Patrol Issues

[Eagledad]

>>Very few adults can run a troop of 30-40 people. Most run 20-30. This is why scout troop sizes tend to run in these ranges for numbers. Turning this over to a boy means even fewer because youth at that age cannot handle the group dynamics of such sizes. Either the adult will continue to lead through the SPL or the numbers will naturally fall.

[croushorn]

"PL's undermined by SPL who has the QM running off doing something while his patrol is short-handed trying to do something. "

 

That is exactly why I pull the troop QM into the leadership patrol - he needs to be involved with the whole troop and can't if he is in one of the Scout patrols. He also works with each patrol's QM, thereby getting a lot of leadership and delegation experience.

 

"SPL sitting around with basically nothing to do 90% of the time. The tendency would be to want to run the Troop so by doing so he will automatically undermine all the PL's and start micro-managing the patrols. Patrol 1 does this, patrol 2 does that, patrol 3 does something else, etc. etc."

 

I'm with you on a lot of this, but think maybe you're short changing the benefits of the SPL role both to your troop and the young man in the position. No - not undermining PLs: observing and supporting. Giving direction to keep all patrols working in the same direction, getting feedback to help the PLC make better decisions and come up with program ideas that may not be apparent to the PLs. Keeping the meeting running on time and making sure all the little things get done in a typical evening meeting. Approving menus and duty rosters to make sure all looks good. I look at it is a managerial role versus supervisory. When he sees problem areas arising then he and the ASPL can get more involved in assisting the PL to learn how to deal with it. If all was perfect, you bet, he maybe sitting around 50% of his time doing nothing, but we know that isnt going to happen! And in those few slivers of time when he can stop for a minute and take a breather, thats when he, his ASPL, myself, and even QM can talk about things, maybe just goof around a little and I can see how hes doing. Thats the fun time I get to have with him and them and where I get to really strengthen my relationship with the junior leaders at.

 

[Stosh]

"The only difference between your troop and any other well run troop is the adults. Isnt this what BW keeps harping on, and on, and on. Lets give credit where it is due, BW is right about picking the right adult for the right job."

 

And here is where the discussion breaks down. No, the only difference is not the adult, the difference is whether the boys are running it or the adult is running it. All of the patrols function the same whether or not I'm present. The meetings are no different whether I'm there or off somewhere else. That's the difference! It has NOTHING to do with the adults, it's the boys leading the program that make the difference.

 

Stosh

 

[Eagledad]

>>That's the difference! It has NOTHING to do with the adults, it's the boys leading the program that make the difference.

[Stosh]

Ok, any SM that let's the boys really lead will do. It has nothing to do with the SM at all except his philosophy of leadership style. He can be a untrained SM who knows nothing about scouts except that the boys are supposed to lead, or he could be 100% boy-led, patrol-method advocate. In reality as long as the SM doesn't try to lead it'll work.

 

But... :^) with an adult-led program adult leadership does make a difference. Some SM's can handle 40-50 boys, others struggle with 20-30. The point I was trying to make was the skills of the adult are irrelevant to the effectiveness of the boy-led program. (I'll concede the SM needs a boy-led vision, teaching skills and the ability to motivate and excite boys.)

 

"I'm with you on a lot of this, but think maybe you're short changing the benefits of the SPL role both to your troop and the young man in the position. No - not undermining PLs: observing and supporting."

 

No problem here with this.

 

"Giving direction to keep all patrols working in the same direction,"

 

Patrols are all independant and autonomous. This dynamic is not necessary. If the patrols want to all go in different directions, so be it. I would think that would be a good thing. Older boys doing their own thing and the younger ones doing something entirely different. If the older patrol had to do the same thing the younger patrol was doing (now for the 5th time) they are not going to be willing to stick around.

 

"getting feedback to help the PLC make better decisions and come up with program ideas that may not be apparent to the PLs."

 

PLC only meets to discuss any intra-patrol activities, i.e. camporees, camp, whatever. The PLC is conviened at the convenience of the PL's on an as-needed basis. SPL could facilitate this possibly. With 3 patrols there isn't any need, the 3 PL's just get together and chat it out.

 

"Keeping the meeting running on time and making sure all the little things get done in a typical evening meeting."

 

If the # of PL's is upwards of 5+, 3-4 guys sitting around chatting don't need Robert's Rules to get things done.

 

"Approving menus and duty rosters to make sure all looks good."

 

If the patrols are running their own program, this is totally unnecessary. This is busy work for the SPL and an in for interference.

 

"I look at it is a managerial role versus supervisory."

 

I see it as a support role of being available as needed

 

"When he sees problem areas arising then he and the ASPL"...

 

If the SPL is marginally needed, the ASPL is totally not needed. Maybe once in his 6 month stint would the SPL be absent and the ASPL would have a few minutes to show off his leadership skills.

 

"can get more involved in assisting the PL to learn how to deal with it."

 

If the PL needs help, he can ask for it. TG is available for this consultation in our unit.

 

"If all was perfect, you bet, he maybe sitting around 50% of his time doing nothing, but we know that isnt going to happen!"

 

How many times would the PL need assistance with the patrol? TG would be available and that is why TG assumes "SPL" duties, but fills 90% of his time working with guiding the troop, i.e. resource person available as needed to give assistance to a wide variety of situations.

 

"And in those few slivers of time when he can stop for a minute and take a breather, thats when he, his ASPL, myself, and even QM can talk about things, maybe just goof around a little and I can see how hes doing. Thats the fun time I get to have with him and them and where I get to really strengthen my relationship with the junior leaders at."

 

Yep, when my group grows to about 50+ scouts and we have 6-7 patrols, I can see the need for an SPL under those circumstances. But with 20 boys and 3 patrols, it's a totally bogus position where a boy will earn a POR for doing next to nothing.

 

If leadership development is being developed in the patrols with the PL, any one of the PL's could easily step up and take over the SPL in a heartbeat.

 

Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[Bob White]

I see, and the boys will just naturally know what to do and how to do it because they learned it where?

 

So are you saying that Baden-Powell didn'y actuallt teach the scouts?

 

And who taught the first course on leadership skills to Adults? Wasn't it Baden-Powell?

 

To say that the only effect that a scoutmaster brings to the table is his philosophy of leadership style is an interesting statement. If he isn't supposed to share that with anyone then why does it make a difference.

 

If a leader that is untrained just has to stay out of the way, then how does he or she know that if they have never been taught it?

 

So you think that a tropp can function as a Scouting program if we just gather a bunch of kids of various ages together, and a couple adults who have never been trainend and tell them to stay out of the youth's way?

 

You can't be serious?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

"I'll concede the SM needs a boy-led vision, teaching skills and the ability to motivate and excite boys."

 

It will be a bit more helpful to read the whole post rather than just cherry pick bits and pieces to take out of context.

 

The degree of skill on the part of the adult leader may in the initial development of the troop speed up or slow down the rate of development, but once the boys get a handle on it, the continuing education of the boys will be done by the boys themselves rather than perpetually relying on any adult to reteach on a regular basis.

 

If a Webelos crossover is in a boy-led patrol, becomes it's PL running it himself, takes the leadership training (NYLT, DC, U. of Scouting, etc.),then steps down to the support role of, lets say, TG, eventually maturing to where he is ASPL in charge of the Troop Officer Corps, then the SPL, eventually becomeing JASM.

 

What exactly does one think at 16-17, an adult can actually teach this boy? Wouldn't one think this boy could be doing to each his successors? A brand new SM with Fast Start training has nothing on this boy.

 

Sorry, but a good boy-led, patrol-method scout program is self-sustaining and has totally interchangable parts. If a program has 5-6 strong PL's who have helped 2-3 years of boys advance and develop their own skills, surely one's "training" program would consist of mostly NYLT, U. of Scouting, and other Council programs. An occasional tweak of the older boys may be necessary in the areas of maturity, but for the most part the program should sustain itself. At least it should be able to easily survive a lousy SM or two along the way. Why? Because the strength of the program is in the method and skills being taught(not necessarily by the SM), not in the personalities involved.

 

Ever hear of a troop that tanked when the SM left? This is why.

 

Stosh

[Bob White]

So are you suggesting that a troop can operate just fine with an untrained scoutmaster but that if a trained Scoutmaster comes in then the program wil tank?

 

But I thought said the quality of the scoutmaster did not matter?

 

[Stosh]

No, I'm suggesting what I wrote.

 

And yes, a boy-led, patrol-method program is not dependant upon the skills of the SM, that's why they call it BOY-led.

 

Stosh

 

[OldGreyEagle]

How did the boy learn (originally) how to run the troop?

[Bob White]

That's fascinating jblake. then maybe you can explain something for me.

 

True Story

As a Scout I was in a troop with 65+ scouts that operated by the Ptrol method. Most of our activities were by patrol. At Troop meetings were fpormed up gave patrol reports to the Senior patrol leader. Had a skill instruction form a community professional on a topic we chose at pour monthly TLC (Troop leaders council bcak then), then we had Patrol meetings, followed by a troop wide game where we competed as patrols. When we were not on patrol activities we would go on troop activities by patrol, we camped out of sight of other patrols, we had our own menu, our own patrol gear, everyone in the patrol had a patrol office, we elected our own patrol leader.

 

Sound like a scouting program?

 

Then our scoutmaster changed. He did'like how we walked in our last parade and so for the first mohth of troop meeting we marched at the troop meeting and did parade turns. No patrol meting, no patrol reports, no troop campouts oir patrol activities, we marched. The next month started with the new SM reorganizing patrols, naming the new patrol leaders, (his not yet Tenderfoot son became mine) new junior troop leaders assigned by him.

 

The scouts asked when the next TLC would be and he said when he decided and no sooner. We ased when the next outing would be and he said when he decided.

 

At that moment 45 of us walked out the door ans sat in the parking lot for an hour waiting for the parents to pick us up, within two years a troop that was 25 years old when I left and disbanded.

 

Tell me Jblake what killed that troop? The ability of the scouts to know and use the Patrol Method. or was it the lack of skills and abilities of the new untrained Scoutmaster?

 

Because to this day we all thought it was him. Tell us how it wasn't, and how our success had nothing to do with the methods and skills taught us by the previous SM.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Stosh]

"The degree of skill on the part of the adult leader may in the initial development of the troop speed up or slow down the rate of development, but once the boys get a handle on it, the continuing education of the boys will be done by the boys themselves rather than perpetually relying on any adult to reteach on a regular basis." - quote from a previous post.

 

Had the boys stayed with the original approach of boy-led, patrol-method, they wouldn't have needed any training.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

Had not the boys so free abducated their leadership, authority and responsibility, the troop would have survived. Who says the only people who can talk to the CC, UC, DE and/or SE have to be adults? If it was a great program, why walk away without a fight?

 

The moment the boys gave up, the troop turned into an adult-led program. Obviously that's not what the boys wanted so they left. With 45 boys and solid leadership skills, why didn't they fight for a SM that would work with them? Sounds like the boys needed a stronger sense of leadership than what they had. Giving up in the face of adversity isn't a good leadership skill. All the boys in my troop know that it is okay to say to any adult in the troop, "With all due respect, Mr. _________, that is my job." And yes, my boys have stood toe-to-toe with me and said exactly that.

 

One day it's boy-led, the next adult-led. The example is showing apples and oranges. Had the SM come in and done NOTHING, the troop would have still been boy-led, and that is my point. Good adult, boy-led (apples), poor adult, boy-led (apples). To use the example given, it clearly indicates the game changed and we're no longer talking a boy-led program (oranges).

 

Stosh

[Bob White]

Who said that we talked to anyone other than the Scoutmaster?

 

Who said any scout ducked their responsibility? We were removed from our offices! We said to the SM "that's not your job"...guess what...he disagreed. He was no more willing to learn what the program actually was than you are.

 

" Had the boys stayed with the original approach of boy-led, patrol-method, they wouldn't have needed any training."

 

Who do you think taught the skills to the youth? Who do you think teaches the older scouts how to teach the younger ones?

 

If you don't do anything that is of value to the troop you serve then why do they need you?

 

How many other registered adults in the unit you serve jblake. In fact why does that unit have any adults at all? Now that your scouts are trained, according to you, they should be self-sufficient from now until kingdom come. Shouldn't they?

 

The boys didn't give up, when it was a scouting program we wanted to belong, when it was no longer a scouting program it held no interest for us.

 

A a scoutmaster the scouts we served experienced a scouting program. One that was you planned, and youth led. And they got that experience because they had trained adults who understood and followed the program and taught the scouts how to do it.

 

Had my last scoutmaster come in and done nothing it would have been better for awhile, but the reason that he did what he did was that he did not know the BSA program. And the reason it worked before him wasn't that the previous SM did nothing, but becasue he only did his job, and taught us how to do ours.

 

If the scouts you serve are not learning anything from you then what the heck are you doing there?

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[BrentAllen]

If you don't need an SPL with 3 patrols, then why do you need one with 6 or more patrols? If the patrols are as truly autonomous as you suggest, they wouldn't ever need anyone else to supervise them. In fact, if they are as autonomous as you say, they don't even need a troop! Why don't they just each become their own troop?

 

IMO, due to your structure, you will be missing out on a great part of Scouting - the special relationship between the SM and the SPL. In the traditional BSA model, the SPL works closely with the SM to deliver the program to the troop through the PLs. This includes understanding the vision of the SM and passing it along to the PLs. When an SPL is correctly trained (just as a PL is correctly trained), he will not micromanage the patrols, nor do the other things you mention. Tell me why your PLs can be trained to perform their jobs correctly, but an SPL can't?