Follow
This is post number three in this four part series on the patrol method
1. The Character School, 2. The Adult Role, 4. Making it happen
Our first post in this series establishes the patrol method as the character school of Scouting, that real self-government makes the Scout Oath and law more relevant than a bunch of concepts preached by adults. That Scouts find meaning in the life of the patrol and troop where individual responsibilities become group responsibilities. The second post outlines the adult role as more responsive than directive and suggests that this would be a pretty dramatic change for a lot of us, that change is usually resisted and there will be a number of objections.
These objections to the patrol method come from adults and Scouts. Discussing them helps us understand the patrol method a little better:
1. If they are given the choice Scouts will not form balanced patrols.
An ideal patrol has around eight Scouts but there’s no rule that says a patrol can’t be five or twelve, it really depends on how the Scouts want to set this up. If a Scout isn’t in a patrol with his friends he’ll find a way to be with his friends; he’ll gravitate towards them during meetings and outings anyway. A ‘balanced’ patrol is another administrative decoration that seems to matter a lot to adults. Scouts are not so interested in a ‘balanced’ patrol as they are in patrols that works for them.
2. If we don’t have a say Scouts won’t elect qualified leaders.
Their choice is their choice, we will work with their choices. If they choose someone we think is unqualified it’s up to the patrol leader’s council and the Scoutmaster to get them up to speed.
3. Without our direct oversight Scouts will not do their jobs.
Scouts will do the job as they understand it and our work is helping them understand. If adults are clearly in control regardless of what Scouts do, or adults will do the work for for them Scouts won’t do much. When adults leave Scouts alone and let them get things done, when adults stop interfering, fixing and taking over Scouts will make things happen.
4. Scouts don’t plan as well or present things as well as adults, our program will suffer.
If your goal is a quality program of activities and earning badges then put the adults in charge, they do a much better job. Naturally the adults end up leading rather than the Scouts, but you get a good program and lots of advancement.
But our goal is not a the decorative quality of the program, or the number of badges we present, it is providing the opportunity for Scouts to learn about planning and presenting things and to derive all the other benefits of the patrol system. Our goal isn’t building something for our Scouts, it’s providing them the opportunity to build it for themselves.
Every parent has some treasured object like a drawing or lopsided clay statue created by their child. It will never be written about by art critics or displayed in a national museum but a parent thinks it’s a priceless work of art.We ought to use this perspective when we view what are Scouts do. Comparing their meeting program or plans to an idealized program or plan made by adults is like holding the artwork our child gave us up to the Mona Lisa.
If we value a Scout’s effort above our own we’ll begin to see the true value of the patrol system at work. If we concentrate on making the patrol method a reality our Scouts will get more than memorable trips and badges out of Scouting.
5. Given the choice Scouts will not do things that result in advancement.
Scouts advance when they do the things that Scouts do. The patrol leaders council is focused on doing what Scouts do, so Scouts will advance. They may advance a little slower or a little faster than they do now, but advancement is only one indication of success.
We need to value the other indications of success at least equally – did the Scouts plan and present their own meeting? Did the plan and carry out their own camping trip? Have they grown more competent and skilled as leaders? Are they gaining an appreciation for responsibility? These are all important indicators too.
6. Our Older Scouts don’t want to work with younger Scouts.
Football players aren’t particularly fond of wind sprints and drills, but eventually they see the value of them. Older Scouts aren’t always excited about leading and instructing younger Scouts, but they reap the same the same benefits of service that we adults experience.
7.We aren’t comfortable with giving Scouts this much power.
Are coaches afraid to give their players too much power? When the team takes to the basketball court the coach stays on the sidelines while the players play the game. The coach isn’t worried that the players are going to start playing soccer or lacrosse on the basketball court because he has taken the time to train the players in the rules and the skills of the game.
We guide our Scouts to lead themselves in the context of Scouting, there are rules and goals to the game that we help them learn and understand. The rules are the Scout oath and law, the goals are forming character-driven, contributing members of our community.
What are the practical, logistic, considerations to putting the patrol method into practice? How does it actually work? In the next post in this series we’ll discuss some ways to apply the patrol system in the 21st century.
This is post number three in this four part series on the patrol method
1. The Character School, 2. The Adult Role, 4. Making it happen
Awesome material, Clarke–thank you! And thank you for the expanded metaphor, Larry–VERY helpful!
To continue the metaphor…
When the Patrols set up their camping area, that’s the field of play. Adult leaders don’t go there. Chalk a line around the whole area. Any adults enter the area its a penalty flag. The Scouts camp, cook, hangout, do their stuff there. Don’t go there.
In a Scout meeting there is an area, part of a room, a whole room, where the Scouts do their thing. Adults don’t go there unless invited. Usually only the SM but sometimes the advancement chair. Otherwise, not adults in there. That’s the field of play. Any adults enter the area its a penalty flag.
When the players walk onto the field of play, it becomes their game. Essentially the coach is now out of play. He is on the sidelines. He can watch. He can even sometimes yell real loud. Too bad. Whether the running back fumbles the ball or not, he is going to fumble or not on his own terms. Not the coach’s. If the wide receiver catches the ball or not he catches it or drops it on his own terms with his own set of skills and his own attitude. Not the coach’s.
The coach can even call the play but once the ball is snapped it’s up to the quarterback (Patrol Leader NOT SPL) to make things happen. Actually to expand the metaphor, the SM is not the coach. He is the athletic director or the manager. He sits behind his desk and is never on the field, not even on the sidelines. The coach is the SPL and the guys on the field are the Patrols.
In an experienced, well trained Troop, the refs are the Instructors and Troop Guides.
In this analogy the SMs job is to understand and implement the program. Basically how things will function and then instructs and trains the leadership.
The main point of this analogy is that the adults (coaches/managers etc.) don’t go on the field of play. They don’t belong there. That’s where the action happens. Same thing with Scouting. Adult leaders don’t go onto the field of play. Stay out. Don’t get a penalty flag on your team.
Yes!! This is the best description I have seen on the concept of coach and player as it relates to scouting.
“The coach can even call the play but once the ball is snapped it’s up to the quarterback (Patrol Leader NOT SPL) to make things happen. Actually to expand the metaphor, the SM is not the coach. He is the athletic director or the manager. He sits behind his desk and is never on the field, not even on the sidelines. The coach is the SPL and the guys on the field are the Patrols. – Larry Geiger”
Even when we know how the program works, we are sometimes lured into what we are familiar with in other parts of life.
We often do envision ourselves as THE coach. We are coaches but only to the SPL. He in turn is coach to the patrol leaders who in turn coach the scouts. Thanks for visualizing that piece that is often left out of the analogy.
Clarke, while I agree with the general concept, I don’t think the sports coach/team analogy is appropriate. While the coach may be on the sidelines, he or she is generally being very directive to the athletes, especially at those of Scout age. There is very little “gentle guiding”, especially during a game, and the coach is generally actively involved in directing the action vs. watching and making suggestions. Additionally, an athlete often can expect to be pulled off the field and sit the bench if his performance isn’t up to standard, or even as good as another athlete; I would hope this would never be a motivator for a Scout to do his best.
So, while I see your point in that coaches aren’t actually on the field/court/etc. playing the game with the athletes, I’d say that the “coaching” relationship between a coach/athlete is quite different from an SM/Scout relationship.
All metaphors fall apart at some point, the sports one does too! The patrol method is kind of like a lot of things but not exactly like anything else.
3. Without our direct oversight Scouts will not do their jobs.
Scouts will do the job as they understand it and our work is helping them understand. If adults are clearly in control regardless of what Scouts do, or adults will do the work for for them Scouts won’t do much. When adults leave Scouts alone and let them get things done, when adults stop interfering, fixing and taking over Scouts will make things happen.
“Will not do their jobs”. There is a strong implication just in the statement itself. The implication is that: I’m the Scoutmaster and I know what their jobs are and they are not doing them!
As a Scoutmaster can you be totally comfortable with a campout on which nothing much happens in the Patrols besides cooking three meals on Saturday and taking an afternoon nap? If so then you can be a SM. If not, you might want to look for a new position.
Think of it this way. You are a dad with a son so you probably have a wife. Your wife has a schedule and she has things for you to do every minute that you are not at work. She has things for you to be doing all day Saturday and Sunday. It’s all there in her head. And yet, you somehow find some time to goof off in the garage or take a nap Sunday afternoon. Good grief, what are you? A slacker 🙂
Now I’m not saying that all we should be doing is napping and cooking (Hmmmmmm, maybe the thought crossed my mind). They are full of energy and they will eventually tell you or the PL or the SPL they are bored or something and ask “what should we do for some fun?”
The point is that you need to be prepared to let them do it their way. It’s not your job to get the job done. It’s you job to train them in the Scouting program.