Baden-Powell: A Patrol Leader is Appointed!

[Kudu]

FScouter writes:

 

Which edition is the correct edition, and which ones are wrong??

 

As Stosh points out, it is not a matter of "right and wrong," the editions are a natural 30-year progression in which the Court of Honor proved to be capable of much more responsibility than B-P had originally anticipated.

 

jblake47 writes:

 

Have fun, but those questions really don't help the program much. Is it effective and is it efficient are two better systems of evaluation.

 

Yes, I agree. I think the evaluation depends on your Troop's Outdoor program: if your Patrols are trained and expected to camp without adults, and your 2nd Class Scouts are trained and required to backpack 15 miles without adults, and your Life Scouts are off organizing their own 200 mile horseback Scout Journey for an Eagle Badge, then your criteria of what is effective or efficient are probably much different than if your Patrols always camp close together in the same campsite under adult supervision.

 

BrentAllen writes:

 

As to which program is "correct," I would argue that answer is self-evident, though Kudu isn't going to like it. If you are running a Troop under the BSA, then you follow the BSA program. If you alter the program, that is your Troop's decision.

 

As you know, the "Patrol" answers for Questions 1 - 5 are still consistent with BSA rules, so the program is not limited to what you learn in Wood Badge.

 

There have been lots of thoughts about boy-lead bandied about, with some tied to B-P, some to his writings and quotes, and some not cited. While there is much information on Kudu's page, much of it is not cited, so I can't tell what has basis from B-P and what is personal opinion. I do not mean that as a criticism of Kudu's page, just an observation from a reader.

 

Which of the 2,280 pages are those, dear reader? :-)

 

I guess that is the problem I have with those suggesting methods other than the BSA program, especially when they tell me the BSA program is wrong, not boy-led.

 

Take the "right" and "wrong" thing up with FScouter.

 

I can't tell what has a historical basis, and what is just personal opinion. It may not matter either way to some, but it does to me.

 

If it matters so much to you, you could ask and then debate the specific issues, couldn't you? Why aren't you as skeptical about the phony Baden-Powell quotes that you recite from the BSA handbooks?

 

Eagledad writes:

 

OK, but do you really think that you couldn't do this in the BSA Troop or that the BP program would protect against a SM whose real desire is for an adult run program? Lets ignore the program differences for a moment, just how does youth imput guard against the self-serving adult?

 

Why get so caught up in idiot-proofing Scouting? The problem with trying to make something idiot proof is that the idiots are so ingenious :-)

 

These two programs have basically the mechanics... After readying many many of Kudu's post, I am very confident that my Troop when I was Scoutmaster was more boy run than any troop he will ever lead. That is more bragging then I like, but from what I read, Kudu doesn't understand heart of the program, only the written facts and details.

 

This is the third time that you have insisted that the two programs "have basically the same mechanics," but you never respond to the "written facts and details," do you? Perhaps if you debated the details rather than bragging about your superior "understanding of the heart of the program," you would not have to fashion such purely personal attacks in your attempt to say something hurtful.

 

Kudu

 

 

[DugNevius]

Our troop is basically the same as Eagledad. Our PLs and SPL are elected, the PLs sign off the requirments up to first class and the BORs are made up of scouts in leadership positions. On campouts and summer camp we adults read our books, sit around the campfire, go fishing. The ASMs and SM deal with the scouts through the SPL and the GreenBar members. Dads just relax. The boys do it all.

[BrentAllen]

Kudu,

The quotes I use from B-P are either from original source, or cited to original documents. Are you telling me "Footsteps of the Founder" is phony? I believe every single quote in there is cited. Please tell me which ones are phony.

 

[Its Me]

I coach youth soccer in addition to being a scout leader.

 

In soccer there are two programs recreational and competitive. In the recreational program the players all get equal time. Coaches are free to set up their team as they wish but we are instructed to make sure the kids have fun so if a kid who routinely plays midfielder wants to play a forward you let him. Any one player can only be goalie for a half a game. The emphasis is on fun and rotating the players through all the positions.

 

In competitive soccer the kids try out. Under developed players are left for the rec coaches to develop. The coach does not worry about getting all players equal time. The parents know this and do not push the coach on this issue. The coach is expected to develop the most competitive and winning team he can. Goalies only are set, they go to goalie specific training and a team may only have one real goalie. In fact the teams players are set, so a new kid would have to try out for a specific position such as a back, mid and forwards. I am sure baseball teams are the same way.

 

As a rec coach I always wondered how much more I could develop the 1/3 of the kids with talent. Bench the weak leg ones. Play the same forward line all year. Team work among a few would improve. But I would lose 1/2 my team and have angry parents if I did not play the all the kids.

 

The analogy is this; Kudu is running a more competitive program. The scouts he has in his program are likely responding to the faster paced training. He can do more and get better results because he has set his program so that not all parents expect their kids to get equal time in all positions. The BSA program is set up more as a rec program. It is designed not to develop kids in as much as to keep parents and kids happy. There is room for both programs. Are league has both rec and competitive teams.

 

 

 

 

[DugNevius]

an Election process isnt competitive? Our boys go through a 2-3 meeting process with prepared speeches, posters and a town hall where they have to answer questions thrown at them by the scouts. I would say thats pretty comepetitive. The boys that are prepared and deserving of the leadership get elected as often as they run, they kids not ready to be a leader normally dont. When i was a scout i went through the process 6 times.

 

I agree, rotating any POR is not comepetitive or benificial in any way.

[Eagledad]

>>It is designed not to develop kids in as much as to keep parents and kids happy.

[Stosh]

I don't see the boy-led patrol method as being all that competitive. It doesn't have to be, but I suppose one could if it were encouraged.

 

If a patrol is electing the best person for PL, one's skills and history of decision making should be sufficient for the boys to base their vote on. If they must politically run for office, then it can become competitive. I guess we don't try and emphasize the popularity kinds of elections. The boys know each other, they are patrol partners and so our elections usually take only about 5 mintues.

 

A more friendly kind of competition occurs between patrols on occasion. The Honor Patrol knows the NBP can't stand up against the skills of the regular patrols so they sometimes step in and team up with them to make the game more fun. Nothing is ever serious as a sports type program where winning is the main goal of the event.

 

A sense of pride between patrols sometimes leads to a bantering back and forth in fun, but no one ever keeps "score".

 

At larger events, sometimes the patrols cooperate by uniting as a troop to compete with other troops. If we have on occasion when attendance has been extremely poor for an event, put together an ad hoc "patrol" for the competitions as well. We let the boys work out the logistics of this "patrol's" yell, flag, etc.

 

All in all, I have never viewed the patrol method of scouting having anything to do with a coach dominated sports team. To me this is the ultimate troop method. The SM directs the program to insure the best possible outcome, i.e. the best troop in the district/council.

 

Even if the sport is recreational rather than competitive, the coach directs/allocates positions so that everyone gets a chance to play. This is still SM led if followed in the troop.

 

By the way:

 

"Stosh and Kudu state the PL should be in charge of signing off on T-FC requirements, and if an adult is involved, it takes the power away from the PL."

 

I don't believe I made that statement. The PL along with the TG in the NBP work through the advancement and then report back who me who has fulfilled the requirements. While I do not (as advancement ASM) don't go back and retest as if I were questing the authority and integrity of the PL and TG, but during games where these skills are to be used and the boy can't do them, I will quietly visit with the PL and TG to have them explain to me why they felt this scout had accomplished the skilled when he in fact really hadn't. This is never done in front of his patrol or anyone else for that matter. This is in compliance with quality leadership building. Never make corrections to an officer nco or commissioned in front of the men.

 

"Since the BSA program, which is used for TLT, states an adult will sign off, I don't see how that can be seen as "emasculating" the PL."

 

I use the format I do because it allows for a certain amount of ownership in the advancement process necessary for the NBP PL and TG to have. There is nothing worse that being given the responsibility to do something and no authority. Ever have someone assign you a job to do and no authority to do it? Well, it's a crappy position to be in and I don't want my scouts to ever feel that way. If they have the responsibility to do the teaching, they have the authority to turn in their report of what they feel they have accomplished.

 

"If you want the PL involved, have him sign off first and then recommend a Scout to the ASM/SM for testing."

 

This is a direct assault on the integrity of the PL. Are you in fact testing the scout or testing the honesty of the PL's report?

 

"That gives the PL the "power" to make sure the Scouts in his patrol have met his standard before they go to the adults."

 

This is the authority that goes with the responsibility. If the NBP officers, TG and Instructor have been given a responsibility (i.e. position of responsibility) and no authority to do it, then you have effectively crippled the whole process. If the boy feels he has the authority to do something of value, he will take ownership of the process and fulfill the responsibility more effectively if he is only doing it to please someone else who has the real authority. What it really boils down to is: can you give responsibilities to the scouts trust them with the authority to do it? If not, you will never build leaders, only followers. Leaders have authority to do their responsibilities, followers do not.

 

Stosh

 

[Kudu]

Beavah writes:

 

Often better to appoint or at least screen PL's. That way the PL's are ones the adults can trust with independence, and therefore stay out of the way.

 

I've seen it done both ways, though myself I always did the elected thing. These days, I lean toward appointed or screened, with youth input. Makes for more youth-run in all the other areas.

 

Yes, and screening was sometimes used in B-P's Patrol System: the Scoutmaster and the Court of Honor would determine the most qualified potential Patrol Leaders, the Patrol members would vote for the approved candidate of their choice, and the Scoutmaster would then appoint the winner.

 

Likewise William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt, the Danish "Father of the Patrol Method" in the BSA, had some hybrid strategies for heading off the worst disasters in Patrol elections. Note also his four to six week "period of probation" between the election and the formal appointment ceremony:

 

"The Scoutmaster's Part

 

"If a very definitely unfortunate selection seems imminent to the Scoutmaster, through his more mature knowledge of the Scout in question, he may decide to call the Patrol together and give it a talk on the necessary qualifications of a Patrol Leader. This talk may even be so designed as to narrow the choice to the boy the Scoutmaster would like to see chosen. Almost invariably the boys will follow suggestions thus diplomatically given-and will feel that they, after all, did the choosing.

 

"A modified election scheme is the method by which two or three boys in each Patrol are nominated by the Scoutmaster or the Troop Leaders' Council and one is elected by a vote of the Patrol.

 

"In some Patrols every boy writes out the names of the fellows he thinks are the three best leaders in his group. The results are not made known directly to the Scouts but practically every boy in the Patrol has some kind of rating placed upon him as a leader. At the Troop Leaders' Council meeting, with all the senior and junior leaders present, the ratings are gone over and it is decided just who will be the best leader for the group. In this way both Scouters and Scouts have a share in deciding who the Patrol Leaders shall be and the possibility of embarrassing situations is eliminated.

 

"In all instances, the appointment of the Patrol Leader should not immediately follow his election or selection. It should be definitely understood that he has to prove his mettle before the appointment is forthcoming. For this reason it is advisable to institute what might be called a "period of probation" during which the Scout is given the chance to prove that he is worthy of the high office of Patrol Leader. This period may be of one month or six weeks' duration, and should seldom be longer (William Hillcourt, Handbook for Scoutmasters, 3rd Ed., Page 184).

 

Kudu

 

[ajmako]

I don't know. I guess if what we're looking for in a Patrol Leader is the Scout who can be most trusted to do the job then there are problems with both having elections and SM appointments.

 

Imagine, if we want a patrol to be independent, to function on its own led by the PL with as little interference from adults as possible, then having an adult appoint the leader starts things off on the wrong foot. The SM certainly knows which members of the patrol grok what it means to be a leader, but will the patrol actually follow that guy's lead when they don't have much say in who he is? Don't make the military argument either, Scouting ain't the military. OBTW, when I was in the military, us boots didn't really care for most of the leaders appointed over us. The thing that usually made us follow him (or her) was a little thing called the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

 

On the other hand, if we just hold elections without encouraging the members of the patrol to put some thought into their choice, the patrol will usually end up being led by the most popular guy--who has about as much chance to become an effective leader as the most unpopular guy. I think we've got enough real-world examples of those "leaders" staring us in the face every night on the news that I don't really have to describe it further.

 

The thing is this. The argument over whether Patrol Leaders should be elected or selected is really pointless. It's not how a leader is chosen that makes him a good or bad, effective or ineffective, leader. It's how he does the job, and how he does the job isn't a function of how he was chosen. It's about training, ability, and earning the respect of his fellows in the patrol. More than that, it boils right down to what the patrol really is.

 

You can have all the patrol elections you want, do all the PL training and mentoring you want, but if the patrol is not much more than a group of names on a roster, the PL won't turn into a good leader and the job of running the patrol won't get done. There's nothing for the PL to do. The patrol isn't anything, therefore it doesn't do anything, and the end result is a leader with a lot of experience leading nothing in doing nothing. Get rid of the elections and go with an SM-appointed PL and the result won't be any different.

 

I can see the argument that comes next. "Well, if the SM appoints the best leader to be PL, the Patrol is more likely to become a patrol." Yeah, if that's the challenge the SM gives him. The SM can give the same challenge to an elected PL. And we're right back where we started--training, ability, and earning the respect of his fellows in the patrol. Things that aren't dependent on how the PL is chosen, but go right back to what the SM does to mentor the new PL.

 

Frankly, I used both appointing and electing with my patrols when I was SM and the end result was about equal. Some successes, some failures. There were times when I appointed the Scout I thought was the most capable, and it turned out I was wrong. There were times when I cringed at the results of patrol elections, predicting doom and gloom, and it turned out I was wrong. It always came back to what I did after the choice was made. How well I was able to sell the idea of "patrol" to the new PL, how willingly he took on the challenge, and how well I taught him to be a leader. It boiled down to how important "patrol" was to the program and the operation of the troop, and how much of a real job being PL was.

 

[Kudu]

BrentAllen writes:

 

The quotes I use from B-P are either from original source, or cited to original documents. Are you telling me "Footsteps of the Founder" is phony? I believe every single quote in there is cited. Please tell me which ones are phony.

 

OK, in the "How do we compete against the allure of a Webelos III Troop?" thread you write:

 

Keep these B-P quotes on an index card in your pocket...They are found in the Scoutmaster Handbook, on page 20 & 70. When the parents ask those questions, pull out the card and show it to them. Tell them you agree with the founder of Scouting on how to run a troop.

 

"The patrol method is not a way to operate a Boy Scout troop, it is the only way. Unless the patrol method is in operation, you don't really have a Boy Scout troop."

 

William Hillcourt attributes something similar to this to Roland Phillips on page 161 or the 3rd Edition of Handbook for Scoutmasters.

 

"The object of the patrol method is not so much saving the Scoutmaster trouble as to give responsibility to the boy."

 

Baden-Powell did not use the term "patrol method." The BSA Patrol Method is the Patrol System "lite" because it does not give the boy leaders real free-handed responsibility and if you only give partial responsibility you will only get partial results :-) So Brent, if you really do agree with the founder of Scouting on how to run a troop, then save the Scoutmaster some trouble and get rid of adult-run Scoutmaster Conferences, Boards of Review, and Scout Spirit requirements!

 

"Training boy leaders to run their troop is the Scoutmaster's most important job."

 

"Train Scouts to do a job, then let them do it."

 

"Never do anything a boy can do."

 

Maybe you can help me out on these three quotes, I can't find a Baden-Powell source.

 

Kudu

 

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Kudu writes: "No, OGE, "Scouting" does not have three aims, only BSA Scouting has three aims.

 

According to Baden-Powell Scouting has only one (1) Aim: Citizenship. Character development and fitness are means to the end: the one single Aim of Scouting, Citizenship.

 

Pop Quiz: in which version of Scouting is Citizenship more important, in the BSA model where Citizenship is only one of three Aims, or in Baden-Powell's model where Citizenship is the only Aim of Scouting?"

 

Kudu, please explain why B-P requested a Royal Charter which "shall be one body corporate and politic by name of the Boy Scouts Association for the primary object of instructing boys of all classes in the principles of discipline, loyalty and good citizenship."

 

When B-P learned the Royal Charter had been approved, he stated, "This gives the seal of the highest approval in the land upon our aims and methods."

I believe he said aims, not aim.