves and goes elsewhere. 25 votes for a boy but he doesn't make SPL, one vote with his feet and the troop loses one of their best scouts.

 

As SM I make opportunities for the boys, one of those opportunities is the opportunity to lead. I have always favored a consensus with a placement over just voting. A consensus is somewhat of a vote anyway, I have but once or twice overruled the consensus simply because the boy wasn't ready to handle the task at hand.

 

A boy came to me the other day and asked what bugle calls a scout needed to learn to be the bugler. The first thing I thought of concering this boys is not whether or not he can play the bugle, but with that much initative, I can see him in a PL or SPL role eventually. My last TG was the same way, he asked if the NSP needed a TG, I said I didn't know, but he could feel free to ask them. He did and about a half hour later, the NSP PL came and asked if they could have a TG. I asked if they had anyone in mind and of course they named this first scout. He's been TG for quite some time now, he found his niche.

 

POR's are needs that require functional scouts. If elections fulfill that - ok, if consensus fulfills that - ok, if placement fulfills that - ok. It's kinda like trying to get a screw out of a piece of wood. Screwdriver will work, so will a knife blade, and maybe a dime, too. Screwdriver might be best, but if all you got is a phillips, maybe the dime would work better. :^)

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

"Sure, ideally election of PL's and SPL's is a great thing, I'm all for it, but I'm even more for having a troop of trained officers that are excited about what they do, do it well, and can teach this kind of leadership to others. It is a truly waste of scouting to have a boy fit that bill and yet because he isn't very popular and never gets a chance to try out his wings in that situation. Instead of it being a waste, more often than not, the boy simply leaves and goes elsewhere. 25 votes for a boy but he doesn't make SPL, one vote with his feet and the troop loses one of their best scouts.

 

As SM I make opportunities for the boys, one of those opportunities is the opportunity to lead. I have always favored a consensus with a placement over just voting. A consensus is somewhat of a vote anyway, I have but once or twice overruled the consensus simply because the boy wasn't ready to handle the task at hand."

 

You are hardly alone in noticing that you can overrule Boy Scouting.

 

We have an SM who won't sign off an Eagle candidate who lacks Life-Saving and Wilderness Survival.

 

We have numerous SM's who will not allow elections.

 

We have an SM who decided fifteen years ago to create entirely different requirements for TF-1st Class.

 

We HAD a SM who gives his Scouts alcohol when they're 16. There was an article about this in American Heritage.

 

We HAD a SM who shared beer with his "senior leadership."

 

We HAD a SM who dressed his Troop in Camo and trained them in night infiltration of other Troops' sites, complete with cutting tent ropes.

 

We have a SM who does all the cooking for his Scouts and gives all the orders to his Troop of 10-12 Scouts.

 

We have an SM who has ALL Scout leadership positions filled by election.

 

All these men could give you reasons that they found good and sufficient for disregarding the rules of Boy Scouting. A coupel even "ran" Troops that had lots of the indicia of success.

 

Again, I see no conflict between elections, as required in all Boy Scout Troops, and having trained, motivated Scout leaders.

 

Elected Scout leaders, and the training therof, are part of your task. I am sure you have experienced that not all jobs worth doing are easy.

 

A leadership position is an opportunity for service to others. As you indicated, there are opportunities for service that do not require election. Placing a likely Scout in such a position -- and the recognition of his good performance in that position -- can add to his "weight" with the Scouts.

[Kudu]

Tahawk writes:

 

I don't believe that you did reply to my point about appointing PL's.

 

BP said in Scouting for Boys that PL's were appointed. Where do you find his "official rule" of consultation, whatever "consult" means, and when was that "rule" promulgated?

 

As far as I know that was always the adult version of the rules.

 

A 17MB (72 dpi) scan of the 1938 Canadian version of Baden-Powell's Policy, Organisation, & Rules (PO&R) can be found online at the following URL.

 

http://www.scoutscan.com/history/scoutbook_72dpi.pdf

 

An easier to read 70 MB (150 dpi) version can be found at:

 

http://www.scoutscan.com/history/scoutbook_150dpi.pdf

 

Under the Canadian numbering system the reference would be Sec. 58 & 59 [Note, "Troop Leader" = SPL]:

 

Sec. 58. -- Troop Leader

 

A Troop Leader may, if desired, be appointed by the Scoutmaster, in consultation with the Court of Honour, to perform any duties compatible with these rules which may be assigned him.

 

The following qualifications are required--

(a) Ability to lead.

(b) Service as a Patrol Leader for at least six months.

© The First Class Badge.

(d) A general knowledge of Scouting for Boys. ...

 

Sec. 59. -- Patrol Leader

 

A Patrol Leader is a Scout appointed by the Scoutmaster, in consultation with the Court of Honour or the Patrol concerned, to take charge of a Patrol Scouts.

 

Tahawk writes:

 

And now that I have come to your advocacy of the Patrol System as a program "rigidly controlled" by adults, "consult" must be simply window-dressing.

 

99% of all of the problems of the Boy Scout program would be solved if the Guide to Safe Scouting conformed to Baden-Powell's rule that Patrols always camp at least 300 feet apart.

 

The other 1% are due to reading comprehension

 

The rigidly controlled by adults passages that you cite (found under "Strong moralistic stuff," above) are all BSA quotes from before the BSA adopted the Patrol Method on September 21, 1923.

 

In other words, the "safe" tightly adult-controlled BSA program was the origin of Patrol elections.

 

Tahawk writes:

 

From BP's writing over the decades, I conclude that his ideas underwent gradual changes as to the details of the methods he advocated until he came to see the patrol as "the practical school of self-government." (BP, The Scouter, June, 1918).

 

He was a firm believer in self-government long before 1918. Once the best possible Patrol Leader was appointed by the Scoutmaster, it was strictly hands off. The Patrol Leader represented his Patrol and the adults kept quiet in the Court of Honor unless asked for their opinion, as for example in the transcript where the Patrol Leader of the Woodpeckers has been slacking off by hiking his Patrol a mere eight miles to the same old location:

 

PL Woodpeckers: We haven't had a proper Patrol Meeting, except that we went on a hike a fortnight ago; all present except three. We went about eight miles and explored the old mill.

 

PL Owls: It's about time you found another hike route; you've been reporting about the old mill for the last eight months.

 

Troop Leader: [Troop Leader = SPL] Well, perhaps you can offer him one of your more imaginative hikes.

 

PL Woodpeckers: Thanks very much, but we're doing all right. The Owls can carry on with their own route marches.

 

Troop Leader: Anything else, Jim?

 

PL Woodpeckers: Yes. My Patrol thinks we ought to change round the Patrol Corners in the Troop Headquarters. We've been nearest the draft and furthest from the fire ever since the Troop started and we think it's time someone else had a turn.

 

Troop Leader: Well I think that's a matter for the Scoutmaster.

 

SM: It certainly opens up all sorts of possibilities. Perhaps we have been a bit hard on the Woodpeckers. In any case, I was going to suggest later on that it was time some of the Patrol Corners were re-made as the decorations are looking a bit musty. It might be a good idea to draw lots for the corners as some are obviously better than others and then to agree to move round once a year.

 

Troop Leader: That seems a pretty sound suggestion to me so long as the Owls don't have to move.

 

SM: I think it has to be all or none.

 

Troop Leader: I suppose it has really, but there will be a bit of hard feeling about it.

 

PL Woodpeckers: Well, there's hard feeling in my Patrol anyway; we think the best corners ought to be shared round as well as the worst.

 

Troop Leader: Anybody else want to say anything about this?

 

PL Cuckoos: I'm prepared to vote in favor of Skipper's suggestion. There'll be a bit of grumbling to start with but I think my chaps would benefit from a change of scene and I can't get them interested in doing anything with their present corner, so I hope we do shift.

 

Troop Leader: All right then, we'll put it to the vote, but I think before you come to any final decision you ought to consult your Patrols in Council and then we can vote on it at the next meeting. Is that agreed?

 

Nods of assent make it obvious that it is agreed.

 

(Comment: The SM had been wanting to make this suggestion for many months as there was no doubt that the Woodpeckers had been handicapped by having the worst corner in the Headquarters, but very wisely he had not made the suggestion until the opportunity arose and he feels pleased with the way things have gone).

 

See:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/court_honor/coh_session.htm

 

Tahawk writes:

 

I believe that one obvious reason why democracy is part of the Patrol Method in Boy Scouting here is that Boy Scouting is not about producing "well-oiled" patrols. Our aim is to turn out better citizens (as in BP's "practical school of self-government"). When the objective is boys learning to be good citizens and good people, mistakes are part of the process.

 

Yes, I hear that sentiment a lot in Wood Badge circles. Also, "Our aim is not to produce the best Patrol Leaders, but to teach leadership to every Scout. If our Troop had the best Patrol Leader in the entire world, it would be my responsibility to ask him to step down to give another boy a chance because my job is to teach leadership!"

 

Manager school "experts" can say that because they do not train Patrol Leaders to manage controlled risk out of the sight of adults.

 

So sure, if a Patrol Leader has no adult-level "lifeguard" responsibility then certainly there is no downside to meaningless six month popularity contests for good citizens and good people and mistakes that have no real consequences.

 

Tahawk writes:

 

In Boy Scouting, adults are present. That is an absolute requirement.

 

What is your level of training?

 

For someone who so often turns accusations of not obeying the rules into personal insults, you don't appear to have read much about the Patrol Method in the last 54 years.

 

In 2008 "Boy Scouting" still allows adult-free Patrol Hikes and Campouts. Check the Guide to Safe Scouting under Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings: "There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, where no adult leadership is required."

 

Tahawk writes:

 

Your advocacy is unlikely to change the mind of anyone involved in the process that brought us to that rule.

 

That is what I mean by "cognitive dissonance."

 

Tahawk writes:

 

PL's did not lead "adult-free" campouts in 1954 when I became a Scout.

 

Maybe not in your car-camping Troop.

 

Adult-free hikes and campouts were the whole point of the Patrol Method in 1954. Your copy of the Handbook for Patrol Leaders would have had an entire chapter on how to take your Patrol on a Patrol Hike:

 

CHAPTER VII

 

PATROL HIKES

 

At one of the very first Patrol meetings you have with your Scouts, one of them will ask: "When do we go on a hike" and in a moment the rest will join him in a multi-voiced chorus.

 

Boys, and especially Scouts, want to go hiking. The out-of-doors fascinates them. The woods, the rivers, the "wide open spaces" call them. And they obey.

 

As soon as you are able you will want to take your boys on Patrol Hikes. You want your Patrol to be a real one, and only a hiking Patrol is a real Patrol....

 

Degree of Responsibility

 

The most conspicuous difference between the two [Patrol Meetings and Patrol Hikes] is the different degree of responsibility that goes with each.

 

There are usually not very many dangers in running an indoor meeting. It is when you start to take the group out in the open that the danger moment may creep in. There is traffic to be encountered, cliffs and rivers and swamps to be avoided; there is the danger than an innocent camp fire will blow up into a forest fire if care is not taken. And a lot of other unforeseen things that might happen which would put you in a severe test [emphasis added].

 

Likewise in 1954 your copy of the Handbook for Patrol Leaders had another entire chapter about how to take your Patrol camping without adults:

 

CHAPTER VIII

 

PATROL CAMPING

 

The outdoor part of Scouting fascinates the boys. The hikes that bring them out into nature have their absolute approval, but, after all, the experience which they are most looking forward to from the day you start the Patrol is --Camp.

 

Camp is a word filled with adventure to every real boy. It stands for freedom, fun and adventure. Unlucky is the Scout who hasn't had his taste of camp life.

 

One of your greatest services as a Patrol Leader is to try to make your Patrol into a Camping Patrol trained in the ways of the experienced campers. This takes time. It takes time. It takes also patience and perseverance. But it can be done, and you are will under way toward doing it, the day you have made your boys into real hikers as described in the previous chapter.

 

The official BSA policy that real Patrols require real adult-free hikes and campouts should have been crystal clear to your adult leaders in 1954. For instance, on page 118-119 of their copies of Handbook for Scoutmasters (fourth edition):

 

Patrols are ready to go hiking and camping on their own just as soon as the Patrol Leader has been trained, and the Scouts have learned to take care of themselves....It should be your goal to get your Patrol Leaders qualified for hike and camp leadership at an early stage [emphasis added].

 

Rather than that car-camping White Stag stuff, the official BSA Patrol Leader training course that your Scoutmaster was supposed use to train you to get your Patrol out hiking and camping without adults was on page 376 of his Handbook for Scoutmasters. See:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm

 

When you first took Scouter training in 1962, the exact same wording appeared on the exact same pages of your own Handbook for Scoutmasters (fifth edition). The same official Patrol Leader Training course that you were supposed to be using was on page 369 of your handbook.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Kudu