Do your scouts have patrol level POR's?

[Krampus 696]

No prerequisites for any POR.  It's not part of the requirement.    It kinda sounds like adult rules that are adding expectations and additional requirements to the intent of the advancement requirement.  Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

 

I can't honestly say where any of the "requirements" for PORs came from. I don't recall them being around when I was a scout. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

 

I do see locally where many troops say you can't be a Den Chief unless you are (x) or you cannot be SPL unless you've been to NYLT or are at least Star. That got me thinking how many of the troops represented here have similar policies and how closely they may adhere to them. My unit has a few but they are guidelines. If I have a TF who is a rocking leader he can run from PL despite not being FC.

[Eagledad 2777]

From what I see promoted in some troops is a patrol method with a one-size-fits-all patrol program.  And then I find it difficult to think I'm the BSA Heretic for promoting the latest publication of New-Scout patrols, Regular patrols and Venture patrols. 

 

EVERY AOL awardee is required to know this.  Someone ought to incorporate this into the BSA SM/ASM fundamentals training someday.

The SM/ASM Fundamentals course does teach about the NSP, Regular patrols and Venture Patrols, they just don't teach it as the only way.

 

Heretic is a name you gave yourself. I'm not sure others would give you that title. Your original stand was the promotion of only aged based and Venture Patrols as compared with the traditional mixed age patrols. You even said once that you were glad that the BSA killed traditional scouting.

 

Lately your hard line has mellowed to consider styles other than yours that fit better with different adult personalities. But even with all the BSA materials and training, I think you can see just from the forum that the BSA program allows a very broad range of styles and ideas that still work within the program model which still works toward the common vision. 

 

Barry

[Stosh 3452]

As has been pointed out many times, what is taught is not always what is put into practice.  The patrol method, 3 types of patrols, boy-led are all taught and emphasized as optional obviously because in practice those are only viewed as optional ideals rather than program structure.  As as pointed out, such deviations are a result of adult personalities.  I guess it wouldn't be fair then to put the blame on the boys.

[Eagledad 2777]

Yes or no, are adults who don't use the NSP or Venture Patrols bad leaders?

 

Barry 

[Stosh 3452]

I tend to believe that if one were to stick with providing different options for scouters to try for differing program situations it would be far more beneficial in the long run than judging whether the people implementing the option are good or bad people, It's a good thing to have more than one option on one's tool box.  One doesn't need to introduce personal judgments on whether or not these options are good or bad or whether or not the person implementing them is good or bad either.  The person should be able to implement them and make that call relative to the situation they find themselves in, And they shouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what everyone else is judging them as being good or bad for doing so.  I would find the question of whether the person is good or bad is not appropriate whereas does the idea work or not for them would be a better evaluation. 
 

[Eagledad 2777]

I tend to believe that if one were to stick with providing different options for scouters to try for differing program situations it would be far more beneficial in the long run than judging whether the people implementing the option are good or bad people, It's a good thing to have more than one option on one's tool box.  One doesn't need to introduce personal judgments on whether or not these options are good or bad or whether or not the person implementing them is good or bad either.  The person should be able to implement them and make that call relative to the situation they find themselves in, And they shouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what everyone else is judging them as being good or bad for doing so.  I would find the question of whether the person is good or bad is not appropriate whereas does the idea work or not for them would be a better evaluation. 

 

Ah, very good. A quote worth saving for future discussions.

 

So with that in mind, consider that none of the BSA materials or training provide guidance for troops without an SPL. From your post one can conclude that using or not using the SPL successfully in patrol method troops of "any" size depends on whether or not the idea works for the adults of that program. 

 

Good discussion.

 

Barry

[qwazse 4342]

Not to hijack the thread but does anyone have rank level requirements or training requirements for any PORs?  For example, must be FC to be PL, must have NYLT to be SPL?

 

And if you have of these requirements, do you stick to them or are they flexible?

Requirements have waxed and waned for us.

When we had them we were flexible. When we didn't, we could still be rigid. (E.g., SPL no matter how credentialed, was expected to pass on his position if he couldn't keep up the responsibility.)

 

This round of elections (after deciding to merge with a troop of mostly 1st and 2nd years), the SM did ask only 1st class scouts to run for PL. Evidently there was some bad blood last year from the scout who wasn't elected SPL, and there was some hope that a little call for maturity would spare that. (Actually, I think the aggrieved SPL speaking up about sportsmanship the week before the election did the boys the most good.)

 

FWIW, the current SPL's "campaign speech": he stood up and recited the Oath and Law, and sat down!

[Stosh 3452]

Ah, very good. A quote worth saving for future discussions.

 

So with that in mind, consider that none of the BSA materials or training provide guidance for troops without an SPL. From your post one can conclude that using or not using the SPL successfully in patrol method troops of "any" size depends on whether or not the idea works for the adults of that program. 

 

Good discussion.

 

Barry

 

Nope.    From my post I would not expect anyone to conclude that whether or not an SPL is used is dependent at all for how well it works out for the adults. 

 

In all seriousness I, me, myself, don't care one bit whether the troop has an SPL or not.  It has no impact on me or my life or my ability to be an adult leader. 

 

It is not part of my vision that the troop has one even if they don't have one and still have 6 patrols.  The option of an SPL is totally 100% in the working realm of PL's and their combined vision in my units.  If they think their lives would be easier with an SPL, they can select one.  This change only has a marginal affect on how I address the leadership of the troop.  Now I have a youth compatriot to associate  with that will make any multiple contact work with the troop down to one major one, the SPL.  The SPL does not take top-dog position, he serves at the pleasure of the PL's consensus.  He can stay there until the PL's change their mind or the SPL would like to do something differently in the troop.  If the PL's would like him to become more formalized as the chair of the PLC, they can direct the SPL to do that, too.  If the PL's are having difficulty with a non-functioning QM, they have the resource of the SPL to correct the problem.

 

This model has worked well for me to the point where the parents were upset that the boys were involved too much in the leadership of the troop.  My mistake, I thought that was what boy-led was all about. 

 

Now in order to answer the question more specifically, NO, "...using or not using the SPL successfully in patrol method troops of "any" size depends on whether or not the idea works for the adults of that program.", but YES to whether or not it works for the YOUTH of that program.  Do we seriously try and get ALL the leadership into the hands of the boys, or are we always trying to retain a bit of it to make the lives of the adults a bit easier?

 

One of the reasons why I have lasted 30+ years in scouting is because I maximize the division of leadership among the boys.  They do the heavy lifting in the troop and while the parents haven't always been happy with it, the boys are!  The rather unique thing about my recent years is that the flexibility and lack of tradition has been a good thing.  Each year the "personality" of the troop changes as the different boys running it changes.  It's fun to watch.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Stosh

[Eagledad 2777]

Yes, but you have said more than once the SPLs are only used by Scoutmasters who want to control the Patrol leaders program. And you didn't imply it kindly to anybody using an SPL in troops of any size. Attitude of personal opinions is as much adult driving as direct interaction. I had kind of hoped you had moved past that opinion, but I can't tell. And it's too bad, I find helping adults work toward the a boy run patrol method program without pushing my personal idea of using Aims and Methods on them to be very rewarding.

 

Barry

[Stosh 3452]

The opportunity to abuse the adult led SPL top-dog leader, aka SM puppet is all to evident in a lot troops I have been in contact with.  The ability of adults to even con themselves into thinking they are doing it right is often quite a joke.  I would in those cases be very leery of how valid the comment was that they were really boy-led.  In one of my units I am UC for the SM is adamant that they are boy-led, patrol-method, and yet the PL's are elected by their patrols, but every other POR is assigned by the SM including SPL.  Every week the agenda is handed to the SPL by the SM and the PLC meetings are run by the SM.

 

So when this SM says his unit is boy-led, patrol-method, everyone smiles nicely and ignores him.

 

While that is a rare exception, to varying degrees there are a ton of units out there that fall into the grey area in between being boy-led and thinking they are boy-led.

 

Right now with my situation, my unit is 100% adult-led.  I have 2 scouts (last year's Webelos) and a potential 34 Webelos boys sitting on the fence.  I'm working with the 2 boys who are acting DC's/TG's for the Webelos boys and I'm running a Webelos II program with the troop's help.  (The two boys are onboard with the adults taking over for 12 months only at the most)  After two sessions with the Webelos boys, we have two (NSP) patrols with PL's and TG's/DC's.  It's nothing like anything our Council has ever experienced, I'm flying by the seat of my pants trying to pull together this new unit and my DE has asked me to document what I"m doing for an experimental program for other units working on the Webelos/NSP transition process in their units. 

 

Hopefully within a year, we'll be back to boy-led.  I'm a SM, not a DL.  My contract agreement with my Boy Scout boys runs out at that point anyway and they will need to re-take the reins at that point.

[MattR 2659]

Not to hijack the thread but does anyone have rank level requirements or training requirements for any PORs?  For example, must be FC to be PL, must have NYLT to be SPL?

 

And if you have of these requirements, do you stick to them or are they flexible?

Now that I think about it.... We've had requirements at times to solve certain problems but once we grew out of those we dropped those requirements. In all of the positions the SPL picks, I talk to him. I don't make decisions but I describe the job, we talk about personalities, we ask each other questions. I'm always interested in the difference between what the scouts and adults see.

 

This discussion about different ways of doing things has some unintended consequences. Namely, if there are so many ways of doing things then the training can't really get specific about anything in particular. This hurts the new adult trying to figure out how to create a good environment.

 

I don't know if a SPL is needed or not but having a scout that can encourage the new PLs is hugely useful, based on what I just saw this past weekend. The growth in my troop over the past six months has been just fantastic. Some of it has been patrol leaders maturing but in the past two months, since our new SPL took over, it just went up another level. Our SPL, who is anything but the rah rah leader,  cares about the PLs. He's by no means polished but he cares and he tries. The PLs see this and they respond to him.

 

Getting back to Krampus' question, there seems to be only two requirement for these positions, that a scout cares and tries. Everything else we can work on. I don't know how to measure cares and tries, so no, there are no requirements right now.

[Eagledad 2777]

I have a lot of experience with boy run patrol method scouting and I can say that in all the years you have been on this forum, I think your program is more boy run than some, not as much as others. 

 

There are very few topics on this forum that I haven't experienced one way or another, so I can usually pick out posts that aren't quite what the poster claims. But that is OK because most of the time because posters are trying to make a point that would only get lost in details that don't matter to the point and would take up a lot of forum space. BUT when posters feel that have to force their theories by demonizing adults, scouts, and program styles with generalizations and straw men, then the thread has to be brought back to reality.

 

Just because a SM doesn't perform to your idealistic theory doesn't mean they aren't doing the best they can. Who isn't proud of their program after the hard work. These hard working volunteers deserve more appreciation than "smiles and nicely ignores them", and the list here deserves more realistic detail of how to develop such a program without trying to intimidate opinion with generalized statements of adult run.

 

Remember the quote: "I would find the question of whether or not the person is good or bad is not appropriate whereas the idea worked or not for them would be a better evaluation." There are many things you have stated in working with your scouts that I thought were a bit on the adult direct side, but so long as you understand the bigger picture, who cares? Adults work within their knowledge and understanding. If their knowledge and understanding is different than your knowledge and understanding, that doesn't make them bad. Instead, build a trust by passing ideas back and forth.

 

Scouting is hard. It is especially hard for boy run programs because the scouts are more independent in their decisions and adults are by nature parents.  The best advice for learning how to work toward a better boy run program is a little humility to listen to other ideas.

 

Barry

[TAHAWK 1420]

"The troop determines the requirements for patrol leaders, such as rank and age.â€

         B.S.A. website (2016)

[blw2 433]

 

1. Was adult-led. Webelos III.
2. The boys had a tough time learning to adapt to older patrol life the following year because that initial development was delayed.
3. Taught over-reliance on adults to manage their patrol business.
4. Some adults more authoritative than others in running their patrols.
5. Could not get Guides to take over NSPs because they saw them as "Kindergartens".
6. Retention rate of first year scouts was roughly 60-65% for the 8 years we had the NSPs.

After we switched to mixed patrols, retention went up to nearly 90% in that first year, scouts were trained to take over patrol positions because they learned a great deal rather than relying on adults to do it all for them.

 

As others here are fond of saying, your mileage may vary.

 

yeah, that's kinda making my point.  MAYBE, just maybe, it failed because it wasn't done well.

and then your number 2 point goes directly against a method that I still think is sound... don't force the patrol apart.  So... instead of the scouts learning to adapt to the new patrol, maybe better to let the patrol as a whole adapt to be progressively more and more independant.

 

Regardless, I fear that my son's den is likely to go the way of the 3rd year webelos (er, patrol... see how I did that   )

The SM has good experience and a good vision I think, and the ASM's all get it.... but what little I have observed they are struggling to get out of cub scout mode a bit

 

Not to hijack the thread but does anyone have rank level requirements or training requirements for any PORs?  For example, must be FC to be PL, must have NYLT to be SPL?

 

And if you have of these requirements, do you stick to them or are they flexible?

 

Our troop has something written up.... I don't know what they are off hand, a few of the positions require a certain rank level, some I think require a recent history of  certain attendance level... stuff like that

[Krampus 696]

Our troop has something written up.... I don't know what they are off hand, a few of the positions require a certain rank level, some I think require a recent history of  certain attendance level... stuff like that

For our unit it goes something like this (see below). It is not written in stone, but typically is followed:

• SPL: Star and NYLT
• ASPL: FC
• PL: FC
• Any Troop Position: FC
• Any Patrol Position: Scout

All potential leaders must attend our TLT done twice a year.