SPLs: Pro and con

[Eagle92]

Thomas,

Your comment on 7 and 8 graders as SPLs concerns me, what happens with your older scouts? Is there anyone over 14 in the troop?

[Eagledad]

Who develops the Patrol Leader in a troop without an SPL?

 

Barry

[shortridge]

"Who develops the Patrol Leader in a troop without an SPL?"

 

What does that mean, "develops"?

 

And what's wrong with an independent PL who learns by doing?

[Beavah]

Yah, what shortridge said, eh?

 

Yeh can think of scouting in a sort of top-down way, where each level is responsible for "developing" the next lowest level. In that case, yeh are best appointing youth leaders rather than electing 'em. At least yeh have to impose conditions that do that sort of screening.

 

Alternately, yeh can think of youth leadership as more of a collaborative, bottom up thing, where the boys develop themselves and each other. They seek out resources and offer help as needed. That's more of a traditional scouting approach. A PL who needs help with something turns to a patrol member or a fellow PL who has that skill, or seeks out an adult MBC or whatnot on his own. The structure of "getting developed" isn't formalized and fed to 'em. In that context, "natural" leaders in different areas tend to develop, and more kids participate more fully. It has a much more kid-like feel than da top-down SM-develops-SPL-develops-PL structure.

 

I think that's the hardest thing for a SM to figure out unless they really had a good scouting experience themselves. Most adults are much more comfortable with the organizational chart "boss" model of top down, especially our military folks. So they force that on da kids program.

 

It takes a lot of kid savvy talent to really encourage the personal growth and friendship based stuff that makes for real independent and mutually supportive PLs and patrols. Lots more group conversations than adult-driven "mentoring" conversations. And lots more trust in da ability of kids to step up and be responsible not just for activity tasks, but for their own structure and development.

 

Beavah

[acco40]

This is absurd. A troop needs an SPL. A troop also needs to be sure that an SPL is aware of his duties. They are not 'defacto' patrol leaders for the troop.

 

Think of any committee. Who creates the agenda? Who chairs the meeting? Who should be the main interface with the Scoutmaster? Who should appoint the Troop Scribe, Bugler, Librarian, Historian, etc.? Having everything run by committee is a recipe for disaster. Who meets with a camp inspector during check-in or check-out? Who represents the youth at a troop committee meeting? Who chairs the annual planning meeting?

 

Just because a troop does not know the proper responsibilities of an SPL does not mean they don't need one. What an SPL should not do is overshadow a PL. I always had the SPL eat with the adults, not with the patrols because he would appear to be the leader.

 

Now, this other nonsense of "fake leadership" - one may have great leadership skills and average Scoutcraft skill. I have had Scouts who were great at a specific Scout skill but had no interest nor desire to teach that skill. Don't blame bonehead moves by the adults (no outings unless you elect an SPL) with the proper way the program should be run.

[Stosh]

I might be a wee bit out of the loop, but our troops has no SPL unless the activity requires an SPL to show up. Then one of the PL's just goes instead.

 

We've bounced back and forth between 1-4 patrols and never really had a need for an SPL. However, if we had more patrols, it might be necessary to offer some organizational help.

 

If the SPL is going to "run the troop", then our boys aren't going to fall into step with it. The "Senior PL" is just what it says, the oldest most experienced PL that can help the other PL's develop into good leaders. He's the TG for the PL's. Some of my best scouts have risen from the pack by being a good DC then a good TG then into a PL that helps his fellow PL's (de facto SPL).

 

However, our troop leadership does not run the troop because the highest ranking officer in the troop is the PL. The SPL, the QM, etc. all support the patrols, not direct/manage/lead them. That's what the PL's do! The PLC is a gathering in which all the PL's let the other patrols know what they are doing and what they are planning on doing. This is one of the reasons why I have older boys still "hanging around". The 5 older boys don't have to do what the 16 new Webelos boys want to do because they don't have enough votes anymore in the PLC. Nope, the older patrol does what it wants to do and the NSP's do what they want to do. If they both want to go to the same summer camp the PLC is the opportunity to work out the common logistics, i.e. 2 adult leaders needed instead of 4, etc.

 

Too much emphasis is placed on who's running the show and that just isn't leadership. Just because the SM gets the SPL to do his bidding does not make it a boy run program. As a matter of fact, it only proves the SPL is NOT a leader but just another SM follower. I see this dynamic operating all the time in adult-led, troop-method programs.

 

Just keep it in mind that a true leader does not lead program, he leads people. A manager manages/directs tasks and/or people. One has to remember just what it is we are asked to do in the BSA program. Not many people feel comfortable with giving the opportunity of free rein to the boys. I have found it quite rewarding to see the boys step up when given such opportunity.

 

At the end of this month I have all my boys going on a backpack trip they are totally unprepared for. It's going to be a train wreck, but my ASM (2 Philmont treks under his belt, 4 years SM experience, Eagle with palms and 3 of the boys are his own) is willing to go with them to make sure the same number come home that he left with.

 

Who am I to say they can't have the opportunity to give it a try? And if I pulled the plug on the activity I thought would fail, would it be the end of a boy-led program?

 

Is it safe? Yep, 3 Eagle scouts, 2 of them over 18. Will they look and act like scouts? Hope so, they generally do. Will they have fun? Depends on their lack of conditioning, their lack of knowledge about backpacking, and they've never camped in a facilities free environment. But then not all challenges are fun at the time. I'm thinking their going to learn a ton of things and I'm excited for them. They chose to go Wednesday - Saturday and I don't any any vacation time left so I can't go. I would have loved to see for myself how things turn out.

 

I'll be off 50 miles away on a white-water kayak outing (Friday - Sunday) which they chose to pass on to go on the backpacking hike. You see, the PL actually does run the patrol.

 

Stosh

[allangr1024]

So, my troop is down to 8 guys. Our SPL election is coming up. We average 6 at meetings, and 4 on camping trips. I have been running 2 patrols, but they have not succeeded. In fact, the guys elected as PLs rarely come camping. Patrol method breaks down at those levels of membership. I am considering doing just one patrol until our numbers increase to 15 active scouts, and we can field 2 patrols. That means that the SPL position turns into just a PL position. Last year, that is the way the SPL functioned any way. On any outing, patrol designations disappeared and he just led whoever was there.

 

Let me know your thoughts on a small troop.

[HICO_Eagle]

allangr2, I concur with dropping the troop formally to a single patrol until you get numbers back up. It's rather silly to have a SPL, ASPL, 2 PLs, 2 APLs and 2 patrol members (I've done it as a Scout but it's still silly).

 

I think the question of whether a troop needs a SPL is the wrong question. Do your boys need the experience of being an SPL? In my experience, the removal from a single patrol into a coordinating leadership function is new to them and something most Scouts can and do learn from. Learning to monitor and delegate (as opposed to just pass off work) is one of the hardest leadership roles to learn -- especially for the natural leaders who are naturally inclined to jump in and work the problem(s) directly.

[Stosh]

8 boys? Need an SPL? Sure put a patch on him and get his POR requirement done. There's nothing the boy can do to earn it, but hey, he gets credit.

 

Presently I have 9 boys, one patrol, it's boy led and the SM is the PL.

 

Every time a boy needs a POR he goes to the PL (me!) and asks for the position. Being extremely lazy, their PL (me!) doesn't lift a finger to do anything for them, but will train them and help them get started. I have two boys presently vying for the PL position. One boy totally organized every detail for summer camp this year, the other boy handled both fall and spring camporees. That included the registration, collection of money, MB's, organization of rides, equipment, and program. I have a Chaplain Aide who has a prayer/devotion for every scout activity we do, including regular meetings. I have a boy learning the bugle calls, I have another who inventoried the troop trailer and is negotiating with the committee treasurer on new replacement equipment. I had our one tenderfoot ask if he could be the PL and I said, sure, get a patrol together and let me know. (He's now organizing an extended recruiting effort to focus in on next year's Webelos II boys. He decided to go that route rather than compete with the other two who were vying for the PL position.)

 

One of the few times the SPL issue came up was when the summer camp organizer said the camp needed to know who our SPL was. I told the scout that as long as he had done all the work for the activity, he should probably put his name in that spot.

 

At our BOR's it is tradition to visit with the boy about what he had done for this POR. If the boy cannot come up with 6 months of POR functionality in any of the POR's he's going to have problems with this. On the other hand he may give functional leadership rationale in multiple POR's. He did some PL work, served at SPL at summer camp, did some QM work, etc. etc. If a scout can come up with 6 months of POR leadership he gets credit for it.

 

Over the past 2 years the only time SPL was addressed is when one was needed by outsiders. We'd show up for a camporee and they'd ask, who's your SPL. Our boys have fun taking turns being this person. They all know it's a "do nothing" position for the most part in a troop that small. But, whoever is not busy with camp duties runs up to the SPL Meeting to get the information and bring it back. It's not one of those items that any of them brags about at their BOR's.

 

Stosh

[Kudu]

I think the question of whether a troop needs a SPL is the wrong question. Do your boys need the experience of being an SPL? In my experience, the removal from a single patrol into a coordinating leadership function is new to them and something most Scouts can and do learn from. Learning to monitor and delegate (as opposed to just pass off work) is one of the hardest leadership roles to learn

 

That in a nutshell is how Wood Badge killed the Patrol Method with Fake Leadership.

 

People who spend their days in office cubicles decided that the "experience" of "leadership roles" was more important than the adventure of hiking and camping in a Patrol independent of the Troop.

 

So office experts replaced Green Bar Bill's "Patrol Leader Training" (which taught only the best natural leaders how to lead a Patrol into the woods), with "Junior Leader Training" (which teaches generic "Junior Leaders" how to lead a generic group through a "leadership" formula).

 

If you care enough about Scouting to actually read the ultimate guide to Fake Leadership, the Patrol Method presentation of Scoutmaster-Specific Training, you will find that office experts have eliminated any mention of a Patrol Leader and any description of a working Patrol. All that remains now is the Troop Method SPL and the Fake Leadership formula called "EDGE."

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[sherminator505]

An SPL is needed. The Scoutmaster teaches the SPL how to implement Scouting in the troop, and the SPL implements it.

 

Admittedly, this is an Americanization of what Kudu refers to as traditional Scouting, but it is reflective of how we run most real-life organizations and indeed most governmental bodies in this country. Nothing fake about it. Now if you want to discuss the realness and depth of White Stag or EDGE, or WB21, great! But that's another thread.

 

For a small troop of 8 boys, the Patrol Leader is the SPL by default.(As an aside, if you have a troop with only 8 boys, you have another problem that needs to be remedied.) The PLC, such as it is, is the SPL and any appointed troop officers. Keep in mind that at this size, it is doubtful that your troop needs more than a QM, and perhaps an ASPL as an understudy. And when you get down to it, this grouping most closely resembles what Kudu might envision as the ideal, traditional patrol.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Kudu]

We could apply the same Wood Badge Logic to BSA Lifeguards:

 

1) Hold six month popularity contests for BSA Lifeguard because it is a "Position of Responsibility."

 

2) Eliminate position-specific training for BSA Lifeguard, just as Leadership Development did to Patrol Leaders.

 

3) The Scoutmaster teaches the SPL the EDGE method.

 

4) The SPL implements the EDGE method on the waterfront because it is reflective of how we run most real-life organizations and indeed most governmental bodies in this country.

 

Nothing fake about it!

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

 

[sherminator505]

With all due respect, Kudu (and at this point, possibly quite a bit more), I think you're missing the point of this thread! We are talking about the necessity of having a SPL, not debating whether White Stag or EDGE or WB21 (all of which came along DECADES after the position of SPL was conceived, by the way) are valid.

 

You'd probably be surprised how we closely we actually agree on many of these points if you weren't investing so much time and energy trashing others' opinions. You might find out that I actually cringed when I saw the introduction of a separate handbook for SPL's. You might find out that I actually understand why we call an SPL a Senior PATROL Leader instead of a Senior TROOP Leader. You might learn that many of the Scouters in this forum actually BELIEVE in the Patrol Method!

 

But no, you'd rather go on acting as if you're the second coming of Baden-Powell or whatever and that the rest of us Scouters are little more than uneducated hacks! Quite frankly, it's wearing a little bit thin.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Eagle92]

Kudu,

They have already watered-down BSA Lifeguard IMHO by removing the boating aspects, and, from what I've been told, the "hand to hand combat," i.e. escapes, releases, and holds of the old program, so that it is really an ARC program with BSA modifications. heck they even use ARC videos now.

 

So please don't give anyone more ideas about BSA Lifeguard

[Beavah]

An SPL is needed. The Scoutmaster teaches the SPL how to implement Scouting in the troop, and the SPL implements it.

 

Yah, Eagledad said somethin' sorta like this earlier, eh? And then he commented that my reply was unintelligible. So what else is new? Let me try to give it another go.

 

I see a lot of different troops, and da range of their implementation of stuff is pretty diverse. I guess I'd sorta categorize things a bit like this in terms of youth involvement:

 

Adult Run Adults do most of the day to day tasks, with youth "helpers." Cooking, cleaning, setup. Sometimes that's all they know how to do; sometimes it's because they kinda think like Engineer61 and think it's da best way.

Adult Led ("youth run") Kids get to do the day to day tasks, in a "chores" sort of way. Assigned cooks, assigned cleanup. They have some real responsibility, but the direction is mostly from the adults. Where there is youth leadership, it's more as a mouthpiece of the adults, and it'll tend to be just one or two boys (SPL), not a group of boys.

Adult Directed ("youth led") Youth get to lead and are responsible for all of the day to day tasks and the basic outing stuff. They get to make choices within adult limits; they have annual planning conferences that might be a bit adult driven. Yeh see adults actively coaching youth leaders in a hands-on way; SM-to-SPL, ASMs assigned to PLs. The adults still hold on to a lot of things that they feel are beyond the boys - planning, making reservations, safety, budgeting etc.

Adult Structured ("youth led") Here da youth may be trusted with things like planning, safety, and other things, eh? Just as long as it fits within the adult structure. Adult-style job descriptions, and committees, a top-down approach of da adult mentoring the SPL who mentors the PLs.

Collaborative Youth get to make up their own structure, and adults are just a part of it. Job descriptions and roles change according to da people in them. Youth routinely work together in ways that aren't top-down, and da adults fade more into the background as occasional collaborators.

 

Now there's nothing "wrong" with any of these, eh? And yeh see a lot of adults who proudly claim to be youth run at each of these levels. Most new leaders start at da top of the list and slowly develop the skills to work their way lower, but a lot get to one spot they're comfortable with and stop there.

 

Loosely speaking, da ones closer to the top of the list run more as a whole troop, under an SPL's direction. To move down the list, adults first have to learn to trust individual kids, like da SPL and the QM.

 

As yeh move further down the list, yeh see a lot better use of Patrol Method, rather than whole-troop stuff. To move to these levels, adults have to learn to trust groups of kids. They do that first by trying to make 'em into little adults, with job descriptions and committees. Then, if they're really wise, they learn to let 'em be groups of kids.

 

Think of any committee. Who creates the agenda? Who chairs the meeting? Who should be the main interface with the Scoutmaster? Who should appoint the Troop Scribe, Bugler, Librarian, Historian, etc.?

 

This is a good example, eh? Instead of thinking of a committee (adult work environment), think of a group of friends. Who creates da agenda at da Beavah's BBQ this weekend? Whoever wants to, eh? Da task is shared. Who chairs the meeting? Well, Beavah put this one together, but he doesn't really chair it. Mr. Buffalo ran last week's outing to da ball game but I reckon I brought my own chair. . If da group decides someone needs to write things down, then the person with good handwriting who doesn't mind doing that steps forward. Yeh don't "appoint a scribe".

 

Da genius of Hillcourt and scouting is that if yeh use patrols of friends in the outdoors, it's very effective at teaching lads to collaborate with each other as friends to accomplish things. Yeh don't need to appoint a youth mentor to be da Voice of Sauron (I mean da SM...).

 

So while there's nothing wrong with any of these ways of doin' scouting, I think the kids get the best, richest experience from the last one... when they're allowed to control da structure as well as the task.

 

From his description, I reckon Eagledad's troop fell into da second to last group, eh? They trusted the boys with all the tasks but imposed the structure. That's common with large troops. sherminator sounds like maybe he's in da Adult Directed/youth led group. Again, nothing wrong with any of those; lots of fine troops there. Just part of da forums is to challenge us all to grow, eh? If they want to move further, the way to do it is to work on Patrol Method, which is usually da weakest and last implemented by most adult leaders. When left on their own and faced with a challenge, da patrols develop their own structure and dynamics to succeed, and the PLs all develop deep skills to help each other out rather than relying on an SPL mentor.

 

Just my loose thoughts.

 

Beavah