Rick Seymour
The most interesting aspect of the early Scoutmaster handbooks is the
fact that the BSA did not use the "Patrol System" or "Patrol
Method" for most its first twenty years. The very first mention
comes in the form of a supplement to the Handbook for Scoutmasters, Second
Edition.
This omission is puzzling given William D. Murray's account of the
"careful procedure" involved in creating the first edition:
The preparation of the first issue of this book proceeded slowly in spite of the
insistent demands from the Field for it, in order that the final book might represent the
best thought and procedure. It was published first in a series of pamphlets, which
were made available to the Field and, in 1913, 10,000 copies in proof form were printed.
The Executive Board authorized the distribution of these, without cost, to the men
actively engaged in Scouting at that time, and authorized the sale of the proof edition at
$.25 each. At that time, there was considerable concern as to whether the book would
meet the needs of all the men in the Field. By circular letter and through the
magazine SCOUTING, all of the active Scoutmasters and other Scout Officials, were urged to
submit their suggestions as to changes. No radical changes were suggested, and in
1914 the first edition was printed [The History of the Boy Scouts of America,
pages 397-398].
It is surprising that not a single person in the "Field" noticed that the
central principle of Scouting, the "Patrol System," was missing.
The Six Principles of Boy-Work takes its place, for
which there is no
acknowledged source.
Most likely this theory is borrowed from an organization such as
the YMCA. Clearly it is not based on any of Baden-Powell's work because in
the "Principles of Boy-Work" scheme the "Scout Master" is clearly in
control.
To "get in on the deal," a boy had to agree that the Scout Master
decides "what the game is and how it is to be
played":
First, there must be a clear plan well thought out, progressive in its stages
with an aim for each stage. In other words no man need try to work with a group of
boys unless he knows what he wants to do,
not only in outline but in detail. He must have these
details in mind and so well worked out in his thought knowing exactly what comes
next....as to be master of the situation at all times and to be
the recognized leader....That is to say, he should tell the boys what the game is and how
it is to be played, getting their approval and agreement to get in on the deal
[emphasis added].
The Principle following this one indicates that once the adult leader
gives the boys his plan, he should "let them do as much of it as they can and will do
under adequate supervision...." In other words, he lets them figure out their own way
of carrying out the Scout Master's creative plan.
The Handbook warns that this rare opportunity should not be confused with "pure
self-government in which the boys are entirely the dictators of their policies and
activities [which] can not be thought of, because such a course is so generally fatal to
successful development."
This early form of program planning is bad enough, but nowhere is the absence of the
Patrol Method more obvious than in the suggested intrusion of the "Scout Master"
into the forming of Patrols. The amusing theories set forth in "Grouping Standards" are based on "the experience of boy workers in various parts of the country" rather than the experience of
Scouters in England or the writings of Baden-Powell. They suggest grouping boys by age, by "the school
boy/wage-earning boy standard," or even by height and weight! It
finally suggests that "the best and most satisfactory way of grouping boys is by
their interest." Nowhere, however, is the faintest hint of letting the
boys group themselves!
The "Principles of Boy-Work" require the Scout Master to distrust the judgment of the Patrol
Leader and to control the activities of the Patrol himself. When the
Scout Master delegates decisions, he does so to the entire group rather than to
the Patrol Leaders!
The Patrol Leader and the Scout Master
Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do
not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the
troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is,
in the last analysis, the
responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader.
There is also a danger, in magnifying the patrol leader in this way, of inordinately
swelling the ordinary boy's head. The activities of the patrol should
not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader, and if the Scout Master
wants to delegate the work of the patrol and troop, the whole group should reach a
decision in regard to the plan [p. 85, emphasis added].
In the following passage we see the natural result of ignoring the Patrol Method.
As might be predicted, the addition of each new Patrol Leader adds to the
"Scout Master's" burden, rather than easing it.
Every patrol leader that a Scout Master has
increases his responsibility all the more, and the addition of a patrol to his troop, with
its corresponding new patrol leader, means just a little more supervisory work for
him [p. 85].
Likewise, look for the lack of understanding of the Patrol Method in this
suggestion:
Lack of Interest in Patrol or Troop Meetings
Inability to sustain interest in the patrol meetings
is given by some Scout Masters for failure to get boys to become enthusiastic in
Scouting. The trouble here seems to depend largely on the part of the Scout Master
and no doubt, arises from the fact that the Scout Master makes no program for
a patrol or troop meeting. The situation will probably change
materially just as quickly as the Scout Master knows what he is going to do when he meets
his boys [p. 86, emphasis added].
Own Your Own Copy:
The
Methods of Scouting
