BP or BSA - which does what better?

[Kudu]

OGE writes:

 

"They have a Troop Guide and an ASM assigned to them and they rotate the Patrol Leaders job on a monthly basis until all have been in the position at which time they elect a permanent PL and the Troop Guide bids them a fond adieu."

 

The ASM raises a big red flag for me.

 

I prefer mixed-age Patrols, but with New Scout Patrols (NSP) I find that Baden-Powell "does it better" by appointing an older Patrol Leader rather than teaching some kind of lesson about leadership by having 10 and 11 year-old Scouts rotate the Patrol Leaders job. Getting other kids to follow you really sucks at that age, and the actual "muscle" is the appointed ASM or, at best, the appointed Troop Guide.

 

If you appoint a popular older Scout to be their Patrol Leader (ideally a good-natured ex-SPL), he becomes the young Patrol's role model of how a real Patrol Leader does his job.

 

It is important to have the PL pick an age-peer to be associated with the Patrol as Troop Guide or the Patrol's own Troop Quartermaster so they don't mind camping away from the other older Scouts. The Patrol Leader can experiment with little Assistant Patrol Leaders, finally sticking with the best natural leader (who usually gets elected PL when the Patrol "comes of age").

 

I find that most of the appointed NSP Patrol Leaders discover that they enjoy the pure adoration of their charges. I treat them like an adult ASM and I run interference between them and the adult leaders when necessary.

 

Kudu

 

 

[Beavah]

For the first 12 months of it's existence, the OBS'ers operate as a new scout patrol.... When the following years cross oversarrive, the OBS Patrol moves out of New Scout Patrol status and becomes a "regular patrol"... In three years, they graduate to the level of a Venture Patrol.

 

Yah, OGE, that's my reading of the current BSA model, although the materials also hint at other options.

 

This setup is different from BP's "permanent" patrols in that the patrol dies (no later than) when the boys age out. A true "permanent" patrol can last for 30 years or more, as new boys are added and others age out. A son might be in the same Burning Bobcats patrol that his dad was when he was a lad. Very similar to the British public school house system now immortalized by the Harry Potter stuff.

 

Da on-the-ground reality most places though is that attrition happens. So those 8 boys who joined as an NSP become 6 boys and then 4. On any given outing only half can come, so at some point you no longer have a functioning patrol. That either means that you do the bad thing and "reconfigure" patrols to create a new, viable patrol, or yeh do the worse thing and create "temporary" patrols each outing that are viable.

 

I think there's three major versions of "patrol method" out there:

 

Age-Based Patrols as described above.

 

Traditional Patrols where new boys join an existing permanent patrol.

 

Hybrid where new boys join a NSP for a short period of between 4 and 12 months, and then move out of the NSP into existing mixed-age permanent patrols. Kinda like the military "boot camp" model, with an ASM Lieutenant and a TG sergeant.

 

They each have their advocates, eh? Small troops of course have to be traditional. Very large "mega" troops are often age-based, with semi-independent programs. Mid-sized troops are all over the place, eh? But it shows the tension in the BSA materials between the old BP/Hillcourt progressives and other influences.

 

Beavah

 

[SR540Beaver]

ajmako,

 

I'm confused. You said, "This troop focused on permanant patrols, insisted patrols plan and conduct their own activities, and handed Scouts most of the authority."

 

Then you said, "About halfway through my tenure with that troop things started falling apart. The patrols still functioned on their own, but the junior leaders were sort of slacking off. There was a lot more goofing off than usual, and it seemed like none of the PL's, ASPL's, TG's, the SPL, or JASM's would bother to do anything about it."

 

Then this, "Finally we sat down with one of the JASM's and asked him what he thought was happening. He said: "No one does anything because the adults never give them a chance." Whether it was a troop meeting or a campout, you couldn't swing a cat in that troop without hitting an adult, and we needed a 16-year-old Scout to tell us that."

 

How did you get from point A to point B? How did the mere presence of adults cause your problem? I guess my question is that you never said that adults were taking over and not allowing the boys to do their job. You said that the troop was boy led and then the boys started slacking off. When questioned, the JASM said that adults never give them the chance.....yet you said the boys led the troop and started slacking off. Just because there are so many adults you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one shouldn't impede them from leading their troop.

 

What am I missing? Were the boys intimidated by the presence of an adult or were the adults trying to take control?

 

 

[ajmako]

How did you get from point A to point B? How did the mere presence of adults cause your problem?

 

The thing that moved us from point A to point B was that the patrol advisors followed a "work closely" method. When the patrols got together for their patrol corners during troop meetings, the patrol advisors went with them, and sat in on the patrol meeting.

 

What am I missing? Were the boys intimidated by the presence of an adult or were the adults trying to take control?

 

Yes. The natural tendency of youth is to defer to the adult in the room. It's what they are used to doing at home, in school, and everywhere else. I also have to admit that I had the unfortunate tendency to take charge.

 

We had 5 patrols. We had an entire building for our meeting place, and each patrol had their own little room. Usually the patrol advisors were there as well most of the time, but not all of the time. When the adults weren't there the PL's had a hard time controlling the group. When the chaos got out of hand the adults who were there usually came running.

 

On campouts we were usually in "deep wilderness", so our ability to spread out was limited. Our 15 adult leaders were very active--it was unusual for more than one or two to miss a campout. The result was the Scouts only rarely managed to get away from the adults.

 

This is basically the thing Kudu finds wrong with "Adult Association," but it's not the method that's wrong, it's how we used it. The adults were simply too hands on in their approach. The Scouts responded by deferring to the adult in the room. And then, of course, the adults ran around trying to figure out why the Scouts weren't stepping up and taking charge.(This message has been edited by ajmako)(This message has been edited by ajmako)

[OldGreyEagle]

Kudu, I dont understand your point, then again, dont understand a lot of things. From the BSA website I found this description of a New Scout Patrol:

 

New-Scout patrols are for 11-year-old Scouts who have recently joined the troop and are together for the first year in the troop. An older, experienced Scout often is assigned as a troop guide to help the new-Scout patrol through the challenges of troop membership. An assistant Scoutmaster should also assist the new-Scout patrol to ensure that each Scout has every opportunity to succeed right from the start.

 

You have the appointed Troop Guide, the experienced scout whom is the role model for the patrol, so whether you call him an appointed patrol leader or appointed troop guide I dont see a difference. You express trepidation at the assigment of the ASM, but is there any difference between what this ASM does in a larger troop (over 20 scouts) versus what the scoutmaster would do in a smaller troop? The New Scout Patrol ASM lends support to the Patrol Guide when he needs it, it doenst mean he runs the New Scout Patrol anymore than a Scoutmaster runs a troop.

 

I know the prospect of an 11 year old patrol leader lends itself to much mirth and merry making. But I have always thought that giving the new scout a taste of what it it like to be in charge is a very important lesson. Many times the scout will come to me and complain that no one in the patrol will listen to him, I offer sympathy and ask him if he paid much attention to the previous patrol leader or any boy leader for that matter, usually there is an "Aha" moment, where the boy realizes how he is perceived when he ignores direction from youth leaders. Some get it right away, others take longer and some most assuredly never get it. We had a rousing debate a few years back about whether or not you had to be a good follower before you could be a good leader. I dont know what side I was on then, but for the moment, its tough to command respect as a leader, if you personally cant take direction.

[Eagledad]

>>When the following years cross oversarrive, the OBS Patrol moves out of New Scout Patrol status and becomes a "regular patrol", they now participate in a different program, but they are still with their buddies. In three years, they graduate to the level of a Venture Patrol. The same eight scouts, in the same patrol, who have stayed together with the program that the troop offered to it changing as the boys matured

[Kudu]

OGE writes:

 

"You have the appointed Troop Guide, the experienced scout whom is the role model for the patrol, so whether you call him an appointed patrol leader or appointed troop guide I don't see a difference."

 

Well, an appointed older Scout Patrol Leader is a real Patrol Leader, and a Troop Guide is somebody that props up a ten or eleven-year-old pretend Patrol Leader while trying to teach him Scoutcraft.

 

"The New Scout Patrol ASM lends support to the Patrol Guide when he needs it, it doesnt mean he runs the New Scout Patrol anymore than a Scoutmaster runs a troop."

 

Yeah, if you chain him to a tree 300' from the Patrol then I guess it is OK. My experience is similar to AJ's, if you have an adult hovering around then the Scouts will defer to him. A good Patrol Leader is better than a good adult.

 

"But I have always thought that giving the new scout a taste of what it it like to be in charge is a very important lesson. Many times the scout will come to me and complain that no one in the patrol will listen to him, I offer sympathy and ask him if he paid much attention to the previous patrol leader or any boy leader for that matter, usually there is an "Aha" moment, where the boy realizes how he is perceived when he ignores direction from youth leaders...its tough to command respect as a leader, if you personally cant take direction"

 

Both Baden-Powell's Patrol System and William Hillcourt's Patrol Method "does it better" than the 1972 "Leadership Development Method" with its artificial "very important lesson" stuff, however well-intentioned.

 

A ten or eleven-year-old needs to learn Scoutcraft to be warm and dry and well-fed and confident in the wilderness. The leadership stuff is better learned by him observing the best older Scout in the Troop as his close-range Patrol Leader role model.

 

Kudu

 

 

[Beavah]

A ten or eleven-year-old needs to learn Scoutcraft to be warm and dry and well-fed and confident in the wilderness. The leadership stuff is better learned by him observing the best older Scout in the Troop as his close-range Patrol Leader role model.

 

Yah, OK, I think I finally understand Kudu. The examples really help, eh?

 

So in this view, FCFY or somesuch is OK, to the extent that First Class reflects solid personal scoutcraft that allows the boy to be personally comfortable and confident, to the point he can begin contributin' to the group.

 

Older boys do the role modeling in the same way EagleDad describes. But because younger guys don't yet know how to recognize when an older scout has solid scoutcraft skills and a good "leadership personality" (scout spirit?), PL's are appointed. That way boys might not learn about the perils of an uninformed electorate, but they are much more likely to have an example of good leadership to learn from.

 

Kudu talks about not havin' a "Scout Spirit" requirement in a BP system, but in a lot of ways it sounds like there's an adult-determined "Scout Spirit" requirement before being appointed to PL or another POR. So it's still there, it's just been moved from the tail end to the front end. Not "evaluation" as much - more like "setup."

 

Am I gettin' that right?

 

Beavah

 

[Kudu]

Beavah writes:

 

"Kudu talks about not havin' a "Scout Spirit" requirement in a BP system, but in a lot of ways it sounds like there's an adult-determined "Scout Spirit" requirement before being appointed to PL or another POR. So it's still there, it's just been moved from the tail end to the front end. Not "evaluation" as much - more like "setup." "

 

Yes, but remember that PORs are not required for advancement in B-P's system. The Troop's "Honor" is guarded by the Court of Honor (the Patrol Leaders in Council). The equivalent to a "Blue Card" is the Court of Honor's permission for a Scout to meet with an examiner to have his self-taught skills tested to earn a Proficiency Badge. If a Scout does not help the whole Troop "move along," the Court of Honor can block his advancement beyond First Class.

 

Prior to First Class, the Court of Honor also examines each Tenderfoot Scout before being awarded Second Class "to ensure you are a satisfactory member of your Patrol and the Troop."

 

So what we call "Scout Spirit requirements for advancement" are vested with the Patrol Leaders.

 

Although the Scoutmaster has the final say in who he appoints as Patrol Leader, he is expected to follow the recommendation of the Court of Honor. The Court and the Scoutmaster are pledged to absolute secrecy in all of their deliberations, including appointments.

 

The Scoutmaster must be convinced of the "three musts." A Patrol Leader MUST be "kind, straight, and keen" (straight = loyalty as the ability to speak truth to power). With "good manners and qualities of leadership" as nice qualities that "can largely be taught and acquired" :-)

 

Kudu