Baden-Powell: A Patrol Leader is Appointed!

[Kudu]

 

BrentAllen writes:

 

Also, back to my other post - you stated the SM should chose the best candidate for leadership, instead of letting the boys elect their own.

 

Baden-Powell recommended that, yes, but remember that boys in the British Empire wanted the real thing and Boy Scouting was inspired by Baden-Powell's unique form of military reconnaissance patrols in which the soldier most capable of heading a self-sufficient unit behind enemy lines was appointed leader of his patrol. So too Boy Scouts wanted to be a part of a Patrol that was truly boy-led, and boy-led by Baden-Powell's standards means that a Patrol Leader has the "pluck, self-reliance, and discretion" plus actual Scouting skills to lead his self-sufficient unit through a weekend (or a week) of adventure in which the nearest Patrol is camped at least 300 feet away.

 

You argue this is just a popularity contest, but I would argue the SM appointing the PL takes "power" and boy-lead program out of Scouting.

 

In Baden-Powell's Patrol System, the Scoutmaster delegates this "power" to the boy-leader most capable of leading a Patrol in the Scoutmaster's absence. Yes, a popularity contest typically elects the boy with the most charisma (which often is based on self-confidence: the root of pluck and self-reliance in B-P's theory of leadership) but discretion and actual Scouting skills are less likely to factor into a boy election than an adult appointment.

 

I submit that the only real, objective criterion by which the relative advantages of Patrol elections vs. Scoutmaster appointment in the Patrol System can be judged is: which method is most likely to select a boy-leader with the "pluck, self-reliance, and discretion" plus actual Scouting skills to actually lead his Patrol while camped at least 300 feet away from the nearest Patrol?

 

Perhaps after everything is said and done, it is this 300 foot mark that distinguishes the BSA "Patrol Method" from Baden-Powell's "Patrol System."

 

Kudu

 

"The main key to success in scouting is to have pluck and self-reliance. I will show you what these are, and how to get them.

 

PLUCK. -- Many people will tell you that pluck is not a thing that can be taught a man; it is either born in him or he has not got it at all.

 

But I think that, like many other things, it is almost always in a man, though, in some cases, it wants developing and bringing out. The pluck required of a scout is of a very high order.

 

A man who takes part in a Balaclava Charge is talked of as a hero, but he goes in with his comrades all round him and officers directing; he cannot well turn back.

 

How much higher, then, is the pluck of the single scout who goes on some risky enterprise alone, on his own account, taking his life in his hand, when it is quite possible for him to go back without anybody being the wiser; but he carries it out because he thinks the result to his side will be worth the risk he runs.

 

Such pluck is very much the result of confidence in himself" (Robert Baden-Powell, the opening lines of Aids to Scouting, 1900)

 

 

[DugNevius]

Back in the early days of the NHL the goalies didnt wear masks.

[BrentAllen]

Kudu,

I'd like to expand this conversation beyond your first post, and get back to my other question - defining what is "power" and what we mean when we say "boy-lead."

 

These are the areas where I see a program can be either adult-lead or boy-lead:

1. Planning the annual calendar

2. Planning troop meetings

3. Planning campouts

4. Training the boys in Scout skills (not talking about merit badges)

5. Training the boys in leadership (JLT)

6. Signing off on rank advancements

7. Choosing youth leaders

 

There may be more - please feel free to add to the list. I'm really interested in identifying these areas, and then comparing if they are boy-lead in the BSA vs. B-P's original plan.

 

I see the BSA pushing boy-lead in 1, 2, 3, 4, 7. The PLC and Troop Guides would take care of these items. 5 & 6 are conducted by the SM or ASM.

 

I see B-P's plan pushing boy-lead in 3 & 6. I see the SM conducting the training and choosing the youth leadership. I'm not sure about 1 & 2.

 

The real differences I see are in who conducts the training and who signs off. BSA believes in the older boys doing the training, B-P states the adults do the training. BSA believes adults should sign off on rank requirements, B-P believes the Patrol leader should. Which is more boy-lead? I think that is up to individual conclusions.

 

Feel free to expand this to other areas of difference. I'm much more interested in discussing this issue than arguing one side. Please correct any mistakes I may have made.

 

[Kudu]

BrentAllen writes:

 

These are the areas where I see a program can be either adult-lead or boy-lead:

1. Planning the annual calendar

2. Planning troop meetings

3. Planning campouts

4. Training the boys in Scout skills (not talking about merit badges)

5. Training the boys in leadership (JLT)

6. Signing off on rank advancements

7. Choosing youth leaders

 

The real differences I see are in who conducts the training and who signs off.

 

Brent,

 

1) In Baden-Powell's Program the annual calendar is done by the Court of Honor (PLC) usually in July or August, and preferably at the Troop's summer long term camp with the plans announced to the Troop at the last campfire.

 

2 & 3) The planning of Troop meetings and Troop campouts is also done by the Court of Honor which can meet once or twice a month, or on a weekly basis after Troop meetings. An interesting difference between the two approaches to Scouting is that after the Court of Honor has decided on the theme and general outline, they can delegate the details of indoor weekly meetings to the Scouters who prepare the actual details for the Program Patrols or an ASM. A sample "transcript" of such a Court of Honor in session can be found at:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/court_honor/coh_session.htm

 

4 & 6) Training of Tenderfoot through First Class Scoutcraft skills and signing off is the responsibility of the Patrol Leaders and is done primarily in weekly Patrol Meetings and weekend Patrol Hikes or Patrol campouts, but the Court of Honor can also plan weekly meetings around the Scoutcraft skills to be used for the next Troop campout, see:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/system/5_advancement_training.htm

 

After he becomes a First Class Scout, a Scout commonly must ask the Court of Honor for permission to be tested by an outside examiner for Proficiency Badges.

 

5) New Patrol Leaders learn a lot from the older Patrol Leaders in the Court of Honor meetings, and from the Scoutmaster in a Troop-level training course called "Golden Arrow;" there is also a district-level course called "Gilwell Patrol Leader Training," see:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/gilwell/index.htm

 

7) Patrol Leaders are appointed by the Scoutmaster with the best candidates commonly discussed in the Court of Honor: the Scoutmaster can sanction candidates for Patrol elections (with the winner then appointed by the SM), but there is no electing obviously unqualified Scouts so that the Patrol can suffer under a bad Patrol Leader and learn some kind of lesson about popularity contests.

 

A Scouter training explanation of the Court of Honor can be found at The Inquiry Net:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/court_honor/index.htm

 

A Patrol Leader training explanation of Baden-Powell's Patrol System can be found at:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/system/index.htm

 

Kudu

 

 

[frank10]

B-P was british, elections didn't mean as much to im as they do here.

[Stosh]

He was also military trained and privates don't vote, not even in the American military. So voting is irrelevant. He patterned civilian scouts after military scouts for a reason. One's nationality has nothing to do with it. The best scout is appointed to lead the group because the survival of the patrol is dependent upon it. B-P was not concerned about this because it's great programatic structure, but because people's lives dependened on it. American scouting today is all fun and games. It wasn't always so.

 

Stosh

[DugNevius]

stosh, who do yu think should do the appointing of Patrol leaders?

[Stosh]

First of all there should be certain criteria and goals set for the patrol leader. Many factors play into the selection so many people should be doing the evaluation.

 

1) The boy's record needs to be taken into account - Age, rank, maturity, how well he relates with the other boys.

 

2) Certain POR's are important - if it's the NBP has this candidate been a Den Chief? Troop Guide? Instructor? All important skills for that patrol.

 

3) Psychological profile - is he patient enough for NBP and/or creative and charismatic enough for the older patrols?

 

4) Does he fit comfortably into what you expect in a leader for that particular patrol?

 

5) What are the opinions of other leaders who have worked with the boy?

 

6) How receptive are the boys to this candidate?

 

7) IF he were to take the position as PL offered, what training, counseling, challenges is he going to need to be supported by the adults/PLC to assist him in his duties as PL?

 

The more one takes into consideration the better the candidate will be.

 

Other factors that may apply are:

 

8) Does the boy need a challenge for his leadership growth?

 

9) Does he tend to step up to the plate when offered a major challenge?

 

Some of the criteria that should not be heavily considered:

 

1) Does he need a POR?

 

2) Is this a popularity contest contestant?

 

Stosh

[scoutingagain]

While the official BSA model of scouting has youth leadership positions elected by the boys, I don't think there would be anything wrong with the idea of having these positions appointed by adult leadership, or at least having successors appointed by outgoing youth leadership with concurrence by an SM.

 

While this may not be democratic, and sound like heresy to some, for many of us our day to day lives are more often influenced more so by those who have been appointed by someone else rather than elected. How many of us get to vote for our boss?

 

Being able to deal with appointed leadership is an essential skill in the workplace, in the public and private sectors.

 

SA

 

[OldGreyEagle]

"Being able to deal with appointed leadership is an essential skill in the workplace, in the public and private sectors."

 

I agree the above skill is needed in adult life, however the three aims of scouting are Character Developement, Personal Fitness and Citizenship. The reason the youth of the troop elect their leadership is to learn lessons in democracy. Do you vote for the charismatic kid who never gets anything done, or do you vote for the serious/semi serious kid who while he might not talk alot, he gets things done. It may take awhile and the youth may have to live with the consequences of a poor choice, but they are living out democracy.

 

[FScouter]

In the BSA model, there are only two elected positions in a troop: patrol leader and senior patrol leader. Every other boy position is appointed. Appointed by other boys that is. There are no boy positions appointed by adults.

 

Adults like to appoint because they know they can select the "right" boy, and pass over those that won't do a good job in the position. Is it possible a PL or SPL might appoint a boy that would do a better job? Maybe, or maybe not. But the goal in Scouting is NOT to have the the most efficiently run troop with the "best" boys in the leadership positions. We adults are there to build character and create learning experiences for all the boys. A boy's time in Scouting is his chance to learn and experience a lot of things, and to make a lot of mistakes in the process. That doesn't happen when the Scoutmaster or other adult appoints the boy that he thinks will do the best job for the troop.

[Venividi]

>Do you vote for the charismatic kid who never gets anything done, or >do you vote for the serious/semi serious kid who while he might not >talk alot, he gets things done. It may take awhile and the youth may >have to live with the consequences of a poor choice, but they are >living out democracy.

 

Another outcome is kids decide the troop is boring and drop out. Note: I am not trying to argue for appointment over election. I am just making an observation. I have also seen charismatic kids that get things done, and watched a serious/semi serious scout, who as SPL, neither talked a lot nor gor much done.

[DugNevius]

stosh- please correct me if i am wrong.

 

It seems to be as if yu are saying that a SM should appoint the PLs.

 

Now there seems to be a little flaw in yur overall perspective here.

 

In other topics you state clearly and often that The Patrol Method is the better way of scouting because it puts the power in the hands of the boys, where as Troop Method leads to Adults over controling.

 

But, when it comes to patrol leader selection the boys who become leaders are appointed by the Adults.

 

So how is having the adults hand pick who controls the PLC and the troop any less adult interference? How does the greater chance of nepetism, favortism and a general dictatorship help teach the boys anything.

 

The problem i see is a lack of confidence in the boys. Yu are basically saying they are not capable of electing quality leaders (But the quality leaders appointed by a SM are capable of making every other decision?) That is not the case. The youth ARE aware of who is a slacker, a bully, a leader and a friend. Our troop holds elections twice a year. There are occasionally winners that have shocked me, but for the most part the strongest leaders, those kids that step up, lead by example and know generally the most about the position, win.

The wiseasses, the slackers and bullies get passed over. I sit them down and explain why. Some of them get it together, act like a leader and eventually get elected. For those boys that werent particularly qualified, they learn as they go with a little coaching from senior staff and adults. For those boys that simply dont get the job done... thats the last time they get elected or its not again for quite a while.

 

Is democracy a perfect system of government? No.

 

But a dictatorship is quite flawed.

 

[scoutingagain]

Like Venidi, I'm not necessarily arguing for one position or the other, just providing some thoughts on both.

 

If appointments were made, like the Baden Powell aproach, we might like to think that adult leadership would be in a position to appoint qualified leadership. However, seeing how many youth baseball coaches play their own sons more frequently and in positions where other boys on a team may have greater skills to play, I have no reason to believe adults would be any better at selecting youth leadership than the youth themselves.

 

There are pros and cons to both systems and both teach youth different aspects of Character and Citizenship.

 

SA

 

 

[Stosh]

Heresy or not, it works.

 

B-P did not base scouts on democracy, he built it on a military structure basis and that means there is no democracy.

 

American BSA changed it for a variety of different reasons than those established by B-P.

 

If one wishes different results, change the parameters to accomplish the differences.

 

B-P had efficient well organized functional scout patrols, i.e. military.

 

The BSA program doesn't set that as a goal, so don't expect the same results. If BSA has a well organized functional scout patrols of a military style, you are not following BSA guidelines

 

Many of these changes have occured over the past 40 years when there was an anti-military emphasis that grew out of the 1960-70's and thus the function and goals of scouting were altered.

 

Remember that you're only going to hit what you aim at.

 

Stosh