Patrol Method - How do we get there?

[jimster]

In the recent past (last 1-2 years) the Troop was mainly adult led by a prior SM.

 

Now, the adult leadership is all on the same page that we want boy led, but our boys have not had prior boy leaders model the roles for them and do not have a clue what they should be doing.

 

Several have tried to teach the PLC, we've done TLT, and sne them to NYLT too ...

 

But we are stuck on how to get it out of the rut ... our troop meetings are either adult planned, or choas.

 

How do we get it to morph from what we've had to what we all want?

[Bob White]

The easist way to get started is for adults to talk a lot less, listen a lot more, ask questions rather than tell scouts what to do.

 

Then support the youth's decision and help them to evaluate the results so that they can determine whether it was a good decision or can be improved upon the next time.

 

Don't do anything for the scout that the scout can do for himself.

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

I think the solution to the problem lies in the subject line of the thread. I do believe it would take a major perspective adjustment on one's part, but try and visualize this:

 

Patrol Method - How do THEY get there?

 

Once one instills this concept in the minds of both adult and youth, will the boys have taken the first true step in boy-led, patrol-method.

 

Too often the concepts of coaching, mentoring, guiding is really word-spin for adult-led.

 

It needs to be constantly brought up to the adults, what are the boys wanting to do and what can we as adults do to assist them in their decisions?

 

Every adult needs to listen first to the boys and then remain silent. If the boy asks for guidance, assistance, then come forward and do exactly what they tell you they need help on. Nothing more, no suggestions, nothing, just roll up your sleeves and fall under their leadership. Until they are given the real opportunity to lead, they will never figure it out.

 

Until adults give up ownership of the unit and the boys take it on in a valid manner, (not contrived by adults) will true boy-led, patrol-method really happen.

 

I do things a bit different, but I have in less than a year's time turned an adult-led, troop-method program into a solid boy-led, patrol-method program. The discussion last night at our "troop" meeting was how are the 15 boys we have now going to take on, organize, instruct, and assist in becoming successful five-seven new patrols of new Webelos crossovers this coming February.

 

The first thing I overheard one PL say to his boys was, "what is it we need to do to make it work for these new boys?" Their concern was that each of the three existing patrols would be sacrificed to make five-seven new ones possible. They realized the new boys would need the talents of each of the older boys to make a go of it. I then walked off and went and sat with the other adults who had gathered in their own little group to discuss who got to go on the canoe trip the boys were planning in the next couple of weeks and who would be available to supervise a fundraiser this next weekend. Basically we focused on what we needed to be doing while letting the boys focus on what they needed to be doing.

 

Once one gets to that point, they have at least a toe-hold on this different style of unit dynamics.

 

Stosh

 

 

[kenk]

Also, train the Scouts on how the program is supposed to run. BSA has done a very nice job of defining how the program works. Let the Scouts in on that(and to some extent the parents).

 

Keep adult leaders & parents at a distance.

Let the Scouts make the decisions.

Let the Scouts stumble a bit.

Provide a bit of guidance ... from that distance.

Celebrate successes.

 

Last week at summer camp the Scouts named a young man with some autistism issues as SPL. That young man grew to the task. He dad was the other adult leader (along with myself) and even he was shocked by the transformation.

 

Responsibility breeds leadership!!

Leadership breeds self-confidence and, if done moderately well, great friendships.

[OldGreyEagle]

I have to second BobWhites suggestion. That the adults should talk less and question more. I call it the Socratic Method of teaching scouting. Ask questions, they may have to be leading at times, but they are always questions. Never tell the scout what to do, ask him what should be done and agree when the answer makes sense, point out alternatives when the answer does not.

[Eagledad]

>>But we are stuck on how to get it out of the rut ... our troop meetings are either adult planned, or choas.

[AvidSM]

It all starts with the SPL - he has to know he is 100% in charge. You have to show him and the rest of the scouts this. You have to let him and his PLs make all the decisions no matter what. If you or some other adult steps in every time someting goes wrong, you are undermining his and the PLC's authority.

 

Then, once he knows he and his PLs is in charge, then let him make mistakes and create some chaos - this is a good thing. Let no other adult do this. Have a "mini PLC" after each weeking meeting where the SPL asks the PLs how things went. The SM should attend and encourage these mini PLCs to happen. If the SPL or PLs do not recognize where they need to improve, the SM can step in and guide them by asking questions - the "Socratic method" as metioned in another post. Make sure the youth leaders are aware of what needs to be improved and that they are the one's to take action - not the adults. Make them responsible.

 

Support the SPL and his authority to lead. Keep on him and the PLC to do their job. Make the boys learn from their mistakes. This is how you maintain the patrol method and a boy run troop.

[Kudu]

jimster writes:

 

Now, the adult leadership is all on the same page that we want boy led, but our boys have not had prior boy leaders model the roles for them and do not have a clue what they should be doing.

 

As I type this, the upper right-hand corner of my Scouter.Com screen reports "You are 1 of 1493 Active Users."

 

The simple truth is that each and every one of those 1,493 active users have their own idea of what "boy-led" means. So even if they use similar words, it is hard to get to where you are going by following other people's theory.

 

The easiest way to get to boy-led is to skip all of the indoor theory and try Baden-Powell's outdoor advice just once in your life: Physically separate those Patrols on a campout and everything else will follow as a purely practical matter.

 

B-P recommended 300 feet between Patrols, but try one-tenth of that (30 feet) if you like.

 

When the Patrols are separated the adults will have to make a physical effort to take over leading each Patrol, so adult-led will be far more obvious to everyone (assuming good faith).

 

When the Patrols are separated everyone discovers quickly that the winners of popularity contests between boys (or wearing the Uniform correctly or some other sign of obedience to adults), are not usually the best Patrol Leaders outdoors when the Patrols are separated.

 

BSA purists will howl that Baden-Powell has absolutely nothing to do with "modern" Scouting, but if you try Traditional Scouting only once as an experiment (rather than say an indoor "lock-in campout" or a promotional outing where the Council pitches tents on a commercial baseball diamond) what do you have to loose?

 

Kudu

[Stosh]

I was reading back over this thread when I noticed that there are both the dynamics of good unit organization involved here. One is patrol-method and the other is boy-led.

 

One can have an effective adult-led troop. It happens all the time. There are those who really like it and they run very well because adults are running it.

 

Then there is the boy-led troop. The boys are given some opportunity to lead, but find it difficult because the real issues are still held in control by the adults. Most boys do not have the leadership skills of an adult and so a troop-method unit will never be able to be run by the youth.

 

Then there is such a thing as an adult-led, patrol-method. This is what a lot of units strive for because it appears to be authentic BSA on the surface. A lot of patrol advisors and mentors around every corner to make sure the boys are doing it right, kinda thingy.

 

Then there is the boy-led, patrol method. The size of the group to be led is well within the skills set of most boys and the boys are making the decisions. Kudu has the right idea, but very few practice this in reality. Even if it was 3' instead of 300', a well run boy-led, patrol-method unit would do just fine. I don't advocate 300' between patrols, but I do advocate 300' between boys and adults at a minimum. As SM I spend way too much time keeping the adults out of the boys hair, and not enough time doing what I'm supposed to be doing as a SM.

 

So if one is going to move to the boy-led program, put the 300' between them and the adults.

 

Stosh

[Kudu]

jblake47 writes:

 

So if one is going to move to the boy-led program, put the 300' between them and the adults.

 

Yeah, 300 feet between the Scouts and the adults would go a long way toward moving a Troop to "boy led."

 

But the advantage of putting distance between the Patrols is that it forces each Patrol to be more self-sufficient and makes a poor choice in Patrol Leader more obvious.

 

With the Patrols close together they can still be "SPL Led," which is the "Troop Method" with a mini-adult in charge.

 

That is NOT the Patrol Method.

 

The point of trying out Baden-Powell's advice of separating the Patrols by 300 feet (if only once in a while as an experiment) is that it simulates a Patrol Campout (except that adults are now 300 feet away), which before the invention of Leadership Development in 1972 was the ultimate goal of BSA Patrol Leader Training.

 

Kudu

 

 

 

[GaHillBilly]

BIG Hm...mmnh!

 

So . . . if I had a popular, but skill-less senior Scout who is destined to be PL of a new patrol being formed, and I parked his patrol several hundred feet away from adult resources so that his patrol mates had to rely on his (and their) lack of skills . . . there might be some whole new attitudes toward learning skills and toward him, come Monday night.

 

Is that an anticipated and desired result?

 

I'm not sure that the parents of those boys would view the difficulties their sons would experience that weekend as an acceptable outcome, however.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[gcnphkr]

"So . . . if I had a popular, but skill-less senior Scout who is destined to be PL of a new patrol being formed, and I parked his patrol several hundred feet away from adult resources so that his patrol mates had to rely on his (and their) lack of skills . . . there might be some whole new attitudes toward learning skills and toward him, come Monday night."

 

Didn't William Golding write the manual for this form of scouting?

[Kudu]

GaHillBilly writes:

 

So . . . if I had a popular, but skill-less senior Scout who is destined to be PL of a new patrol being formed, and I parked his patrol several hundred feet away from adult resources so that his patrol mates had to rely on his (and their) lack of skills . . .

 

The reason that Leadership Development is such a destructive force on the Patrol Method is that it is based on the conviction that the PURPOSE of the Patrol Method is to teach Leadership Development!

 

This post-1972 assumption is enforced through the POR (Position of Responsibility) requirements which encourage regular popularity contests so that "everybody gets to be a leader," including skill-less Scouts.

 

The 21st century assumption that a popular but skill-less senior Scout has ANY business being a Patrol Leader is based on the modern idea that "boy-led" means that adults should remain strictly "hands-off" and not influence popularity contests. This way Scouts can "learn from their mistakes."

 

Passive much?

 

My point is that if you started from Baden-Powell's 300 foot standard and worked toward the Patrol structure you would need to make that practical, it would force Scouters to read the older BSA texts and find that adults are supposed to be involved in the selection process as was the fundamental basis of BOTH Baden-Powell's "Patrol System" AND William Hillcourt's "Patrol Method."

 

Note that I suggested starting from 1/10th that distance (30 feet), based on the assumption that Leadership Development (including the current Scoutmaster-specific training course) has dumbed the Patrol Method down by a factor of 90%

 

GaHillBilly writes:

 

I'm not sure that the parents of those boys would view the difficulties their sons would experience that weekend as an acceptable outcome, however.

 

Yeah, this victim mentality is why everybody camps so close together now, isn't it? Teaching every boy "how to be a leader" is considered more important than creating Patrols where every boy gets the opportunity to work under the very best leader in his Patrol, the Scout who is the most talented and Trustworthy to the adult eye (in consultation with the Scouts).

 

jet526 writes:

 

Didn't William Golding write the manual for this form of scouting?

 

William Golding's intention was to illustrate the Christian principle that all humans are inherently evil because of original sin. When placed in nature, free of the constraints of civilization, even those with the most outwardly angelic appearance (a group of boy sopranos in a church choir) will abandon good citizenship and revert to their true bestial nature.

 

Lord Baden-Powell's movement was based on the opposite Christian principle, that humans are inherently good and that good citizenship can be learned through the curative combination of something he called the "Religion of the Woods" (the observation of "God's Creation" --the forces of nature-- close-up through the detailed study of Scoutcraft) and "Practical Christianity" (Service for Others: good works without thought for compensation--including the corrupting payment to Scouts of advancement credit for service project hours, and months of leadership).

 

The purpose of the Scoutmaster's influence on the Scouts' choice of the very best Patrol Leader (and to stick with him as long as he is their very best outdoor leader) in BOTH the Patrol System and the Patrol Method was to most efficiently get each Patrol of Scouts out practicing the Religion of the Woods (Scoutcraft badges worn on the right side of the Uniform) and Practical Christianity (Public Service badges worn on the left side of the Uniform).

 

NOT to teach management "leadership" skills to a "skill-less senior Scout who is destined to be PL."

 

Kudu

 

[GaHillBilly]

All in all, Kudu, a fascinating post!

 

Your points about Scouting seem very much different than the prevailing views here, AND what I find in the current Scout literature I have. Actually, the position you seem to be arguing is one I personally find more attractive and plausible than the prevailing one.

 

The fact that you address B-P's philosophy is also atypical -- I'd begun to think I was the only one who found the roots of his thinking fascinating, as the prevailing use of B-P's writings seems to be as a mine from which to extract useful 'proof-texts'.

 

But, I hope your understanding of B-P is better than it seems to be of Xianity. Not many of the Church Fathers (or Reformers!) would welcome being accused of claiming that men are "inherently evil" in the sense, 'totally evil', that your comment seems to imply. I don't even think Golding went that far. And hardly any of the Father or Reformers would agree that it is a "Christian principle" to claim that men are "inherently good". I suspect that heresy has been widely accepted only in modern times!

 

B-P was educated during the late 1800's, a time of great philosophical ferment in semi-educated English-speaking circles. One of the driving forces was a naively optimistic view of evolution as having an "upward direction". This concept was neither Christian nor scientific, but it was popular and pervasive and apparently very, very appealing to ruling members of the British Empire. In fact, this idea manages to be heresy with respect to BOTH Christianity and scientific principles.

 

Nevertheless, it was combined with religious-like language (ie, Christian like language) in a sometimes orgiastic nature religion. Books like Stratton-Porter's "Freckles" and E. R. Burrough's "Tarzan". It's my impression that B-P's thought has more in common with their half-baked optimistic evolutionism, than with either orthodox Christianity or scientific principles.

 

It's amazing to me how sometimes some amazingly good ideas -- like Scouting -- sometimes arise out of such seriously polluted soil!

 

You wrote "The 21st century assumption that a popular but skill-less senior Scout has ANY business being a Patrol Leader is based on the modern idea that "boy-led" means that adults should remain strictly "hands-off" and not influence popularity contests". This statement EXACTLY describes the functional view -- not necessarily held consciously -- of the leaders of the troop we're now in.

 

My own previous experience with youth convinces me that many youth can do FAR more than what adults think IF (and mostly ONLY IF) they are given training. Unfortunately, my experience of local Scouters has tended to explain why the Scouts are untrained: the leaders don't have the skills, either! Many of them are former Scouts themselves, and were apparently short on training. My observation is that most Scouters tend to define "Scouting" by what they experienced as Scouts, and not by what they read in either current Scout literature . . . or in B-P's writings.

 

So . . . can you point me to some texts documenting B-P's thinking regarding PL selection? It's not that I think he's necessarily right in all cases, but he's "authoritative" and having "authority" on your side can help when trying to change people's minds.

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

[Kudu]

GaHillBilly writes:

 

But, I hope your understanding of B-P is better than it seems to be of Xianity. Not many of the Church Fathers (or Reformers!) would welcome being accused of claiming that men are "inherently evil" in the sense, 'totally evil', that your comment seems to imply. I don't even think Golding went that far.

 

Point taken, but I think I give a reasonable broad-brushed popular culture explanation of how Golding's views on the nature of nature, citizenship, and boys are basically the opposite of those of Baden-Powell. I did not mean to imply "totally evil," btw.

 

GaHillBilly writes:

 

B-P was educated during the late 1800's, a time of great philosophical ferment in semi-educated English-speaking circles. One of the driving forces was a naively optimistic view of evolution as having an "upward direction". This concept was neither Christian nor scientific, but it was popular and pervasive and apparently very, very appealing to ruling members of the British Empire. In fact, this idea manages to be heresy with respect to BOTH Christianity and scientific principles.

 

Funny that you should mention evolution and "heresy"

 

Lord Baden-Powell's father, the Rev. Baden Powell (no hyphen), was the first notable cleric in England to declare in favor of Darwin. He died facing charges of heretical preaching.

 

As to the quality of Rev. Powell's work, Darwin admired Powell's writings as he indicated very clearly in his introduction to the third edition of The Origin of Species.

 

The best source of information about the spiritual nature of Scouting can be found in Tim Jeal's biography, Baden-Powell. I have posted some relevant passages on The Inquiry Net, with links to a couple of the original works that I was able to track down. Given your interests I think you will find The Order of Nature especially fascinating. After I purchased the (then) 140 year-old book and scanned the contents, I began to clean up the optical scanning until someone else posted a completed version. See:

 

http://inquiry.net/ideals/beads.htm

 

GaHillBilly writes:

 

It's my impression that B-P's thought has more in common with their half-baked optimistic evolutionism, than with either orthodox Christianity or scientific principles.

 

B-P's writings are certainly not on the same theological or scientific level as his father's, nor did he have the courage of his father's religious convictions as the above URL indicates. But if he had been an academic instead of a soldier, he would never have invented Scouting! That being said, my favorite of B-P's religious writings is his chapter in Scoutmastership (the USA title) on "Service for Others" (AKA "Practical Christianity"). See:

 

http://inquiry.net/traditional/b-p/scoutmastership/service.htm

 

GaHillBilly writes:

 

So . . . can you point me to some texts documenting B-P's thinking regarding PL selection?

 

Baden-Powell wrote very specific rules about how Scouting works but he left it to others to write the "how to" books (to the best of which he would write an introduction or forward).

 

Once you understand the small specifics of how his program works, his numerous short articles are understood in a very different way than if your experience is limited to BSA training and practice. Therefore I would recommend that you download a copy his final PO&R, and only after your eyes begin to glaze over then purchase a few of the available books of Baden-Powell quotes from his published articles.

 

Of the later, my favorite is:

 

One of our methods in the Scout movement for taming a hooligan is to appoint him head of a Patrol. He has all the necessary initiative, the spirit and the magnetism for leadership, and when responsibility is thus put upon him it gives him the outlet he needs for his exuberance of activity, but gives it in a right direction."

 

--Baden-Powell, from the article "Are Our Boys Degenerating?" circa 1918

 

A 17MB (72 dpi) scan of the 1938 Canadian version of Baden-Powell's final edit of his 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 for SPL and Patrol Leader selection (B-P considered the office of SPL to be purely optional, btw) 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 of Scouts.

 

Kudu