The Patrol Method Does NOT Work Because....

[Kudu 186]

I do not believe Kudu ever said that it was easy to teach/train patrol leaders to take his patrol off without adults, only that Green Bill Bill's prescribed training in the Patrol Method was the best approach.

 

Depends on what you mean by "Patrol Leaders."

 

IF you use backpacking to filter out all the Cub Scout survivors who "need" Eagle but hate camping, AND you appoint "Natural Leaders" that you can trust with the lives of other Boy Scouts in the backwoods without adult supervision, THEN yes, it really is EASY to form ad hoc units that GBB and B-P would recognize as "Real" Patrols.

 

Of course that statement violates at least two very obvious "Success Formulas for the 21st Century" taboos

 

Over the past couple of years I have posted simple "how to" points for how to establish such backwoods crews within an "Eagle Mill" (and I can cut and paste them here if anybody is interested).

 

However one thing I haven't mentioned is that I also filter out the "F-150" Scouts: Juvenile Delinquents who hate Scouting but have been bribed and/or coerced into getting their Eagle. It is easy enough to identify them: I simply ask the Natural Leaders if they think they can handle these specific Scouts without adult supervision. The oft-quoted phrase "I don't have to do what you say" comes to mind.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[Eagle92 110]

Of course that statement violates at least two very obvious "Success Formulas for the 21st Century" taboos

 

Not necessarily. When I was up in Canada, it was my fellow scouts in my patrol that reconized that I had hypothermia and treated me. Although I may have stated in the past that the adutls didn't do anything, thinking long and hard, I beleive they were watching to make sure I was being treated OK.

 

On a different note, I admit I was being typical CS leader. I was visiting a troop in prep for IOLS. One of the Scouts cut themself, and I automatically, without thinking, pulled out my first aid and proceded to treat. Similar situation when I saw a scout trying to do a square lashing. I pointed out what was wrong, and proceeded to show him how to do a Japanese Square on one side, and then let him tie the other side.

 

Now I did go over to the SM and beg for mercy b/c I interfered with his troop. He just laughed and said the SPL better not catch me doing that.

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

Like most of the Methods, what has happened in the past and if you like the culture of the Troop very often sets the tone for what will happen in the future.

Parents and Scouts who are aware of how things are done are most lightly to buy into what's happening and the way things are done.

Telling a Mom that your going to tie a rope around her kid and toss him over a cliff?

Is a hard sell.

But a Troop that does repelling on a regular basis with a good record of safety and kids not getting hurt? Isn't such a hard sell.

Parents who trust the SM and other Troop Leaders are not going to be as uncomfortable allowing their son to participate in Patrol outings and activities.

Sure there is always going to be a few over-protective parents, but most times their own kid will find ways of taming them and ways of not allowing them to get in the way too much!

Parents aren't always sure about why we do things the way we do.

Sometimes they seem to not know what it is that their son is doing.

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard parents when asked what their son is doing reply "I don't know, he's away with the Scouts!"

Part of the SM's job is to build up trust with the parents.

Part of this is explain to the parents what the expectations from their son will be. -That way we can avoid any surprises!

Many if not not most parents do want for their son to be independent, they just don't make or have the time to work with their son in order to make it happen.

Giving a small group of Lads (A Patrol) the tools that they need to work together as a team, ensuring that at least one of them has the skills to be able to get the job done, not only allows the leader the opportunity to lead but also teaches the other members how it might be done, when it fails? There is a lesson in that as well. (This is the main reason that I'm not for same age Patrols.)

What tools?

Simple things like duty roster's, skill training and sometimes consequences both good or bad for the result. (A Patrol manages to cook a great meal which everyone enjoys, work as a team to get the clean up done and have time to do whatever it is that comes next as opposed to the Patrol that is at sixes and sevens cooks a terrible meal and spends the rest of the evening trying to get the clean up done.)

Ea.

[Engineer61 19]

"Part of the SM's job is to build up trust with the parents."

 

I think that's the first time I've ever seen that statement posted ...

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

"I as a parent want to know two things about the program"

 

"1. Is it safe?"

 

I been repeatedly told not to worry about that. It's been around for 100 years you know.

 

"2. What will my son gain from it all? Eagle? Character? What?"

 

Ooooo...sarcasm light went off...better stop here.

 

LOL

 

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

The keystone in the PM is whether or not the boys are actually acquiring skills or merely learning them. There is a subtle difference. A boy might know what to do for a cut finger, but can he actually do it? It all depends on the quality of training. Demonstrate what you would do for a cut finger? If they talk through it, it's not the same thing as dragging out your first aid kit, washing the wound, stop the bleeding and apply the bandage.

 

I wouldn't want to be out in the woods with boys who have not received sufficient training in all aspects of what is expected and is proficient in it. That means repeated practice, not just a one time demonstration and a check in the back of the book.

 

So if a parent wants to know if his boy is safe, it depends on the boy, not the program. Kudu refers to what was once called a Real Scout, rather than the alternative a Parlor Scout. Can he function outside of the classroom? If he can't he isn't safe. However if he takes what he learns, becomes proficient in it, then yes, he is safer than the average person out there. Is that a 100% guarantee? No, but he has a better chance than nothing at all. This past summer while hiking in Yellowstone, a hiker about 30-45 minutes ahead of us was killed by a grizzly. I have no guarantee of safety if it had been my fiance and I, at least we would have had a better than average chance of survival. She spent 20 years in the Alaskan Wilderness working for the US Forestry Service and I have had many years of camping in bear country. Would Little Johnny be safe on that trip with the other hiker? No guarantees, but had he been well trained to handle it, he might have been able to survive and keep someone else alive.

 

So in the long run, when it comes to outings, No, no one is safe, no one should go into the woods, and everyone should stay home and become a parlor scout and hope that an earthquake and/or tornado doesn't hit.

 

However a properly trained, prepared Real Scout, although not 100% safe, will do his best to help others in the midst of a dangerous situation. The ideals of Scouting all point to creating what Kudu calls Real Scouts, that can actually be proficient in helping people, will go the extra mile for someone, who holds honesty in high regards, and in a tough situation be able to think his way through better than the average person.

 

The PM exemplifies this process well for boys of this age as a preparatory time for them to learn what they're going to need in the future. The person they may be doing first aid on could be their spouse or child, rather than practicing with their patrol buddies. Everyone complains about kids being affected by peer pressure, well, the PM is build on those dynamics.

 

If parents don't want their kids to be as such, or they think it's too dangerous for them, they need to find a different program for their child. Maybe sports where all they have to do is follow the directions of their coach. Or music where they follow the directions of their director, or the teacher where they follow the assignments of their teacher, or just take out the garbage like their mom told them to do.

 

At 60+ years of age, if I go on a hike, camping, or kayaking, I surely hope that a few Real Scouts are along so that if something happens to me I have a better than average chance of survival. I'm going to be really ticked off if the only think the boy thinks about his how much trouble there's going to be because if I have a heart attack, they no longer have 2-deep leadership.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad 2785]

>>So if a parent wants to know if his boy is safe, it depends on the boy, not the program.

[Stosh 3452]

Everyone has a preconceived idea of what Scouting is, it's been around for 100 years. The only question they might have is how that expectation is or is not being met in the local troops. In the context of the historic PM, that will have a large impact. Now if the only thing they are seeking is Eagle for their boy, they are placing external expectations on the program that are not the goal of the group. Those external expectations have nothing to do with the program. Of course they'll pull their boy in that case. The success of any program is not dependent on external expectations. The success/failure of the program is a result of it meeting its own expectations.

 

Stosh