Keep FIRST in Michigan (FiM) from killing FIRST Lego League

[adias.angel]

Hi everyone,
For the last year our first affiliate partner in Michigan has been setting non-standard age ranges for our FLL and FTC programs. They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.

We need the FIRST community to help to bring these issues out in the open and make sure that this doesn't happen in other states. We are asking US FIRST to require all affiliate partners to follow the age requirements as publish by US FIRST. If you have a moment, please consider signing our petition:

https://www.change.org/p/us-first-first-in-michigan-fim-require-standard-age-ranges-for-all-first-affiliate-partners

The more signatures we get, the better chance we will have of getting US FIRST to hear our case. Thanks for your support, Carla

[Michael Corsetto]

Do you have any data to support that FiM is "killing" FLL?

You have made emotional and anecdotal cases for disagreeing with the structure FiM has established. Do you have data to support this petition?

Namely, here are some basic data points to look at:


Jr. FLL Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FLL Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FTC Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FRC Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally


These statistics shouldn't be too hard to find for someone who knows where to look.

The results of this information could then be extrapolated to students impacted by the progression of FIRST programs in Michigan, and an informed conclusion as to the effectiveness of FiM's model could be better evaluated.

I'm very interested in hearing some data that supports or refutes the effectiveness of the FiM model.

-Mike

[MichaelMcQuinn]

Do have a reason to why they are doing it? After all, I'm sure they are more interested in starting more teams than restrict them.

[Basel A]

Okay, just to be totally clear here (and the petition makes this relatively clear), FiM is not killing FLL. FiM has the position that FLL should be elementary schools only, FTC should be middle, and FRC should be high. Therefore there is less support for teams that deviate from this (although there's nothing FiM can do to teams that register despite not following FiM's structure).

Now, I'm aware of very reasonable opposition to this position. I know our FRC team is considering starting some intra-team VEX/FTC teams, and FiM's preferred structure does make us more likely to go with VEX. Does that mean FiM is necessarily wrong in their position? That's up for everybody to decide. I doubt we'll hear FiM's side of the story because their decision-maker(s) don't tend to get involved on this forum.

[adias.angel]

Do you have any data to support that FiM is "killing" FLL?

You have made emotional and anecdotal cases for disagreeing with the structure FiM has established. Do you have data to support this petition?

Namely, here are some basic data points to look at:


Jr. FLL Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FLL Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FTC Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FRC Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally


These statistics shouldn't be too hard to find for someone who knows where to look.

The results of this information could then be extrapolated to students impacted by the progression of FIRST programs in Michigan, and an informed conclusion as to the effectiveness of FiM's model could be better evaluated.

I'm very interested in hearing some data that supports or refutes the effectiveness of the FiM model.

-Mike

Hi Mike,
Team growth would be hard to quantify as a state grant helped new teams start while some old ones have left due to the changes. So I am unable to define the difference between the two. I don't want to give false information.

The biggest problem is that myself and other coaches are watching Michigan kids who are not ready for the next level of FIRST pushed into these teams or simply leave the program. The overlapping ages as specified by the US FIRST organization allowed the kids that one extra year or two they needed to be a bit more prepared to move up. By removing the overlap they have put all students under a blanket statement with no room to accommodate any special needs.

This is my 12th year coaching and over the years about 1 in 4 of our students who would not have been ready to move up to the next level are now pushed up to FTC by these rules.

[Allison K]

Do you have any data to support that FiM is "killing" FLL?

You have made emotional and anecdotal cases for disagreeing with the structure FiM has established. Do you have data to support this petition?

Namely, here are some basic data points to look at:


Jr. FLL Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FLL Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FTC Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally
FRC Team Growth Annually in FIM compared to Nationally


These statistics shouldn't be too hard to find for someone who knows where to look.

The results of this information could then be extrapolated to students impacted by the progression of FIRST programs in Michigan, and an informed conclusion as to the effectiveness of FiM's model could be better evaluated.

I'm very interested in hearing some data that supports or refutes the effectiveness of the FiM model.

-Mike

I love data as much as the next person on CD, but the key problem in this instance is that growth statistics will be heavily skewed by the state grant money that's been thrown at FRC and FTC the last two years.

In any case, the narrow eligibility for FTC has been a point of frustration for me for years now, and lowering the FLL cutoff age is also a disappointment. I feel like 5th graders won't be able to get the full depth of experience out of FLL at 10 years old with just one prior year of competition, especially given the breadth of strategy involved in both the robot game and the research project.

[MichaelMcQuinn]

Okay, just to be totally clear here (and the petition makes this relatively clear), FiM is not killing FLL. FiM has the position that FLL should be elementary schools only, FTC should be middle, and FRC should be high. Therefore there is less support for teams that deviate from this (although there's nothing FiM can do to teams that register despite not following FiM's structure).

Now, I'm aware of very reasonable opposition to this position. I know our FRC team is considering starting some intra-team VEX/FTC teams, and FiM's preferred structure does make us more likely to go with VEX. Does that mean FiM is necessarily wrong in their position? That's up for everybody to decide. I doubt we'll hear FiM's side of the story because their decision-maker(s) don't tend to get involved on this forum.

Is it shown that deviating from the "recommend" as a team more successful?

[adias.angel]

Does that mean FiM is necessarily wrong in their position? That's up for everybody to decide.

As part of the FIRST organization, teams across the country should have a similar experience. Allowing certain state to deviate from what the national criteria is starting to cause an issue. We have coaches forming teams with the national age standards, only to find out later that Michigan is not following the standards and they are not allowed to participate.

[Allison K]

Okay, just to be totally clear here (and the petition makes this relatively clear), FiM is not killing FLL. FiM has the position that FLL should be elementary schools only, FTC should be middle, and FRC should be high. Therefore there is less support for teams that deviate from this (although there's nothing FiM can do to teams that register despite not following FiM's structure).
...

An email went out earlier this week that made it pretty clear that teams outside of the FiM progression will not be supported (or possibly not allowed?). The beginning of the message is below...

Teams
As the FIRST website opens for registration of FLL and FTC, I want to clarify how the Michigan progression differs from the US FIRST progression. Teams inside of Michigan must follow our progression. This is the only way to have team within Michigan.

Here is our progression:
FRC High School only
FTC Middle School only
(as defined by your school district)
FLL Late Elementary
(4th grade to end of your elementary schools)
Jr. FLL Early Elementary K-3

While no new middle school FLL teams may be started, there are some middle school FLL teams that have been around since before we started FTC. By next year (Sept 2016) they will all have to be aligned.

So even if we were to register a middle school FLL team so that we could get a field set up kit we still wouldn't have competition opportunities, which puts quite a damper on the experience.

[Madison]

Are the Affiliates doing this with FIRST's approval?

[AdamHeard]

Are they specifically disallowing teams from forming? If so, how?

If not, are they merely not supporting teams that don't fit such criteria?

[Andrew Schreiber]

I love data as much as the next person on CD, but the key problem in this instance is that growth statistics will be heavily skewed by the state grant money that's been thrown at FRC and FTC the last two years.


So, what you're saying is that this issue cannot be quantified or proved to be an issue using anything other than anecdotes and opinions?

Disclaimer - I've always thought the FLL age going through 14 was wrong, an 8 yr old cannot compete against a 14 yr old. FTC has always felt weird to me getting shoe horned in a space that directly competes with two programs. If I were to be granted unlimited power to make decisions on these programs I'd probably have FLL (8-12), FTC (11-15) FRC (14-18) as the suggested ranges which closely matches what FiM is doing from the sounds of it.

[adias.angel]

Are they specifically disallowing teams from forming? If so, how?

Teams that fall outside of the age criteria are not allowed to compete. Our FTC hit this problem last year when we had two 9th graders on the team.

[Basel A]

An email went out earlier this week that made it pretty clear that teams outside of the FiM progression will not be supported (or possibly not allowed?). The beginning of the message is below...

So even if we were to register a middle school FLL team so that we could get a field set up kit we still wouldn't have competition opportunities, which puts quite a damper on the experience.

I don't have any special knowledge, but I don't see how a team could be stopped from registering for all events. FiM is in charge of all FLL, FTC, FRC events in Michigan, so it seems like that team would have to compete out-of-state. But not allow the team to register at all? I don't think that's possible.

Also, we all know Michigan (/FiM) plays by its own rules sometimes. My thinking would be that FIRST allows regions to do their own thing as a test to see if those regional ideas are good. For example, the district model was pretty good.

[adias.angel]

Disclaimer - I've always thought the FLL age going through 14 was wrong, an 8 yr old cannot compete against a 14 yr old.

The power of FLL is not from the competition but from the experience. Going through the research, the leadership and the robot are all part of an great learning and growing experience. I have students that are in 4th grade and it has never bothered them once that there are 14 year old students on the team. They are very happy to learn from the older kids and grow with them.

[cbale2000]

From what I have heard in passing over the years, FiM feels that the High School FTC program detracts from potential FRC teams, as running an FTC team is much cheaper and thus more appealing to many high schools.
Since FiMs (apparent) goal is to expand FRC as much as possible in Michigan, they pushed the other programs down to lower age levels to prevent overlap.

That said, IMO one of the reasons FTC has had such a hard time getting off the ground (given that it is the smallest of the FIRST programs), is because the age overlap prevents it from having it's own niche (FLL is generally viewed as FIRST's middle school program, while FRC is viewed as the high school program). If FiM can get enough middle schools on board, you could actually end up seeing a huge increase in the number of FTC teams down the road.

Whether this policy is sustainable or not remains to be seen.

[Michael Corsetto]

I love data as much as the next person on CD, but the key problem in this instance is that growth statistics will be heavily skewed by the state grant money that's been thrown at FRC and FTC the last two years.

In any case, the narrow eligibility for FTC has been a point of frustration for me for years now, and lowering the FLL cutoff age is also a disappointment. I feel like 5th graders won't be able to get the full depth of experience out of FLL at 10 years old with just one prior year of competition, especially given the breadth of strategy involved in both the robot game and the research project.

I understand that FRC and FTC have benefited significantly from the State Grant money. Is there a possibility this grant money was rewarded due to the effectiveness and potential that the State saw in FiM's structure for the FIRST Progression of Programs? (This is an honest question, as I do not know the details surrounding the grant. I just don't want to write off the possibility that the growth is fueled by a grant that was rewarded, in part, by the advantageous competition structure established by FiM. The two could be related.)

Regardless, FIRST Programs in Michigan have been under FiM's leadership for 7 years now. Growth Numbers over 7 years (as compared to the rest of the country) will give insight into whether or not FiM has proven to be an effective steering committee for either the entire progression of FIRST Programs, only some of them, or none of at all.

This data would in no way discount the experiences and trends each Coach/Mentor has seen in their teams/regions/spheres of influence. I'm simply interested in the macro-level data that can provide a different perspective.

-Mike

[Andrew Schreiber]

The power of FLL is not from the competition but from the experience. Going through the research, the leadership and the robot are all part of an great learning and growing experience. I have students that are in 4th grade and it has never bothered them once that there are 14 year old students on the team. They are very happy to learn from the older kids and grow with them.

I'm an alumni of the program, I know the experience quite well. I can tell you by the time I was 13 in the program I was BORED. This jives with other folks I know of who, after years in FLL, wanted to just move on to bigger robots. (This was all pre FTC/Vex)

[adias.angel]

I don't have any special knowledge, but I don't see how a team could be stopped from registering for all events. FiM is in charge of all FLL, FTC, FRC events in Michigan, so it seems like that team would have to compete out-of-state. But not allow the team to register at all? I don't think that's possible.

Also, we all know Michigan (/FiM) plays by its own rules sometimes. My thinking would be that FIRST allows regions to do their own thing as a test to see if those regional ideas are good. For example, the district model was pretty good.

We can register but at the tournament we are told that we are not allowed to compete. We did try to go out of state last year but because our address was from Michigan we were told that they could not guarantee us a spot at a competition.

I agree and also worry that this might be a pilot program that will have consequences across the country and/or world. That is why we are trying to get people to speak out now so that FIRST hears us. I know a lot of coaches from all my years here in Michigan and many are afraid to speak out against these changes out of fear that their teams will be punished for it.

[adias.angel]

I'm an alumni of the program, I know the experience quite well. I can tell you by the time I was 13 in the program I was BORED. This jives with other folks I know of who, after years in FLL, wanted to just move on to bigger robots. (This was all pre FTC/Vex)

I agree for some of our students at 13 it's best we move them up to FTC. With both Michigan and US FIRST guidelines we are able to do that.

Michigan on the other hand is now limiting and leaving out the students who are not ready to move up. All students learn at different paces and some are simple not ready at 13 to move up. I don't want to see those children left out.

[Michael Corsetto]

I know a lot of coaches from all my years here in Michigan and many are afraid to speak out against these changes out of fear that their teams will be punished for it.

I'm trying to imagine Jim Zondag with a baseball bat ready to bust some knee caps, but I can't quite picture it...

[Andrew Schreiber]

I agree for some of our students at 13 it's best we move them up to FTC. With both Michigan and US FIRST guidelines we are able to do that.

Michigan on the other hand is now limiting and leaving out the students who are not ready to move up. All students learn at different paces and some are simple not ready at 13 to move up. I don't want to see those children left out.


So we're not arguing IF there should be a cutoff, since you clearly are ok with a cutoff as has existed for nearly 2 decades. You're arguing is that FiM's cutoff is too low? So this we can put something more than an opinion.

What are the primary differences between FLL and FTC from a student development stand point? Please be specific.

Based on those, what is the typical age at which 80% of students have reached this development?

What, if any sort of accommodations need to be made for the 20% of students that don't reach this checkpoint? For example: an appeals process to "you're in 9th grade you can't compete in FLL even if you emotionally aren't ready for FRC"



Edit: Corsetto - try harder. The mental image is totally worth it.

[Loose Screw]

FiM has always tried new things for Michigan. The district system was tested in Michigan, and FiM has turned it into a very fluid system. MSC this year is proof of that. 101 of 102 teams having an average of over 100 points shows the level of competition that Michigan has, and I think there's a lot going on in the entire FiM program that assists with this.

These statements are my own and may not be the opinions of FiM

I personally love the system that FiM has. I think this system should be incorporated by FIRST for these reasons:

I believe this system works out so well because every group is interacting with each other. FRC students coach JFLL teams and mentor FLL/FTC teams, and FTC teams are encouraged to mentor FLL teams.

JFLL kids learn are introduced to research and legos, FLL kids learn autonomous programming and presentation skills, FTC kids learn how to build a robot that can directly compete against others, and explore community outreach, and FRC kids do all of this at a very high competitive level. Each program builds upon the previous, and this is why Michigan FRC teams have that level of quality.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I know JFLL, FTC, and FRC teams have increased in FiM every year for a while now. The last FTC State event had to be split into two divisions and move into a new venue, and MSC had 102 teams in it.

As for FLL shrinking, I do not know if that's true or not. As for myself, I would have loved to have joined FTC as a student if there was a team in my school already. The gap between FLL and FRC is huge, and I would recommend every student to follow FiM's guidelines.

Having coached a FTC team that went to Iowa City Super-Regionals, I can go on in great detail of the difference between High School FTC teams and Jr. High School FTC teams. However, I think those students are missing out on the bigger challenge which is FRC.

TL;DR:
I believe FiM has an excellent system, and FIRST should adopt these guidelines. FIRST's goal is to increase the quanity and quality of FRC teams, and this system is the best way of doing so.

[Jalerre]

I didn't start doing robotics until my freshman year of high school. I did not go through all the levels of FIRST. While I did not start with FTC, I started with Vex. There was no way I could have jumped straight to FRC that year. Vex gave me a solid knowledge base about the basics of robotics and the competition environment. It would have been way too intimidating to have started in FRC.

Just my 2¢.

[Michael Corsetto]

FIRST's goal is to increase the quanity and quality of FRC teams, and this system is the best way of doing so.

This actually isn't FIRST's goal, although it might be a result of FIRST pursuing their stated Mission and Vision (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision).

FiM has been more explicit in their goals to grow and sustain FRC in their state.

[Ed Law]

Hi everyone,
For the last year our first affiliate partner in Michigan has been setting non-standard age ranges for our FLL and FTC programs. They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.

We need the FIRST community to help to bring these issues out in the open and make sure that this doesn't happen in other states. We are asking US FIRST to require all affiliate partners to follow the age requirements as publish by US FIRST. If you have a moment, please consider signing our petition:

https://www.change.org/p/us-first-first-in-michigan-fim-require-standard-age-ranges-for-all-first-affiliate-partners

The more signatures we get, the better chance we will have of getting US FIRST to hear our case. Thanks for your support, Carla
I believe you are violating CD rules for creating a separate account to post this. It sounds to me that you are part of a FIRST team.
I am glad you are bringing something to discuss on CD. However using a sensational title and less than accurate facts and no data to convince people is not the way to do it.
If you want to discuss this, please state all the facts and not just the ones that you want people to know. People outside of Michigan are not going to understand it completely. You are using scare tactics and asking people to sign a petition without giving them accurate and complete facts.

[Mike Schreiber]

They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.


I am a firm believer that what works in one region may not work in another. FiM's model works for them. They are not forcing it on you. Why require them to follow what you believe is the right model.

Edit: Woops I misread OP. They have forced this on you. Disregard my argument.

Do you have any data to support that FiM is "killing" FLL?

You have made emotional and anecdotal cases for disagreeing with the structure FiM has established. Do you have data to support this petition?


The above argument has nothing to do with growth of FRC. So I don't think data is really necessary to support this claim. Can't really argue with how someone else feels about a decision.

The thread title implies that Michigan will "kill" FLL with its model. I think it's fair to say the title is quite the hyberbole and that Michigan's numbers prove it is not killing the program.

[Michael Corsetto]

...Michigan's numbers prove...

What numbers?

[Mike Schreiber]

What numbers?

Michigan had 454 FLL teams last year. Not 'Killed'. I don't have historic data.

[IKE]

Do you have any data to support that FiM is "killing" FLL?

You have made emotional and anecdotal cases for disagreeing with the structure FiM has established. Do you have data to support this petition?
...snip...
I'm very interested in hearing some data that supports or refutes the effectiveness of the FiM model.

-Mike

From this link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ai4NV3TncTpmdDhrOTRGRGNzTU5EcXgxTmlJQVRTZ VE&gid=3

2012-2013 FiM FTC Teams: 57
2013-2014 FiM FTC Teams: 166
2014-2015 FiM FTC Teams: 203

For FLL, I could only get data from last season (454) as well as teams that have already signed up for next year (27).

I as well as many others do not appreciate the inflamatory title (though I imagine it helps get attention). "FiM is growing FTC and FLL, but not following the normal FIRST rules in regards to age limits, but has hugely supported via adminisitering state and coproate grants" just doesn't have the same ring...

I recommend discussing the policy with those in charge. I don't think you will get them to change their minds, but you may get a better understanding of their perspective.

[BSV]

Michigan had 454 FLL teams last year. Not 'Killed'. I don't have historic data.

The telling number will be the number of FLL teams/kids involved in FLL next year, since (as I understand it) this change is for next season.

[Ed Law]

Michigan had 352 FLL teams in 2012 and 328 FLL teams in 2013. My numbers may be off by a little but these were the numbers last reported on the FiM website during those two years.

[BSV]

I probably have a different perspective than those from a pure engineering background on this board. As a scientist and an FLL coach, I am impressed with the variety and ingenuity of the research/innovation put forth by FLL teams each year. The non-robot-building part of the competition is something that is only emphasized in FLL, and I don't think that most younger kids (3rd-5th grade) can reach their full potential -- or even have the proper skills -- to create a high-level project.

Because everyone on the team is forced to answer questions from the judges, I've had a group of six very shy 4th-6th graders who turned into outgoing 6th-8th graders by their 3rd year who were self-motivated and able to make presentations to and answer questions from any adults they met. I've had the good fortune to meet the kids and coaches of many top FLL teams from around the world the last two years, and they are a very well-rounded bunch.

I'd suggest reading some of the studies from Brandeis University about FLL and its impact, located on the FIRST Impacts page:

http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/impact

I hope that the folks at FiM, who in many ways set the direction of FIRST programs, have done some serious research into what is best for the kids and can share those data with the coaches/parents of the middle school students who will be affected by this drastic deviation from FLL requirements in the rest of the world. If FiM is the organization implementing the change, then they are the ones who should be presenting data on why it is needed rather than making a top-down decision that is forced on everyone just to make it fit a certain age/program progression. It seems like a majority of folks on here hate when top-down decisions from FIRST HQ are pressed onto everyone with no input or consensus from the community, so I am not sure why this would be any different than that.

Travis

[Sperkowsky]

Our school district is looking at expanding first to the other schools and this is the structure they want to follow. As a small district we have to keep to one program per school and Im sure this is what fim is thinking too. Don't see anything wrong with it.

[Madison]

Our school district is looking at expanding first to the other schools and this is the structure they want to follow. As a small district we have to keep to one program per school and Im sure this is what fim is thinking too. Don't see anything wrong with it.

You don't see a difference between electing to implement programs in the same manner as someone else and being prohibited from implementing them differently?

[Sperkowsky]

You don't see a difference between electing to implement programs in the same manner as someone else and being prohibited from implementing them differently?
I agree with FIM's structure to begin with and I think it's too late but I would vote on first themselves adopting it. Program overlaps never make much sense for instance.

I have a friend from gymnastics who goes to a school where they have a large frc program and 3 ftc programs. He was involved with ftc throughout middle school and loved it. Going into high school he continued ftc and expected to go to frc when the ftc season ended. However they got to the next round of competition. So now he has the option to go away from a program he has been doing for 3 years when they need it most or to graduate to the more advanced program to be a rookie member. With a lot of thinking he chose to do ftc for one last year. The next year he started with the same thing. Doing ftc and expecting to go to frc for the season. However the same thing happened. They made it to the next level and bam he had to choose ftc again once again missing out on the frc experience. This year I convinced him to come over to frc however now he is starting out doing frc as a junior. He lost 2 years of an experience that is much more intense, advanced and life changing. Not to say ftc isnt any of those things but it doesn't compare to frc.

That's where my view comes
from.

[Michael Corsetto]

... an experience that is much more intense, advanced and life changing. Not to say ftc isnt any of those things but it doesn't compare to frc.

I recommend reading some of the great Summaries posted on FIRST Impact Page (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/impact). In Particular, the 2011 Summary comparing FRC and FTC impact (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Impact/Brandeis_Studies/FTC-FRC_Cross_Program_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_201 1.pdf). The two compare quite equally in may categories. Of course, there are some notable differences between the two programs. I highly recommend reading through and seeing for yourself.

-Mike

[Sperkowsky]

I recommend reading some of the great Summaries posted on FIRST Impact Page (http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/impact). In Particular, the 2011 Summary comparing FRC and FTC impact (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Impact/Brandeis_Studies/FTC-FRC_Cross_Program_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_201 1.pdf). The two compare quite equally in may categories. Of course, there are some notable differences between the two programs. I highly recommend reading through and seeing for yourself.

-Mike
I read through it. I can honestly say I was surprised so thanks for the read. However it all depends on the program. I can see how in an frc team people can get swept to the side. In my team we have about 10 regular members less then the average ftc team. When I say regular I mean more then once a week.

Everyone has a part on our team and its usually somewhat substantial. Fgs look at my job list. However when I go to competitions and see the members sitting in the stands who don't know the difference between autonomous and teleop I see where this article is.

Ftc seems to be on average more engaging but frc if engaged properly can be much closer to the real world and provide experiences like none other.

[ehochstein]

I agree with FIM's structure to begin with and I think it's too late but I would vote on FIRST themselves adopting it. Program overlaps never make much sense for instance.


I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)*, so we should create a law mandating that everyone believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one gets a choice, you're forced to do it.

*This post is purely an example, I will not admit to believing in or not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[gblake]

Hmmm,

Is this discussion about FIRST robotics programs? If it is, I think I know where to find the rules governing them.

Or

Is this discussion about Michigan robotics programs? I don't know where to find the rules governing them; but I would be interested in seeing them.

AND...

I'm starting to think my prediction that blurring the line between programs governed by FIRST rules, and programs governed by state rules (see the two or three CD threads with a theme of Yippee! our State has a robotics championship sanctioned by the state educational system...) would cause train wrecks; is being confirmed.

The sort of confusion being discussed in this thread is what you risk when when you try to blend a program like FIRST with with one run by some other organization that has overlapping, but not identical goals.

The risk is especially high when that other organization is (or is tightly tied to) a state educational bureaucracy (aka something with a lot of psychic momentum, and plans of its own). Remember, FRC/FTC/FLL are *not* *not* *not* school programs.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

I personally believe that if I can't find "it" in a ____ rulebook, or in an officially published exception (published by ____ and not by anyone else), then "it" is not a rule at ____ events.
Complementing that, if an event enforces rules that aren't ____ rules, the event isn't a ___ event.
You can fill in the blank with whatever entity you want: Little League Baseball, Prince William County Intermural Basketball, Dancing With the Stars, FIRST, VRC, or whatever you want.

Blake

[Lisa Perez]

Before this past season, I coached 8 years-worth of 7th and 8th grade FLL teams. Like many others upon hearing about the age guidelines, I was extremely concerned about the readiness of late elementary school students for the FLL program and middle school students for the FTC program. I gave those age guidelines a try with 2 FLL teams and 1 FTC team this past season. I'll tell you what - Those students had an absolute blast and have been raving about going through the FLL-FTC-FRC progression.

My main point is - If the resources are there, give the guidelines a try! You might find yourself pleasantly surprised about how well things go.

[evanperryg]

I believe you are violating CD rules for creating a separate account to post this. It sounds to me that you are part of a FIRST team.
I am glad you are bringing something to discuss on CD. However using a sensational title and less than accurate facts and no data to convince people is not the way to do it.
If you want to discuss this, please state all the facts and not just the ones that you want people to know. People outside of Michigan are not going to understand it completely. You are using scare tactics and asking people to sign a petition without giving them accurate and complete facts.

Thank you. The entire starting post was rapid-fire generalization, which is both annoying and misleading. If anything, FiM is making a disjointed, poorly organized system into a streamlined, effective one. If FIRST wants to have a progression of programs that actually works, then FiM is going in the right direction by changing the age ranges. It'll probably be a rough adjustment, but it's an adjustment for the better.
FiM isn't killing FLL, here's what they're doing:
1)giving FLL a different age range, one that will even out competition between teams with older and younger students.
2)smoothing out the progression of programs to have no strange gray areas.
3)offering FTC the opportunity to no longer be that awkward stage between FLL and FRC by giving it its own unique age range.
4)pushing students to learn more about complex problem solving and critical thinking at a younger age by putting them in a more competitive setting at a younger age.

[gblake]

... give the guidelines a try! .... Are they guidelines or rules?
... If FIRST ..., then FiM is ....Are you talking about FIRST programs or FiM programs?

FIRST has a set of programs and FIRST publishes rules that govern them.

What does FiM have/do?

I realize that I am being a gadfly, but these questions are the elephant in the room.

[kgzak]

I feel like 5th graders won't be able to get the full depth of experience out of FLL at 10 years old with just one prior year of competition, especially given the breadth of strategy involved in both the robot game and the research project.

I don't really agree with this. Enigma (FRC 2075, FTC 5385, FTC 5391) has two grade school FTC teams and their mentors are the high school FRC team students and some parents. FTC 5391 made it to worlds this year by way of a super regional. I think this shows that grade school students can be mature enough to compete at an FTC level.

About the fact that FIM seems to be pushing out FLL, I personally like the idea of FTC as a lower grade level. I know the big thing is that it costs more to run an FRC team than an FTC team and that there are schools who can't afford to run an FRC team but Michigan has never had very many FTC teams. FRC is growing very rapidly in Michigan and a lot of it is due to the grant money that has come recently but as far as I can remember Michigan has always been a state with a lot of FRC teams. FIM's goal currently (as well as FIRST in general) is to get a robotics program in every high school. FIM wants an FRC team in every high school. By putting an FRC team in every high school there is no more need for FTC teams in the high schools so why not make it in the grade schools?

On the flip side of this, Michigan is turning from being one of the most competitive states to compete at to the the state who has some elite teams, a bunch of average teams and some below average teams. Granted if these teams survive they will get better with experience but many of these teams won't survive. The money just isn't there. These teams might be able to survive as an FTC team though which would give the students the ability to have some sort of STEM hands on education that they otherwise might not have. So maybe we do have FTC and FRC in the high schools, one is for the schools who can afford the expensive nature of FRC and the other for the teams who can not.

I know that I wouldn't be the same person I am today without the FIRST experience I had, but I don't know if the FTC experience would have effected me as much as the FRC experience did. But some experience is better than no experience.

[GaryVoshol]

I believe you are violating CD rules for creating a separate account to post this. It sounds to me that you are part of a FIRST team.

I have confirmed that this is a new account for a unique person, not a duplicate account.

[Nemo]

FIRST should create an actual middle school program.

It's super awkward to use FTC as a middle school program, because then you have 12 year olds competing with 18 year olds. Making FTC middle school across the board is a bad option because that would remove access to FIRST at thousands of high schools.

As for FiM, they're at least trying to adjust the middle school issue in a way that they have available. I think their solutions is among the best options available to them. It helps that MI has funding for FRC registration fees, so the access issue is not as bad as in most places.

Leaving middle school kids hanging like this is a big mistake. While FIRST drops off the earth in middle school, athletics and fine arts are continuing right along, and kids get established in those activities instead. FIRST programs are competing with those activities for peoples' energy.

[gblake]

FIRST should create an actual middle school program.

It's super awkward to use FTC as a middle school program, because then you have 12 year olds competing with 18 year olds. Making FTC middle school across the board is a bad option because that would remove access to FIRST at thousands of high schools.

As for FiM, they're at least trying to adjust the middle school issue in a way that they have available. I think their solutions is among the best options available to them. It helps that MI has funding for FRC registration fees, so the access issue is not as bad as in most places.

Leaving middle school kids hanging like this is a big mistake. While FIRST drops off the earth in middle school, athletics and fine arts are continuing right along, and kids get established in those activities instead. FIRST programs are competing with those activities for peoples' energy. You make it sound as if FIRST is the only STEM option on the planet. Students need a variety of STEM options and a variety of Arts options, and ...

The STEM choices aren't (had better not be) FIRST or nothing. If they are, FIRST and its participants and supporters have failed.

Blake

[cadandcookies]

While I won't hold it against Michigan for running things their own way, I'm very much opposed to extending their rules for the progression of FIRST programs across every program in the states or outside of them. Telling everyone, everywhere, that FRC is the only high school robotics program available to them in the FIRST progression isn't a sensible approach for many areas of the United States, much less the world. There are many communities for which FRC is prohibitively expensive-- telling them the only FIRST program they can do is leaving high school students in those areas with fewer options than they had before, which isn't good for anyone.

Michigan may be able to afford this model because of their state grants, but most everywhere else that's simply impractical. If I have a group of high schoolers in a town that has less than 500 people living in it, it's ridiculous to expect them to pony up for an FRC team. Yes, I'm aware that VEX or BEST are out there, but I don't think it aligns with FIRST's goals to say "Sorry, but you don't fit into our model, go somewhere else." FIRST has and is being run as a very inclusive and flexible organization. Regional partners have a good deal of freedom to run programs in their areas how they see fit, and I see no reason to change that at this point.

[Nemo]

You make it sound as if FIRST is the only STEM option on the planet. Students need a variety of STEM options and a variety of Arts options, and ...

The STEM choices aren't (had better not be) FIRST or nothing. If they are, FIRST and its participants and supporters have failed.

Blake

I agree with that, but it doesn't change my opinion that FIRST should create a middle school program.

[dtengineering]

If FiM has raised/found/scrounged/etc. funds, then it is reasonable that they should be able to distribute them as they see fit. If you want FiM support, then you have to play by FiM's rules.

If they are holding FIRST events, however, they have to follow FIRST's rules. If FIRST doesn't enforce their rules in Michigan, then they lose the moral authority (if not the legal authority) to enforce those rules in other areas.

Personally I believe that FTC is very appropriate for high school students, and, like VEX, is arguably educationally more sound than FRC in many respects.

And I will point out that VEX and VEX IQ are just two of the many excellent alternatives to FIRST branded programs. If you don't like FiM's approach, the best way to vote is with your feet. Nothing gets an event organizer to pay attention more quickly than having half of their teams walk away....

Jason

[Gregor]

I'm saving a longer post for later, but anyone who thinks that 13 and 14 year olds are beyond FLL at this point are not approaching FLL from a competative angle. There are so many things still to learn, and every year I'm floored with the new stuff the kids on my team come up with. I'm even more floored when I dare to go on Youtube and see what some of the top teams have done.

Remember that 14 is only the age cap in North America due to the prevalence of FTC and FRC teams, it's 16 globally. If I had the choice I would have absolutely continued with FLL for another two years (in addition to FRC mind you), and I like to think of myself as a fairly competent mechanical student.

I'd be interested in seeing some of the FLL student and alumni testimonials FiM gathered before approaching this new model.

If they are holding FIRST events, however, they have to follow FIRST's rules. If FIRST doesn't enforce their rules in Michigan, then they lose the moral authority (if not the legal authority) to enforce those rules in other areas.

FLL events are very much run by how their organizers want, unlike FRC.

In the Toronto region, there are 3 events only open to Toronto District School Board teams. Community teams ect. have to go to other events, even though they payed to be a team and follow all the same rules as the TDSB teams.

[dtengineering]

FLL events are very much run by how their organizers want, unlike FRC.

In the Toronto region, there are 3 events only open to Toronto District School Board teams. Community teams ect. have to go to other events, even though they payed to be a team and follow all the same rules as the TDSB teams.

Didn't know that, thanks. FLL and FTC pretty much died off here in BC a few years back, so I'm not up on that part of the rules. I know that FIRST did like to enforce the "no showing other cool robot competitions at our events" rule when their last event partner invited a few VEX teams to present at an FLL event. Come to think of it, that's part of the reason that FLL shut down. They lost their event partner.

VEX is going great, though!

Jason

[philso]

FiM is dictating to all FLL teams in their "territory" what the rules will be and that they are re-aligning the age group boundaries to suit a school-based bureaucracy. This may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing. Unfortunately, or fortunately, they have no jurisdiction in other territories. Their change will create more disparity in the age ranges seen when teams from their territory go to the World Festival or any of the Invitationals not under their control. My understanding of why FIRST allows 16 year-olds outside of North America to participate in FLL because, until recently, they did not offer FTC and FRC events in most of the Rest of the World.


I'm saving a longer post for later, but anyone who thinks that 13 and 14 year olds are beyond FLL at this point are not approaching FLL from a competative angle. There are so many things still to learn, and every year I'm floored with the new stuff the kids on my team come up with. I'm even more floored when I dare to go on Youtube and see what some of the top teams have done.

Remember that 14 is only the age cap in North America due to the prevalence of FTC and FRC teams, it's 16 globally. If I had the choice I would have absolutely continued with FLL for another two years (in addition to FRC mind you), and I like to think of myself as a fairly competent mechanical student.

I feel that the lower age cap on FLL (and FTC) will lead to participants getting less out of the programs in terms of learning, growth and inspiration and work against the vision of FIRST of getting more students to pursue STEM. Most of the FLL teams build fairly rudimentary robots compared to the more competitive teams that Gregor is referring to. This is either due to a lack of training (coaching/mentoring) and/or the participants do not yet have the maturity necessary to work with more complex mechanisms and software. If they did, you would see calculus taught in elementary school. Many of those teams that did the inspiring stuff that Gregor refers to have competed in FLL for many years, probably more time than the age range FiM would allow. I believe that this will lead to a situation where the "rich get richer". The kids who are already "mechanical geniuses" will do well but the majority of the participants will not be able to struggle long enough to achieve the personal growth possible and FLL will become something that "they did once or twice and didn't get much out of it" so they went to do something else.


FLL events are very much run by how their organizers want, unlike FRC.

In the Toronto region, there are 3 events only open to Toronto District School Board teams. Community teams ect. have to go to other events, even though they payed to be a team and follow all the same rules as the TDSB teams.

For many years, one of the FLL Qualifying Tournaments in South Texas Region was only open to teams from that school District.

Historically, about 60-70% of the teams in the South Texas Region are affiliated with a school in some way. The balance were community teams, Girl/Boy Scout teams, church group teams, homeschool group teams, family based teams and teams based at for-profit robotics education companies. Would all these other teams be excluded from participating in FiM run FLL events? Would these teams be able to participate in FLL events outside of FiM's territory? I believe that in Texas, teams are only allowed to register for events in their geographic region. I somehow don't think that it is in FIRST's interest to exclude so many participants.

[Allison K]

So, what you're saying is that this issue cannot be quantified or proved to be an issue using anything other than anecdotes and opinions?

Disclaimer - I've always thought the FLL age going through 14 was wrong, an 8 yr old cannot compete against a 14 yr old. FTC has always felt weird to me getting shoe horned in a space that directly competes with two programs. If I were to be granted unlimited power to make decisions on these programs I'd probably have FLL (8-12), FTC (11-15) FRC (14-18) as the suggested ranges which closely matches what FiM is doing from the sounds of it.

I think that it can be, but I alone am not in a position to compile that information. I'm particularly interested in...


how does disallowing middle school students from FLL impact the depth of experience students are able to get from that program?
does the impact (if any) on depth of experience negatively impact the value in the FLL for individuals?
what percent of coaches feel like their 10 year old/5th grade grade students have mastered FLL?
do coaches feel that the opportunity to master one level of program before moving on is important?
what percent of coaches feel like their 11-12 year old/6th-7th grade students have grown out of/become bored with FLL?
what percent of coaches feel like their 11-12 year old/6th-7th grade students are ready to handle the challenges of FTC?
what is the impact of forcing students up a level if they aren't emotionally and socially mature enough?


If 13-14 year olds were at the center of the debate I wouldn't feel nearly as strongly about the changes (we'd switch them to FTC/VRC and call it a day), but most of my kids affected by this change are 11. Around 25% of them are still 10 (turning 11 sometime between June-October) but they'll be in 6th grade in the fall, so FLL isn't an option. Have most 11 year olds really grown out of FLL? My anecdotal perspective on this is that my 11 year old 6th graders are finally hitting the point where they can be successful in the FLL robot game and more or less navigate the research project independently without major frustration.

[Sperkowsky]

I think that it can be, but I alone am not in a position to compile that information. I'm particularly interested in...


how does disallowing middle school students from FLL impact the depth of experience students are able to get from that program?
does the impact (if any) on depth of experience negatively impact the value in the FLL for individuals?
what percent of coaches feel like their 10 year old/5th grade grade students have mastered FLL?
do coaches feel that the opportunity to master one level of program before moving on is important?
what percent of coaches feel like their 11-12 year old/6th-7th grade students have grown out of/become bored with FLL?
what percent of coaches feel like their 11-12 year old/6th-7th grade students are ready to handle the challenges of FTC?
what is the impact of forcing students up a level if they aren't emotionally and socially mature enough?


If 13-14 year olds were at the center of the debate I wouldn't feel nearly as strongly about the changes (we'd switch them to FTC/VRC and call it a day), but most of my kids affected by this change are 11. Around 25% of them are still 10 (turning 11 sometime between June-October) but they'll be in 6th grade in the fall, so FLL isn't an option. Have most 11 year olds really grown out of FLL? My anecdotal perspective on this is that my 11 year old 6th graders are finally hitting the point where they can be successful in the FLL robot game and more or less navigate the research project independently without major frustration.

I dont know about michigan but I know here a lot of middle schools start at 7th grade either 7th and 8th or 7th through 9th

And FTC is also only 7th grade up so you wouldnt be dealing with 11 year olds. You would be dealing with 12/13 year olds.

When I was 12 or 13 I would have want the harder challange but thats me.

[cbale2000]

I dont know about michigan but I know here a lot of middle schools start at 7th grade either 7th and 8th or 7th through 9th

And FTC is also only 7th grade up so you wouldnt be dealing with 11 year olds. You would be dealing with 12/13 year olds.

When I was 12 or 13 I would have want the harder challange but thats me.

The majority of middle schools (that I'm familiar with anyways) in Michigan are 6-8th grades. There are, of course always exceptions, our school district has even considered moving 8th grade into the high schools as part of a building consolidation plan (Though that idea got shot down pretty quickly).

[Allison K]

I dont know about michigan but I know here a lot of middle schools start at 7th grade either 7th and 8th or 7th through 9th

And FTC is also only 7th grade up so you wouldnt be dealing with 11 year olds. You would be dealing with 12/13 year olds.

When I was 12 or 13 I would have want the harder challange but thats me.

The FiM age ranges for FLL are here (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/fll/start_a_team.html) and for FTC are here (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/ftc/start_a_team.html).

The exact language for the FLL age range is "Students in 4th grade through the end of elementary school." and since most of our school districts are divided as elementary school K-5, middle school 6-8, high school 9-12 that means that most 11 year old 6th graders are being funneled into FTC and not allowed to participate in FLL.

Spreadsheet here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1paHrfhmu39xb_b7ZIGRf-kCZ9YhTwGzFpuIca3W_uN0/edit?usp=sharing) showing all 28 school districts in Oakland county, MI and the manner in which they divide their progression from elementary to middle school to high school. 18 districts define middle school as 6th-8th grade, 7 districts define middle school as starting in 7th grade (going through 8th or 9th), 1 defines middle school as starting in 5th grade (or rather, it seems like 5th-8th is housed in the same building, I can't tell beyond that), and 2 weren't immediately obvious.

Edit: Oops. In the time it took me to make a spreadsheet cbale beat me to it.

[Dave Campbell]

How does FiM deal with home school or parochial school teams? Are there schools that don't delineate students by grade level or age? Is it mandated by FiM that teams have a public institution and grade level or age affiliation? I know several individuals who were 15 year-old high school graduates who've moved on to a very successful collegiate and professional careers. They began HS classes as 10 year-olds. Will future students like them be excluded from FRC?

[Alex2614]

I hear that this is the model that a lot of areas are looking into. Here in WV, we have seen tremendous growth in FLL, and a bit of FTC growth, too.

One thing we are noticing is that as a kid starts FLL in 3rd grade, by the time they are in 8th grade, they've done it for 6 seasons or more, and start to get burned out. FTC is a great model for middle schools, but I disagree that it should be *only* middle school. We are looking at bringing FTC to more middle schools (in the past, we only looked at FLL for middle school), but also for our high schools.

I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't really a bad thing to have FLL end at 5th grade.

[Tom Line]

The usage of school-grades as a metric is an exceedingly poor one, and it should be done by ages. At the same time, why deny high schools that may not be able to participate in FRC the opportunity to participate in FTC if they want?

Parents can afford to run an FTC team. Few could financial fund an FRC team. So you've just denied ANY participation to students whose high school/area doesn't support an FRC team.

FRC, not FiM, needs to take the initiative and clean this all up. At the same time, they need to normalize the age around the world. Split FLL into two age groups at the Festival. 8-12 and 12-16. Mandate that qualifications be done the same way. Split FTC into two age groups as well.

Become more inclusive but at the same time make sure you aren't having 8 year olds competing against 16 year olds. And yes, it's a competition.

[cadandcookies]

The usage of school-grades as a metric is an exceedingly poor one, and it should be done by ages. At the same time, why deny high schools that may not be able to participate in FRC the opportunity to participate in FTC if they want?

Parents can afford to run an FTC team. Few could financial fund an FRC team. So you've just denied ANY participation to students whose high school/area doesn't support an FRC team.

FRC, not FiM, needs to take the initiative and clean this all up. At the same time, they need to normalize the age around the world. Split FLL into two age groups at the Festival. 8-12 and 12-16. Mandate that qualifications be done the same way. Split FTC into two age groups as well.

Become more inclusive but at the same time make sure you aren't having 8 year olds competing against 16 year olds. And yes, it's a competition.
It's funny that people are saying that middle school FTC can't compete with high school FTC, because I distinctly remember several of Michigan's FTC teams doing fantastically at North Super Regional against end of high school aged teams.

I think we're just running into the consequences of how FIRST expanded FLL and FTC-- they gave them to a regional partner and gave them a way to plug into Championships but otherwise let them run how they want. I know there's some friction in Minnesota about how we do judging versus how FIRST tells us we should be doing judging. Now that programs are maturing in many areas, FIRST is probably going to want to standardize things more. It'll be interesting to see how that works.

[Foster]

The usage of school-grades as a metric is an exceedingly poor one, and it should be done by ages. At the same time, why deny high schools that may not be able to participate in FRC the opportunity to participate in FTC if they want?

So I think that it's age / ability. Since I'm in the alternative universe of VEX (Come to the Dark Side Luke, we have cookies) the two programs are VEXIQ and VEX. I've seen younger roboteers that would be VEXIQ are bored by it and so they can do VEX. You can always move up early.

One thing that may stop younger roboteers and FRC is liability for power tool usage. When I was doing direct teams the insurance underwriter was unhappy about roboteers less than 14 using power tools. We worked out a "they will go through training and we will have proof" and they agreed to that. (And for the 4 years I only had parent/mentor injuries :rolleyes:

Parents can afford to run an FTC team. Few could financial fund an FRC team. So you've just denied ANY participation to students whose high school/area doesn't support an FRC team.


Right, start your own team and events. I tell parents all the time, it's cheap, start your own team. Unhappy with the events in your area, I can come with a field and game elements, run your own event. That is one of the things I love about FLL/FTC/VEXIQ/VEX, easy peasy events. There are NEVER enough competitions.

I don't live in Michigan, so I'm not going to throw rocks. But I follow the following: Don't like the rules/game?
-- Follow the rules.
-- Break the rules but be prepared
-- Make or change the game/rules and see if you can add followers

But there are a ton of really cool robotics things you can do, FIRST isn't the only robot game!

[tr6scott]

I came up to FRC through FLL in Michigan.

As far as I know, (Mainly through emails from FiM) all of the grant money provided from the state are funneled through the public schools.

When I coached and we competed in FLL, the team was funded by 3 families, although we were associated with the elementary school, the school and district did not provide any funding, or meeting space for the team.

Contrary to what Tom said, I am not sure we could have funded an FTC team, at that time. We were putting about a $1,000 per family in the budget to do FLL, travel and compete. Not sure how much more we could afford to put to robot materials, motors, gears, ect that the FTC required. (Back then FTC wasn't an option, it didn't exist)

Back then (2005-2008) there were many home schooled teams and community teams from 4-H and Girl Scouts that were doing FLL. Teams not associated with school districts, therefore not able to get any of the grant funding. (My take, not fact, just my impression.. citation needed)

Many times these non-school teams were some of the most competitive teams. I tried to look up the Michigan state champions in FLL, but could not find a listing. In the times we competed, I am pretty sure there were home school teams that were state champs. Seems like forcing these teams with no access to the grant money, to step up to FTC, or FRC, is counter productive to the mission of FIRST.

I know our team placed 2nd in 2008 in the Novi State Championship. (Michigan has two FLL state championships) I am pretty sure, (memory defective) we lost to a home schooled team. This year we had 3 middle schooled aged students on a team of 6. FLL is a progression, a process to go from a rookie, to almost a state champ, and it was a 4 year process for us. It was student focused, and the students solved the problems over the years. They were not bored, in fact they were more engaged the last year, because they understood the game (hint: It's all about cycle time) and what needed to be done to win.

(and in Michigan 2nd place in FLL, did not get you Championships)

[Abhishek R]

Excuse my ignorance, but does every student in Michigan who participates in FLL have the opportunity to easily become involved in the FTC program when they graduate to middle school?

[orangelight]

Excuse my ignorance, but does every student in Michigan who participates in FLL have the opportunity to easily become involved in the FTC program when they graduate to middle school?

When I was in middle school no.
But now I see a lot more schools that have expanded to FTC, so it may easier for students to find a team now.

[Christopher149]

On the topic of FTC in Michigan, here's something that may be interesting: there are zero FTC teams in the Upper Peninsula, and only 5? north of about Cadillac. In comparison, there are 2? VRC teams in the UP, 22 FRC teams, and something like a dozen FLL teams (several of which are middle school programs).

On one hand, I do appreciate that FLL is being pushed as an elementary program so that FLL and FTC don't try to conflict as a middle school programs. Several years ago, FIM was pushing FTC, but if it and FLL were going to be middle school programs, many northern schools would have ended up choosing one or the other.

On the less fortunate hand, pushing FLL into elementary may cause a temporary lack of good middle school robotics programs (at least FIRST ones, anyway) in the UP. This is partly because, say, for Houghton, the nearest FLL competition is 2 hours away, but the nearest FTC competition is 6+ hours away. (The nearest VRC events appear to be a similar distance away in WI and MN).

Excuse my ignorance, but does every student in Michigan who participates in FLL have the opportunity to easily become involved in the FTC program when they graduate to middle school?

In the UP? What is this FTC thing you speak of?

[MichaelMcQuinn]

I personally think FIRST should axe FTC, and make Jr. FLL expand to all of elementary, and FLL is all of middle school, and FRC is all of high school.

[Rachel Lim]

I personally think FIRST should axe FTC, and make Jr. FLL expand to all of elementary, and FLL is all of middle school, and FRC is all of high school.

I hope they won't, for a couple of reasons:

1. FLL is a good challenge for elementary school kids. I've been mentoring an FLL team of 4th and 5th graders, and although they tend to need someone to keep them focused, they're definitely more than able to understand what they're doing, and they enjoy it. I don't know a lot about Jr FLL, but from what I've seen, I don't think they'll be getting the same thing out of it.

2. FRC is not affordable in all areas. It's just too expensive. FTC can reach students that otherwise won't have the ability to participate in FIRST.

It's definitely not an easy problem though. I did FLL in 7th grade and found it both challenging and enjoyable (although we had almost no adult help, so it was more difficult because of that). I also see the issue with having 4th graders competing against 8th graders.

Having different competitions for age groups within FLL (e.g. 4-6th grade and 7-8th grade compete separately) might be one way to do it, but then there would be a problem for mixed age teams...

[tr6scott]

Excuse my ignorance, but does every student in Michigan who participates in FLL have the opportunity to easily become involved in the FTC program when they graduate to middle school?

Based on FiM own data, http://firstinmichigan.org/ftc/mi_ftc_teams.html

400+ FLL teams with max capacity of 10 per team, and 203 FTC teams with a max capacity of 15.

There is a huge push to start more FTC teams in Michigan, but clearly, there are kids being left behind as they transition between elementary to middle school.

And as Christopher149 pointed out there is a huge geographic hurdle to overcome if you live in the UP or upper LP.

[FTC7584]

I personally think FIRST should axe FTC, and make Jr. FLL expand to all of elementary, and FLL is all of middle school, and FRC is all of high school.

What do you propose happens to the hundreds of highschools that can't afford an FRC teams?

I know there is a slight tone of elitism that comes into play when FTC is talked about as a highschool program (see post here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129410) for a much longer thread on that), however, in most cases, FTC presents an equal, if not better, alternative to FRC for schools or organizations that cannot form a FRC team for whatever reason.

In the end, all the FIRST programs as they are, are effective in their specific roles. FIRST, as an international organization has put lots of consideration into these roles. In my opinion, it isn't reasonable for a state to overrule the national standard.

[Sperkowsky]

What do you propose happens to the hundreds of highschools that can't afford an FRC teams?

I know there is a slight tone of elitism that comes into play when FTC is talked about as a highschool program (see post here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129410) for a much longer thread on that), however, in most cases, FTC presents an equal, if not better, alternative to FRC for schools or organizations that cannot form a FRC team for whatever reason.

In the end, all the FIRST programs as they are, are effective in their specific roles. FIRST, as an international organization has put lots of consideration into these roles. In my opinion, it isn't reasonable for a state to overrule the national standard.
First is not perfect and neither is fim.

Fim is in Michigan which gives huge grants to run FRC. In Michigan schools can afford it. So it makes sense that they did this. However is this a good change right now nationally maybe not because not every state has grants like Michigan.

[BenGuy]

I highly doubt that FLL is going anywhere. Dean Kamen's "mission" for us was to expand FLL. FiM is the fastest growing district in FIRST, so they couldn't get rid of it. Also, FLL gets them more PR and recognition, it's not going anywhere.

[x86_4819]

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, but would enforcing this separation between FTC and FRC also prohibit middle-school students from participating in FRC?

[JimInNJ]

First is not perfect and neither is fim.

Fim is in Michigan which gives huge grants to run FRC. In Michigan schools can afford it. So it makes sense that they did this. However is this a good change right now nationally maybe not because not every state has grants like Michigan.

No, I think that the Michigan grants are unique. Are these grants from the state perpetual, or will they dry up in the future? This seems like a future disaster in the making . . .

[Tom Line]

No, I think that the Michigan grants are unique. Are these grants from the state perpetual, or will they dry up in the future? This seems like a future disaster in the making . . .

They're sure to dry up at some point. And I'm sure a lot of teams will disappear when they do. But the retention rates for FRC teams over 3 or 5 years is something like 50% anyway. So they're hoping they hook people and some of those teams hang around.

It's been effective in our area. We've only seen 1 of the teams we've started through the grant end up folding when it went away (this was a couple years ago when FiM would pay the first year but not the second).

[EricH]

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, but would enforcing this separation between FTC and FRC also prohibit middle-school students from participating in FRC?

It'd take a bit of a rules change to do it, but I think it could be done. However, I suspect that someone might figure out that students who were unable to participate in FTC, for any one of a number of reasons, but wanted to participate in FIRST need an outlet, which just might be FRC. At least, I'd think that...

[wgardner]

However, I suspect that someone might figure out that students who were unable to participate in FTC, for any one of a number of reasons, but wanted to participate in FIRST need an outlet, which just might be FRC. At least, I'd think that...

Funny, because I'd also suspect that someone might figure out that high school students who were unable to participate in FRC, for any one of a number of reasons, but wanted to participate in FIRST need an outlet, which just might be FTC. Yet FiM seems to be prohibiting that.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

The usage of school-grades as a metric is an exceedingly poor one, and it should be done by ages.

Tom,

While I agree with the 1st half of your statement, I disagree with the 2nd half. Ability is far more important than age/grade and that's the issue I have with bureaucratic entities and the arbitrary metrics they use.

I've been a FRC mentor for 15 years. I've seen 7th graders that were ready for FRC and I've seen 10th graders that weren't.

My question to FiM is: Why must the programs be separated? Why should they not be allowed to overlap?

My question to the Michigan community is: is the program you run a FiM program or a FIRST program? The answer to that should dictate which set of rules you'd want to follow.

FiM has done a lot of good for the FIRST community, thus I am very willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I would be interested to see the data that they based this decision on.

[cbale2000]

My question to FiM is: Why must the programs be separated? Why should they not be allowed to overlap?

My question to the Michigan community is: is the program you run a FiM program or a FIRST program? The answer to that should dictate which set of rules you'd want to follow.

I don't speak for FiM, however, I suspect part of the reason for the lack of overlap is this: FTC has often been pegged as a low-cost alternative to FRC for schools where funding is limited, however, because in Michigan funding for rookie FRC teams is basically covered by state grants, the feeling seems to be that having overlap with FTC at the high school level simply detracts from potential FRC teams as the vast majority of schools are unlikely to be willing to have both programs.

To an extent, this also holds true when you compare FTC to FLL, FLL is cheaper and thus more appealing, but since FTC is also largely paid for by state grants in Michigan, making FTC the only Middle School program helps promote FTC at that level and expand the number of teams (which the data posted earlier in this thread has shown).

JrFLL and FLL are then delegated to their own grade ranges giving a very clear progression in the FIRST program.

The real question that needs to be asked is not whether or not this change has benefited team growth (arguably the data shows that it has), but has it benefited students. This is a much harder metric to gauge but it will be an important one going forwards.


Speaking as a student who participated in FLL in 7th and 8th grades; when I moved into high school, I was totally unprepared to join an FRC team, I went to a few meetings in the fall and maintained a "deer in the headlights" mentality the entire time. Needless to say, I dropped out of the team my 9th grade year (something I regret to this day) and ended up joining back the following year. Had I had exposure to a program like FTC in Middle School I think I would have been much more prepared for FRC when I got into high school.


Now to answer your second question: I don't know. The jurisdiction that FiM has over Michigan teams has been one of these confusing grey areas since it was implemented. On one side, I've yet to see any instances where FiM has directly contradicted FIRST, but on the other hand, there are policies that FiM implements that differ substantially from FIRST. In some ways you could think of it like how our government works, the Federal government can create rules that apply to everyone, then states can create non-conflicting rules that are tailored specifically to their needs. If you wanted to take the analogy further, you could compare individual competitions to local governments, where you can again make rules (in FIRSTs case, mostly procedural) for the municipality so long as they don't conflict with state or federal rules.

[gblake]

I don't speak for FiM, however, I suspect part of the reason for the lack of overlap is this: FTC has often been pegged as a low-cost alternative to FRC for schools where funding is limited, ...Do you realize that you are making a great case (That's good! - I think it is - Isn't it?) for having more FTC teams (instead of FRC teams), and not fewer? Maybe you do/did intend to do that???

Combine what you wrote with the reasonable assertions that:

More (way more) students per dollar are directly exposed to hands-on "STEM" in typical FTC teams, than are in typical FRC teams; and
The people of the great state of Michigan would like to get the biggest bang-for-the-buck out of their tax dollars; and
FTC is a program FIRST aims at HS students and some MS students; and
FIRST's goal/role isn't converting students into already-trained STEM professionals during grade school, and is instead inspiring the on-the-fence and non-STEM students to switch to choosing to try a STEM field for their future.

When/if you do this, telling high schools that the FIRST FTC program is off-the-table; is at best, an odd (and changeable) thing to do.

Perhaps there is some other compelling, fiscally-sound, student-focused motivation at work? If there is, someone please post it.

Blake
PS: To stay on-topic, I think the same arguments hold true if you substitute FLL for FTC, FTC for FRC, and you shift the student age ranges appropiately.

[cbale2000]

FIRST's goal/role isn't converting students into already-trained STEM professionals during grade school, and is instead inspiring the on-the-fence and non-STEM students to switch to choosing to try a STEM field for their future.

I absolutely agree with you on this point, and I would suggest it could be argued that FRC does a better job at inspiring students due to it's scale. Building an FTC robot is a great engineering challenge for kids, but it's not nearly as impressive as watching 120lb machines that you helped make driving around a playing field in a sports arena.

I would also point out that another way FIRST has worked to inspire students is to pair them with mentors from STEM fields, while I personally have no experience on an FTC team, I would venture to guess that there is not nearly as much need for professional mentors on an FTC team where kids can build most things by hand, compared to an FRC team where various manufacturing techniques are employed to design and build machines.


You're right that FTC is more cost effective, but it remains to be proven to be equally or more inspiring than FRC.


Again, these thoughts are based on the impressions I've gotten of FiM activities over the years. It's not my intention to say that this is the best solution everywhere, or even that it necessarily works great here in Michigan (time will tell). Either way, essentially what we're doing is hypothesizing about the motives of an organization that no one yet to post in this thread is directly part of. The question that remains to be asked is this: has anyone bothered to actually send an email to FiM and ask them what their rational is for their policy?

[wgardner]

I would also point out that another way FIRST has worked to inspire students is to pair them with mentors from STEM fields, while I personally have no experience on an FTC team, I would venture to guess that there is not nearly as much need for professional mentors on an FTC team where kids can build most things by hand, compared to an FRC team where various manufacturing techniques are employed to design and build machines.

My opinion is that FRC virtually requires adult technical mentors while FTC teams benefit from them but does not require them. FTC teams can get started by simply building using the kit parts, but the best FTC teams will often have 3D printed parts, CNCed parts, laser cut parts, and/or machined parts on their robots. A few have even used 3D printed parts as mold models and used a foundry at their school to mold custom aluminum parts. About the only thing I haven't seen much of in FTC is welding.

I know some kids who are inspired by working with adult mentors on FRC teams and some kids who strongly prefer being able to "own the process" more on their FTC teams. Different kids are inspired by different environments. I think it's great that FIRST offers both.


You're right that FTC is more cost effective, but it remains to be proven to be equally or more inspiring than FRC.

If you're interested in this question, you should check out this report (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Impact/Brandeis_Studies/FTC-FRC_Cross_Program_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_201 1.pdf) from 2011 commissioned by FIRST. In particular, from page 7 of the report:

"FRC members were more likely to
report increases in their interest in science and technology (97% vs. 95%), in their plans
to take science or math courses (90% vs. 86%) and in their interest in going to college (92%
vs. 87%). FRC team members were also more likely to report learning about key values,
including Gracious Professionalism (96% vs. 90%) and volunteering in the community (83%
vs. 74%). Team leaders reported a similar set of gains. FTC team members, on the other
hand, were substantially more likely to report an increased interest in computer
programming (91% vs. 78%) and were as likely as FRC participants to report that they were
interested in science and engineering careers (85% vs. 83%). FTC and FRC team
members were also equally likely to report gains on questions related to life and workplace
skills (FRC members were more likely to report gains in communications and cooperation
skills, but there were no significant differences between program on the responses to the
other skill questions). "

The numbers are pretty darn similar, showing the very similar benefits of both programs, IMHO.

[gblake]

These are my replies and opinions. I think we agree more than disagree.
... but it's not nearly as impressive as watching 120lb machines that you helped make driving around a playing field in a sports arena.Once an FRC team reaches a certain size range, many of the students doing the watching in the stands, are the same ones that watched someone else build, program, design, drive, iteratively revise, maintain, etc. that machine. With only one expensive machine (per team) involved, as the number of students goes up on an FRC team, the hands-on experiences per student inevitably decline. For me, watching (or driving) an FTC machine that I was an intimate part of creating is far more STEM-spirational than watching an FRC machine someone else built, that I (for the most part) can't drive/change.

A subtle, but important point is that over the course of a day I might enjoy watching an FRC circus more than I would enjoy watching an FTC circus (the same is probably true for my next-door neighbor and other average joes); but! I would get more STEM-spiration out of being an intimate part of my FTC team, than I would get out being one of the herd in an FRC team; especially if I'm not one of the core members of that FRC team.

I would also point out that another way FIRST has worked to inspire students is to pair them with mentors from STEM fields, while I personally have no experience on an FTC team, I would venture to guess that there is not nearly as much need for professional mentors on an FTC team where kids can build most things by hand, compared to an FRC team where various manufacturing techniques are employed to design and build machines.FRC teams can put together a kit-bot with very little tool use. In fact, every year some (too many!) show up at competitions with little more than a pile of parts; and then the teams around them turn those parts into a working robot. There are differences in mentor needs and involvement for FTC and FRC, but they are minor, not major.


You're right that FTC is more cost effective, but it remains to be proven to be equally or more inspiring than FRC.My belief, arising from extensive personal experience, is that you get more inspiration per dollar (in addition to more robots per dollar) from FTC/VRC than you do from FRC. By this I mean that more students are directly involved (hands-on) in a greater number of inspirational STEM activities. YMMV


... The question that remains to be asked is this: has anyone bothered to actually send an email to FiM and ask them what their rational is for their policy?Plenty of FiM folks read CD. If they care to, they will write something here. Alternatively, they might individually choose to (or have a policy of that says to) stay out of CD conversations, much like FIRST HQ stays out of CD conversations.

Blake
PS: FRC is a great program to use as the cherry on top of the sundae, but it's not so great as the one-size-fits-all sundae.

[April]

As an FLL coach for over 10 years, I have seen many teams and individuals grow through the FLL program learning research skills, presentation skills, teamwork skills, learning the process of designing, building and programming, and developing innovative solutions to real issues. The elementary kids do ok with that but the middle school students really get it.

I see value in offering FTC for middle school students who are ready for a new challenge and not ready to jump into FRC, however taking FLL away as an option for middle school is limiting skills these students can develop. I have had several students go directly from FLL to FRC with no issue because they have learned the FIRST values, and basic skills that have given them the ability to learn the new skills needed for FRC.

I have no problem with FIM limiting grant money to fit their goals, but for those of us not running teams in schools, I hope FIRST will not allow them to continue to create separate standards that would limit FIRST growth in areas where there are no FIRST programs in the local schools.

I currently have 25 new families on my list who have specifically contacted me about "LEGO robotics." For the students who are in the 6-8th grade range, I would hate to tell them that LEGO Robotics is not an option for them and lose the opportunity to have them get involved in FIRST because it was the LEGO that attracted them in the first place. I cannot count how many people have joined one of our FIRST (75-100 kids total in JrFLL, FLL, and FRC) teams originally because of the LEGO connection.

[Mr V]

My opinion is that FRC virtually requires adult technical mentors while FTC teams benefit from them but does not require them. FTC teams can get started by simply building using the kit parts, but the best FTC teams will often have 3D printed parts, CNCed parts, laser cut parts, and/or machined parts on their robots. A few have even used 3D printed parts as mold models and used a foundry at their school to mold custom aluminum parts. About the only thing I haven't seen much of in FTC is welding.

I know some kids who are inspired by working with adult mentors on FRC teams and some kids who strongly prefer being able to "own the process" more on their FTC teams. Different kids are inspired by different environments. I think it's great that FIRST offers both.



If you're interested in this question, you should check out this report (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Impact/Brandeis_Studies/FTC-FRC_Cross_Program_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_201 1.pdf) from 2011 commissioned by FIRST. In particular, from page 7 of the report:

"FRC members were more likely to
report increases in their interest in science and technology (97% vs. 95%), in their plans
to take science or math courses (90% vs. 86%) and in their interest in going to college (92%
vs. 87%). FRC team members were also more likely to report learning about key values,
including Gracious Professionalism (96% vs. 90%) and volunteering in the community (83%
vs. 74%). Team leaders reported a similar set of gains. FTC team members, on the other
hand, were substantially more likely to report an increased interest in computer
programming (91% vs. 78%) and were as likely as FRC participants to report that they were
interested in science and engineering careers (85% vs. 83%). FTC and FRC team
members were also equally likely to report gains on questions related to life and workplace
skills (FRC members were more likely to report gains in communications and cooperation
skills, but there were no significant differences between program on the responses to the
other skill questions). "

The numbers are pretty darn similar, showing the very similar benefits of both programs, IMHO.

The other big difference between FTC and FRC is time commitment. A FTC team can do well meeting under 10 hours per week while FRC teams typically put in way more hours per week in build season. Finding a coach that is willing to make the time commitment necessary for FTC is easier than finding one that is willing to make the commitment for a FRC team. The other is the student time commitment, some students have other activities. With 1 or 2 days per week you'll be able to take part in the bulk of an FTC build while on a FRC team you miss 3 or 4 days in a row and things may have changed dramatically.

So yeah they may have funding available for FRC teams at HS level in MI but do they have the people willing to make the time commitment at every school?

[EricH]

The other big difference between FTC and FRC is time commitment. A FTC team can do well meeting under 10 hours per week while FRC teams typically put in way more hours per week in build season. [...]
So yeah they may have funding available for FRC teams at HS level in MI but do they have the people willing to make the time commitment at every school?

On the other hand, an FTC team's build and competition season stretches over nearly a full school year, if I'm not mistaken. An FRC team's offseason is the first half of the school year, while FRC's competition season only lasts for the second half...

I'd be willing to bet that if you stacked up FTC and FRC total time commitments, they'd be pretty close, as far as building and competing go. (Other items, no contest it'll be FRC eating the time.)

[bduddy]

If you're interested in this question, you should check out this report (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Impact/Brandeis_Studies/FTC-FRC_Cross_Program_Evaluation_Executive_Summary_201 1.pdf) from 2011 commissioned by FIRST. In particular, from page 7 of the report:

"FRC members were more likely to
report increases in their interest in science and technology (97% vs. 95%), in their plans
to take science or math courses (90% vs. 86%) and in their interest in going to college (92%
vs. 87%). FRC team members were also more likely to report learning about key values,
including Gracious Professionalism (96% vs. 90%) and volunteering in the community (83%
vs. 74%). Team leaders reported a similar set of gains. FTC team members, on the other
hand, were substantially more likely to report an increased interest in computer
programming (91% vs. 78%) and were as likely as FRC participants to report that they were
interested in science and engineering careers (85% vs. 83%). FTC and FRC team
members were also equally likely to report gains on questions related to life and workplace
skills (FRC members were more likely to report gains in communications and cooperation
skills, but there were no significant differences between program on the responses to the
other skill questions). "

The numbers are pretty darn similar, showing the very similar benefits of both programs, IMHO.Given the sample size of a few hundred and partially self-selected nature of that survey (only half of the teams contacted responded), I highly doubt those numbers are statistically significant.

[wgardner]

Given the sample size of a few hundred and partially self-selected nature of that survey (only half of the teams contacted responded), I highly doubt those numbers are statistically significant.

I agree. But for the big picture, it's hard to argue something like "FRC is much more inspiring than FTC" or "FTC is much more inspiring than FRC" when the data looks pretty darn similar.

And there's this in the report too: "FTC team members
were more likely to report that team members made the important decisions (97% vs. 93%)
and to reject the idea that adults on the team did the most difficult jobs (87% vs. 78%). FRC
team members, were more likely to report that they had a chance to get to know one of the
adults on the team (93% vs. 90%); that they learned a lot from the adults (92% vs. 81%);
that adults on the team talked about college (70% vs. 57%), and that they felt they belonged
on their team (94% vs. 92%). While those differences were statistically significant (i.e.,
unlikely to have occurred by chance), in practical terms they are small and likely reflect
differences in emphasis rather than major differences in program quality. Overall 97% of the
FTC participants and 99% of those in FRC reported that they “had fun working on my FIRST
team” – another important indicator of a quality program experience. "

[Mr V]

On the other hand, an FTC team's build and competition season stretches over nearly a full school year, if I'm not mistaken. An FRC team's offseason is the first half of the school year, while FRC's competition season only lasts for the second half...

I'd be willing to bet that if you stacked up FTC and FRC total time commitments, they'd be pretty close, as far as building and competing go. (Other items, no contest it'll be FRC eating the time.)


Well the FTC build season length varies greatly depending on area and how well the team does. In our area the FTC competition season is in Nov and Dec with the state CMP in January if the team makes it that far.

For FTC I'd estimate a low of 70hrs and a high of 140hrs per season in our area.

For FRC I'd estimate a low of 250 hrs and a high of 360 hrs per competition season in our area.

Note we do a league play format for FTC so 3 plays before the state CMP and we do the District System for FRC so two plays before DCMP and in both of those cases the time I estimated did not include moving on to the state/District CMP.

The other thing is that even in an area with a long FTC season the time commitment per week is low so it allows time to study for all those AP classes, and other activities while the usual 6 days per week of many FRC teams makes it hard to do those other things too.

[Ian Curtis]

For FRC I'd estimate a low of 250 hrs and a high of 360 hrs per competition season in our area.


We schedule 100-120 hours a build season and tack on at most 20 additional hours of build. We come in at well under 200 hrs a season for a typical team member (+ events & practice - missed meetings) and I have a hard time believing we are uniquely qualified to balance the FIRST/life equation.

[maltz1881]

I ran an FLL team for 7 years along with an FRC team. I found the kids who were older in FLL getting bored. They wanted to use tools like the older kids. We made the decision to move up to FTC. Love it! It has made our FRC team much stronger. We have our FRC students mentor the FTC students and this year they even decided to take on a JrFLL team.

We now have 2 FTC teams and could have 3 if we wanted to. Both teams have made it to the Super Regional and competed against the 18 year old students. One of our teams had the highest qualifying score at the event and they scored a majority of those points. Middle school students are very capable of competing against high school students.

We are a home schooled group. We don't receive the funding like everybody else. We are able to gain sponsors though. That being said, I would rather the kids gain sponsors than to rely on the state to support us. The sponsors we have currently see the importance of what we are doing and have increased yearly the funding.

Please don't knock what FiM is trying to do. Give it a try. I remember when FiM went to the district model, people weren't happy. Many said it was the end of FIRST. Change is always difficult at first but when you give kids the chance, they are pretty resilient and can rise to the challenge. I have kids who are autistic and 1 who is dealing with cerebral palsy. They are handling it just fine. In fact they win the Inspire Award 3 years in a row at a district level.

[Mr V]

We schedule 100-120 hours a build season and tack on at most 20 additional hours of build. We come in at well under 200 hrs a season for a typical team member (+ events & practice - missed meetings) and I have a hard time believing we are uniquely qualified to balance the FIRST/life equation.

The hours I have posted come from talking to lots of teams in WA. I'm not saying it can't be done in 100-120 hours because I did that this season with my rookie team. That was the hours that the school set for the teachers that rotated the duty of sitting in the corner grading papers until it was time to lock the build space for the night.

On the other hand I know several teams that typically meet 4-6 or more hrs per week day and 6-8 or even 10 or 12 on Sat through out the build season and then meet at least 20 or more hours per week through the competition season not including events.

When I was with 2046 there were two years we had the shop open and working furiously from the time school got out on Fri until Midnight on bag day, or about 105 hrs in the last half of the last week. No not everyone was there all of those hours as there were 3 shifts but a handful of people, both students and mentors worked more than one 8 hour shift per day.

[gblake]

...
Please don't knock what FiM is trying to do.
...I don't think anyone has said their intentions are bad.

However, I am definitely curious to learn more about the financial model that is coupled to those intentions.

When I ran the numbers in the situations I have been in, the results always clearly lead me to push for a different compromise on behalf of the students and the financiers.

I'm curious what's different in their situation.

Blake

[Lil' Lavery]

While the discussion of age cutoffs and the progression of programs is important and relevant, I feel it is drowning out another very important topic that is raised. It's been briefly alluded to a couple times already, but hasn't been really discussed. What degree of autonomy should the various region/district affiliates of FIRST be granted from FIRST HQ? Are they allowed to deviate from HQ's standards? In what areas and by how much?

While the expansion of the district format* will certainly make this an increasingly relevant concern (and we've seen some notable differences between districts in how they handle aspects of their competitions), it's not just limited to districts. There are other entities that exist in regional-format areas that run events, some "official" and some not. Should their organizing powers be limited to how they run events? How they administer funds/support to teams in their "jurisdiction?" And who determines their jurisdiction? Can they impose additional restrictions on the teams in their areas**? Should teams be given an "opt-out" standard from whatever organization runs their area***? Would these opt-outs allow them to opt out of a district standard? Can these organizations actively prohibit teams from registering or competing at events****? What burden of proof/explanation is required for any deviations away from the FIRST HQ standards? As you can see, this is opening quite the can of worms. There needs to be some sort of standard created for the delegation of authorities to these organizations.

*Michigan's reluctance to have the FIRST Tech Challenge available to high school students predates the district format, going back to at least 2007 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=637530&postcount=26).
**Such as Minnesota's additional bag'n'tag requirements for an "off-season" State Championship event
***There was one MAR team that attempted to register as being from a different state in 2012 so they could continue to attend regional competitions instead of switching to the district format.
****Can FiM actively prevent a middle school FLL team from registering? From competing in an event organized by FiM?

[Tristan Lall]

While the discussion of age cutoffs and the progression of programs is important and relevant, I feel it is drowning out another very important topic that is raised. It's been briefly alluded to a couple times already, but hasn't been really discussed. What degree of autonomy should the various region/district affiliates of FIRST be granted from FIRST HQ? Are they allowed to deviate from HQ's standards? In what areas and by how much?

While the expansion of the district format* will certainly make this an increasingly relevant concern (and we've seen some notable differences between districts in how they handle aspects of their competitions), it's not just limited to districts. There are other entities that exist in regional-format areas that run events, some "official" and some not. Should their organizing powers be limited to how they run events? How they administer funds/support to teams in their "jurisdiction?" And who determines their jurisdiction? Can they impose additional restrictions on the teams in their areas**? Should teams be given an "opt-out" standard from whatever organization runs their area***? Would these opt-outs allow them to opt out of a district standard? Can these organizations actively prohibit teams from registering or competing at events****? What burden of proof/explanation is required for any deviations away from the FIRST HQ standards? As you can see, this is opening quite the can of worms. There needs to be some sort of standard created for the delegation of authorities to these organizations.
I was thinking the same thing. I definitely want to avoid the incoherent mess that characterizes sports governing bodies at the local/school level. On the other hand, FIRST HQ doesn't always seem well-equipped to make big-picture decisions with the benefit of all the available evidence about local conditions—or at least fails to communicate the degree to which those conditions were considered but deprioritized in service of a perceived greater good.

My recommendation is that FIRST provide a list of what is and is not permissible for local governing bodies, and release it to the public—so that everyone knows who's not playing by the rules. The standards need to be equitable—and it will require some thought as to how that should be measured—and should be designed to be re-evaluated at known intervals. Part and parcel of setting out these standards is an explanation of why the standards exist—for example, if a particular vendor is required because of contract terms, then disclose that. Definitely spell out the powers of the local governing body here, and explain exactly why they're entitled to vary certain procedures, particularly when it could appear to be an advantage for some teams.

Jurisdiction is tricky because it's convenient to form organizations that follow neat administrative boundaries, and correspond to the same boundaries forever. So there's a natural urge to go state-by-state. But that's inequitable and frankly, laughable.1 Representation by population of teams, participants or general population all have their advantages. Some geographic grouping is clearly desirable, but the optimal extent is unclear. I think the guidance should be that local governing bodies should make every attempt to adopt a structure that permits adjustment as the competition's needs change.

Changing game rules should, for the moment and the foreseeable future, be prohibited. Changing tournament rules should be something that FIRST formalizes and publishes in their rules, thereby proving that FIRST assented to the changes instead of letting them slip through.2 There are precedents in other sports for different sanctioning bodies to establish slightly different rules, and it hinders interchangeability of players, facilities and statistics. Until such time as the FRC game doesn't change annually, there's enough uncertainty in the new game that adding more (due to the whims of a local governing body) doesn't seem wise.

1 In the same way that apportionment of seats in the U.S. senate is difficult to justify, given the powers that the body wields and its legislative role.
2 When (some years ago) FIRST Robotics Canada ran a regional with an extra playoff round, or another regional with byes instead of an 8th alliance, those changes were not widely known outside of those events. They certainly weren't announced officially, and were clearly inconsistent with the rulebook. I don't know who at FIRST gave the approval to do that. They weren't bad changes, but the process was not ideal.

[ttedrow]

Help stop the spread of this insanity.


Michigan has been setting non-standard age ranges for our FLL and FTC programs. They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.

We need the FIRST community to help to bring these issues out in the open and make sure that this doesn't happen in other states. We are asking US FIRST to require all affiliate partners to follow the age requirements as publish by US FIRST. If you have a moment, please consider signing our petition:

https://www.change.org/p/us-first-fi...liate-partners

The more signatures we get, the better chance we will have of getting US FIRST to hear our case.

[Alan Anderson]

Michigan has been setting non-standard age ranges for our FLL and FTC programs. They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.

How has FiM managed to affect teams in South Carolina?

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

DISCLAIMER: The following post is my view, and my view alone. My opinions are not affiliated or derived from views held by FIRST in Michigan or Frog Force

With that out of the way, this is a really interesting discussion. As a long-time member of the FiM community, it was a little weird seeing this heated debate taking place NOW, when the concept has been widely circulated in Michigan for several years. I suppose it makes sense for everybody to get hot and bothered about it once it became official.

I've been in FIRST since 6th grade, participated all the way through FLL and FRC, and worked with FTC teams post-graduation. I currently have exposure to our local FTC and FLL teams, which adhere to the current age limit guidelines given by FiM.

I loved FLL when I was in 6th grade. I was bored with it in 7th grade. I had outgrown it in 8th grade and was itching to move up. I genuinely believe, from my own experience and from interacting with many teams and coaches, that elementary FLL and middle school FTC is a fantastic course for many reasons. It is challenging for students, and keeps them engaged for much longer by providing a clear cut progression of programs.

When FTC gets 6th graders that have already been through FLL, they benefit from the prior experience. When FRC gets 9th graders who have been through FTC, they become contributing and useful members from Day 1. It's been great for all of our students and I haven't heard any negative feedback from participants or coaches.

I think it will be a painful transition. I think there are still a lot of things to be figured out. I think it will be a great testing ground for FIRST as a whole, just like districts were. I trust our FiM leadership to make informed, fair, and wise decisions.

[ttedrow]

How has FiM managed to affect teams in South Carolina?

It hasn't yet. Rouge decisions like this have a tendency to spread. I would like FIRST to step up and say NO to FiM on this issue. They have clear rules and guidelines on ages for each program.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

It hasn't yet. Rouge decisions like this have a tendency to spread. I would like FIRST to step up and say NO to FiM on this issue. They have clear rules and guidelines on ages for each program.

Just like we had clear rules and guidelines for regional competition structure, alliance size, or single championship? Effective solutions tend to spread. Ideas that don't work generally...don't. Without innovation being applied to the way FIRST runs as an organization, it's dead in the water. Restricting the ability for change to come from within just suffocates a group.

[MattRain]

I do NOT want this to be a change that FIRST implement's. I understand that this "may" be a "good" model for FiM. But it would not work in many areas of the United States.

I am a mentor and alumni of both FTC and FRC. I have knowledge of both sides.

1. Money

The amount of money that it takes to run an FRC team is through the roof for a lot of schools, including the highschool that I work at. I have spent years trying to get a budget from the school that would allow us to sit comfortably, while still having to go to sponsors to fund the rest needed. Trust me when I say, that amount of money is no where near the amount it takes to run a FRC team. I know how much it take to run a FRC team, as I mentor one.

2. Experience

While I was student in High school, I personally learned more about robotics from my FTC team. Students learn differently. We all know that. I personally learned better in a small group setting than a big setting like FRC. It can all depends on how a team is run, so I understand that a better, more well funded FRC team may allow students to learn more, but when you come from an area that is harder to fund, or don't have the right resources, it changes.

3. Middle School teams Vs High school teams

I don't see a problem here at all. We have a few middle school teams located here in AZ, and some of them were good, if not better than half of the Highschool teams here. I fell that it really depends on the type of kids that you have on the team. Ones that are more active and really want to compete, will build something that is ready to compete with the Highschool teams. I saw a few designs from Middle School students that I never thought of.

FTC and FRC both have their strengths and weakness.

If FIRST was to implement the FiM model into the actual rules, then I would have a hard time with following those rules. I feel that there would be a huge uproar from my state. Most of the AZ FTC teams would disappear too.

[Lil' Lavery]

Just like we had clear rules and guidelines for regional competition structure, alliance size, or single championship? Effective solutions tend to spread. Ideas that don't work generally...don't. Without innovation being applied to the way FIRST runs as an organization, it's dead in the water. Restricting the ability for change to come from within just suffocates a group.

There's a pretty distinct difference between decisions made by or in conjunction with FIRST HQ (like all of the ones you mentioned) and those made by other organizations that openly clash with stated goals from FIRST HQ. That's where he's defining this as a "rogue change." And the varying impact between Michigan and the rest of the country, in terms of the affordability of FRC, has been stated multiple times.

[Michael Corsetto]

I'm very excited to see what FiM looks like in 5-10 years.

Their high school adoption rate of FRC is incredible (I'm looking at you MN, you guys are doing great things as well!), which has created a strong identity for FRC as the "varsity STEM sport" in Michigan (MN teams have described similar sentiments surrounding their state championship, which is awesome!). This has amazing potential for widespread STEM inspiration in the state. Every high school with a sustainable FRC team, what an incredible goal!

Would FiM have gotten the $3 Million grant from the state without their innovative competition model (districts) and progression of programs approach (discussed in this thread)? Is it unfair to speculate some level of causation that resulted in receiving this large State grant? (Honest question!) Could even more funds keep rolling in as FiM proves its effectiveness at starting and sustaining FIRST Teams of all levels?

Personally, my biggest concern is FiM leaving the rest of us in their rear-view mirror as Michigan becomes the undisputed FIRST Program Powerhouse State of the country. Granted, this is a very selfish concern :rolleyes:

Time will tell, but I'm watching FiM closely and expect to see more positive changes and innovations from this incredible organization.

-Mike

[gblake]

Some of this is ridiculous, and until it is refuted, infuriating.

There is no need for state educational systems to alter FIRST event rules.

Even if FRC were the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread, there is no need to force it on people, or to deny them alternatives.

School systems are welcome to dictate to their schools what those institutions must do, but there is no need for FIRST, or VRC, or BEST, or ... to convert a large state's surface area into a place where the state dictates what independent teams may do in FIRST.

A state is welcome to give grants to its schools and/or to event organizers. However, those grants should not be accepted if they come with strings that tell independent teams the FIRST rules that allow them to participate are going to be nullified.

Should (school or) non-school teams that happen to occupy a patch of dirt in one state be told by FIRST, and by FIRST's local agent, that they are forbidden to participate in their home state ,and that they are forbidden to compete elsewhere?

None of this was necessary.

And I'm still curious to see any figures that show what's been described so far is getting more bang for the buck than alternatives that start with a clean sheet of paper.

Blake

[Tom Line]

Some of this is ridiculous, and until it is refuted, infuriating.

There is no need for state educational systems to alter FIRST event rules.

Even if FRC were the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread, there is no need to force it on people, or to deny them alternatives.

School systems are welcome to dictate to their schools what those institutions must do, but there is no need for FIRST, or VRC, or BEST, or ... to convert a large state's surface area into a place where the state dictates what independent teams may do in FIRST.

A state is welcome to give grants to its schools and/or to event organizers. However, those grants should not be accepted if they come with strings that tell independent teams the FIRST rules that allow them to participate are going to be nullified.

Should (school or) non-school teams that happen to occupy a patch of dirt in one state be told by FIRST, and by FIRST's local agent, that they are forbidden to participate in their home state ,and that they are forbidden to compete elsewhere?

None of this was necessary.

And I'm still curious to see any figures that show what's been described so far is getting more bang for the buck than alternatives that start with a clean sheet of paper.

Blake

The Michigan education system has nothing to do with altering the rules. FiM, First In Michigan, is not affiliated with the school districts.

I think many people have missed asking why FiM has done this. I'll take a stab at it. FiM has always focused on spreading FIRST. From the district system to the State Championship that was supposed to be free, FiM has drastically increased the impact, reach, accessibility, and number of Michigan teams.

Dean's vision is to have FIRST in every school. FiM is working toward that, and I think they have decided that one of the steps to having that happen is to set clear break points that coincide with school grades.

It may not be perfect for all kids, and some districts have different definitions of middle school, etc. But I can see the logic behind the move. This is going to create a boom of FTC teams in middle schools as the FLL members move upwards. And with middle schools providing some financial support it will probably be a lot more successful. Right now our local middle school does nothing to support FIRST because their kids go back to FLL and continue competing there. But as a parent you can bet I'll be pushing for an FTC team for my middle schoolers to compete in since they loved FLL so much.

Change is painful, but I can definitely see where this is going. FiM has been offering grants that make starting FLL and FTC teams nearly free. (Not the governmental grants from Lansing).

[gblake]

The Michigan education system has nothing to do with altering the rules. FiM, First In Michigan, is not affiliated with the school districts.

I think many people have missed asking why FiM has done this. I'll take a stab at it. FiM has always focused on spreading FIRST. From the district system to the State Championship that was supposed to be free, FiM has drastically increased the impact, reach, accessibility, and number of Michigan teams.

Dean's vision is to have FIRST in every school. FiM is working toward that, and I think they have decided that one of the steps to having that happen is to set clear break points that coincide with school grades.

It may not be perfect for all kids, and some districts have different definitions of middle school, etc. But I can see the logic behind the move. This is going to create a boom of FTC teams in middle schools as the FLL members move upwards. And with middle schools providing some financial support it will probably be a lot more successful. Right now our local middle school does nothing to support FIRST because their kids go back to FLL and continue competing there. But as a parent you can bet I'll be pushing for an FTC team for my middle schoolers to compete in since they loved FLL so much.

Change is painful, but I can definitely see where this is going. FiM has been offering grants that make starting FLL and FTC teams nearly free. (Not the governmental grants from Lansing).This makes things appear even worse.

[Tom Line]

This makes things appear even worse.

How so?

[gblake]

Tom,

First, thanks for helping me get my facts straight. The silence from FiM has been deafening here.

Lemme ask a few related questions. Hopefully you are well enough informed to answer confidently:

There is a lot of talk about grant money helping get new team started. Is that correct? Are grant dollars being dispersed for that? For any other purposes? In what amounts?

I read a grant figure of 3M dollars (to FiM? to teams?) somewhere. Do you know if that was correct, and (if it was) do you know whether it was a one-shot deal, or the first of a series (if the programs are successful)?

Where did those grant dollars come from? What/who is the donor?

Who decides how the grant dollars get spent, both big picture, and from day to day? What conditions were built into the grant's stipulations by the donor, and what other criteria have been put in place by the dispersing entity (if it isn't the donor)? For example, are non-school teams eligible to receive some of the $?

Is it true that all FRC and FTC teams that claim Michigan as their home state, *have* to compete within the FiM tournament structures and may not go elsewhere (unless/until they qualify through FiM processes for further competition)?

Is it true that FiM does not allow FTC teams containing HS age students to participate in FiM FTC activities?

Blake

[Knufire]

Tom,

First, thanks for helping me get my facts straight. The silence from FiM has been deafening here.

Lemme ask a few related questions. Hopefully you are well enough informed to answer confidently:

There is a lot of talk about grant money helping get new team started. Is that correct? Are grant dollars being dispersed for that? For any other purposes? In what amounts?

I read a grant figure of 3M dollars (to FiM? to teams?) somewhere. Do you know if that was correct, and (if it was) do you know whether it was a one-shot deal, or the first of a series (if the programs are successful)?

Where did those grant dollars come from? What/who is the donor?

Who decides how the grant dollars get spent, both big picture, and from day to day? What conditions were built into the grant's stipulations by the donor, and what other criteria have been put in place by the dispersing entity (if it isn't the donor)? For example, are non-school teams eligible to receive some of the $?

Is it true that all FRC and FTC teams that claim Michigan as their home state, *have* to compete within the FiM tournament structures and may not go elsewhere (unless/until they qualify through FiM processes for further competition)?

Is it true that FiM does not allow FTC teams containing HS age students to participate in FiM FTC activities?

Blake

Here's some publically available information relating to a few of your questions:
http://www.firstinmichigan.org/Documents/2015FIRSTgrants.pdf
http://www.techplan.org/downloads/pdfs/99h_first_rfp_20130814_105933_3.pdf

[gblake]

Here's some publically available information relating to a few of your questions:
http://www.firstinmichigan.org/Documents/2015FIRSTgrants.pdf
http://www.techplan.org/downloads/pdfs/99h_first_rfp_20130814_105933_3.pdfThanks!

[gblake]

Here's some publically available information relating to a few of your questions:
http://www.firstinmichigan.org/Documents/2015FIRSTgrants.pdf
http://www.techplan.org/downloads/pdfs/99h_first_rfp_20130814_105933_3.pdfWhen I look at those two documents, one the one hand, I am glad that STEM teams are getting funded.

On the other hand, I am sad that we aren't talking about similar Michigan grants for communities that want to participate in more than one STEM program, or in some other single program.

And, I am sad that in addition to not describing grants for other programs, they further narrow communities choices by not helping to start HS FTC teams in Michigan.

I hope someone can confidently answer those other questions I posted.

Blake

[cbale2000]

Of the questions you asked, these are the two I can most confidently answer...

I read a grant figure of 3M dollars (to FiM? to teams?) somewhere. Do you know if that was correct, and (if it was) do you know whether it was a one-shot deal, or the first of a series (if the programs are successful)?
Knufire posted some information already that covers parts of this, but I'll try to add a bit. Firstly, the $3mil figure is, as far as I know the entire grant package relating to all FIRST programs that state grants cover. My understanding of the grant process is that teams apply for the grant through their school district who then apply directly to the state through their grant application system (FiM is not directly involved in the state grant). The grant program is in its second iteration and, to my knowledge is renewed in the state legislature on a year to year basis (this season being the second year of the program). The grants are primarily targeted to rookie teams, but state funding tapers off gradually as the team ages (the idea being to encourage the teams to rely on corporate sponsorship as they get more experience). Grants are available for teams of all ages as long as the funding hasn't run out for that year by the time they apply.

Is it true that all FRC and FTC teams that claim Michigan as their home state, *have* to compete within the FiM tournament structures and may not go elsewhere (unless/until they qualify through FiM processes for further competition)?
FiM does NOT restrict Michigan FRC (and most likely FTC, though I am less familiar with its structure) teams from playing in events outside of Michigan such as regionals or out-of-state districts where said districts allow it. That said, I am not sure how this affects qualifying for championship, and it's possible that Michigan teams may have to qualify for champs through Michigan events exclusively (though I am not aware of any instances of this being the case, the rules seem to change slightly every year making it hard to keep track of).

Now, one important caveat to this is that teams that accept State of Michigan Grants that cover the cost of their teams registration MUST compete in the 2 in-state district competitions they get as part of that registration or they have to pay back the grant money.
There was one instance this year where a rookie team came to the first day of a district, competed, and packed up at the end of the day thinking that they had covered this requirement. They were promptly notified that it did not and sent a single student and mentor to compete for the rest of their event (other teams that helped fill other roles as the rest of their team was unable to attend for various reasons).

[Loose Screw]

FiM does NOT restrict Michigan FRC (and most likely FTC, though I am less familiar with its structure) teams from playing in events outside of Michigan such as regionals or out-of-state districts where said districts allow it. That said, I am not sure how this affects qualifying for championship, and it's possible that Michigan teams may have to qualify for champs through Michigan events exclusively (though I am not aware of any instances of this being the case, the rules seem to change slightly every year making it hard to keep track of).



I don't know how the rules specifically handle this, but I remember 27 one year competing at a non-FiM event and winning chairman's, quallifying them for World's. Because they quallified at a non-FiM event, that opened another slot for a FiM team to qualify for World's at MSC.

[Christopher149]

I don't know how the rules specifically handle this, but I remember 27 one year competing at a non-FiM event and winning chairman's, quallifying them for World's. Because they quallified at a non-FiM event, that opened another slot for a FiM team to qualify for World's at MSC.

In 2014, 27 won RCA at Duluth, before proceeding to be CCA (and thus Hall of Fame).

Michigan FRC teams can compete out-of-state (I think a couple went to Indiana this year, for example, along with 27 again at Duluth). Success at Regionals counts toward CMP, but only in-state district events count toward the State Championship (same as with all other districts, not just FIM).

[Ed Law]

When I look at those two documents, one the one hand, I am glad that STEM teams are getting funded.

On the other hand, I am sad that we aren't talking about similar Michigan grants for communities that want to participate in more than one STEM program, or in some other single program.

And, I am sad that in addition to not describing grants for other programs, they further narrow communities choices by not helping to start HS FTC teams in Michigan.

I hope someone can confidently answer those other questions I posted.

Blake
I thought we are beating a dead horse already. What other questions you have that is not answered that you may be misinformed?
Anybody can approach their State legislature and ask for their favorite programs to be funded. FIRST in Michigan did that a number of years ago to help fund and expand FIRST programs in Michigan with a well thought out plan that has the highest chance of success that will benefit the most number of people in Michigan. Like many other things, it is not possible to please everybody and benefit everybody who may have a narrower interest, but it is for the common good of the whole community in general. I don't understand why you think FIRST in Michigan should have petitioned to get grants for other competing robotics program also. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said.

[EricH]

I thought we are beating a dead horse already. What other questions you have that is not answered that you may be misinformed?


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1484534&postcount=108 has 6 question sets. The first three have been answered by the documents; #5 by a post.

That leaves #4 and #6.

[Ed Law]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1484534&postcount=108 has 6 question sets. The first three have been answered by the documents; #5 by a post.

That leaves #4 and #6.
Sorry, I thought everything was answered by the documents or posts. If not, I will try to answer them. I am not speaking for FiM but I will tell you what I know.

Who decides how the grant dollars get spent, both big picture, and from day to day? What conditions were built into the grant's stipulations by the donor, and what other criteria have been put in place by the dispersing entity (if it isn't the donor)? For example, are non-school teams eligible to receive some of the $?

I am assuming the grant dollars here refers to the State of Michigan grant. This grant is for FIRST Robotics programs only, more specifically FRC and FTC. This was answered in question #1. The money comes from Michigan Department of Education. MDE decide the rules who gets the money and how much with input from FiM so MDE understands what the needs are. I don't know what he means by big picture and from day to day. The money is not a check book that they write checks every time somebody ask for money. The rules are clear who gets the money. Only teams associated with public schools are eligible for the grant. The money is transferred to the school district in monthly installments as part of the State Aid payment to the school districts. To receive money, teams have to field a robot and compete in two district events. They do not want schools to take the money and not compete. I don't know what he meant by donor. The money comes from Michigan taxpayers. Non public school teams are not eligible to receive any of this grant dollars.

Is it true that FiM does not allow FTC teams containing HS age students to participate in FiM FTC activities?
The short answer is yes. However high schools that want to do FTC can still do it on their own, but they will have to compete outside of Michigan or in non FiM sanctioned events. They can also decide to do other robotics programs. FIRST is not the only one available.

[cadandcookies]

However high schools that want to do FTC can still do it on their own, but they will have to compete outside of Michigan or in non FiM sanctioned events.

Do any of these exist in Michigan with a path to Super Regionals/Champs? It was my understanding that while in theory there were no options for high school aged FTC teams to compete inside Michigan, they could be allowed to compete elsewhere. This phrasing makes it sound like there might be an in-state option.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

Is it true that FiM does not allow FTC teams containing HS age students to participate in FiM FTC activities?
The short answer is yes. However high schools that want to do FTC can still do it on their own, but they will have to compete outside of Michigan or in non FiM sanctioned events. They can also decide to do other robotics programs. FIRST is not the only one available.

Up until and including this year, FiM age cut offs have been guidelines. Next year they become rules for competing in Michigan, which they are announcing a year in advance. This year, teams are free to compete within either FiM guidelines or traditional FIRST age guidelines (though it is not recommended).

[cadandcookies]

Up until and including this year, FiM age cut offs have been guidelines. Next year they become rules for competing in Michigan, which they are announcing a year in advance. This year, teams are free to compete within either FiM guidelines (though it is advised against) or traditional FIRST age guidelines.

That makes more sense. Apologies, I've been on a bit of a CDetox lately.

[Ed Law]

Do any of these exist in Michigan with a path to Super Regionals/Champs? It was my understanding that while in theory there were no options for high school aged FTC teams to compete inside Michigan, they could be allowed to compete elsewhere. This phrasing makes it sound like there might be an in-state option.
Sorry I was not clear. I don't think there is any in-state option available for FTC at this time that is not FiM sanctioned. However, I know there were Jr.FLL and FLL non FiM sanctioned unofficial events in Michigan. If somebody wants to do it, they can theoretically have their own FTC tournament. Is there a path to Super Regionals/Champs? The answer would be unlikely.

[EricH]

Is there a path to Super Regionals/Champs? The answer would be unlikely.
So, let me get this straight. I'm going to be very blunt here, probably too blunt, but this is what an outsider sees.

If someone, for whatever reason, wants to go by official FIRST age ranges (rules made by FIRST) that do not match up with FiM age ranges (rules made by FiM), they do NOT get supported by FiM in terms of events, have extra travel*, and unless they make that extra travel they have no conceivable way to get to anything beyond a local event.

I am assuming that they could (in theory) still get a grant--but if they are required to compete in FiM events to get the grant, and cannot due to age limits, then the grant would naturally need to be returned if it was even awarded in the first place.

If I might make a translation: Play by FiM rules or don't play at all.** Just as a point of note, I realize that that's kind of the cost of working under a particular area's management--they set the rules--but at the same time, if those rules don't make sense for some reason--in this case, the varying development of kids--then maybe some thinking needs to be done. As a second note, additional commentary I might have based on that translation is left to the imagination other than that it's short and uses 4-5 letter words.


I don't see this going over well outside of MI if it is expanded--I might even go so far as to say the ChampionSplit discussion would be a gentle summer shower in comparison; witness the length and tone of this thread. As I noted earlier, different kids of the same age/grade level are going to be at different levels of readiness to move on/up, and thus having a one-size-fits-all solution is more of a Procrustean bed than anything else. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there's any better method for determining the readiness level given the rules being put into place. (Given the FIRST official age rules, there's a lot more flexibility. This may be a good thing, it may not be. Depends on the kids in your area, I suppose--I know of at least one middle-school FRC team, at least a few years ago there was one.)


*I am assuming, for purposes of this statement, that there are places they can travel to to compete that are not run by FiM. This may or may not be accurate.

**I'm deliberately leaving out the other robotics programs here, because--at this time--those aren't under discussion. And, if someone opts to compete in those, they would not be supported by grants, or by FiM, in any way, I assume--hopefully I'm incorrect.

[aspiece]

Hi everyone,
For the last year our first affiliate partner in Michigan has been setting non-standard age ranges for our FLL and FTC programs. They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.

We need the FIRST community to help to bring these issues out in the open and make sure that this doesn't happen in other states. We are asking US FIRST to require all affiliate partners to follow the age requirements as publish by US FIRST. If you have a moment, please consider signing our petition:

https://www.change.org/p/us-first-first-in-michigan-fim-require-standard-age-ranges-for-all-first-affiliate-partners

The more signatures we get, the better chance we will have of getting US FIRST to hear our case. Thanks for your support, Carla

I would like to comment on this from my experience. I am the current Team Leader of Truck Town Thunder Robotics team. (2015 MSC RCA Winner) I currently have a program that I oversea that has 15 Jr. FLL Teams, 6 FLL Teams, 2 FTC Teams, 1 OCCRA Team, 4 VEX Teams and one FRC Team. We have started programs in my neighboring communities that are very similar to ours and was our argument to emulation for our DCA submission. In that community, in less than two years, we were able to start an FTC Team, Three FTC teams and are primed to start 6 FLL teams. The reason I talk about this is to give some context as to my experience.

So, from my experience here are my thoughts.

1. Jr FLL is awesome, inspiring and one of the coolest programs in FIRST. Working with kids that age is ALWAYS fun. This is very doable to get the community, teachers, and administration involved. I even had the principal running two all girls teams. It was awesome. (Age Appropriateness is perfect)

2. FLL - Let's get real for a minute. I am pretty sure the kit says 8+ on the side of the box. Anyhow, this is perfectly suited for students 4th - 6th grade. I had 2 teams make it to the state championships this year and one of them was a rookie team. Both teams the students were involved in all aspects, they were successful, they were able to score massive amounts of points. The rookie team was ran by a sophomore on my high school team. There is no reason students at this age level can't participate and be very successful in the age group.

3. FTC - Yes, this does fit. FIRST programs are successful because of mentorship. It is important that there are good mentors in your program. Yes, high school kids can mentor. (It let's them practice leadership) Its an excellent transition into the bigger robots in FRC and the students begin to work with adults. I have learned a lot of lessons here. 1. Get high school kids involved as mentors. 2. Eliminate barriers for them. 3. be supportive. 4. they just need to be motivated that they can do it.

4. FRC is perfect in high school. Rookie Teams are all coming back the second year.

Overall, this progression works! We have proven it. Feel free to read our Chairmans Submission posted on the FIRST website for all of the teams in the world to see. My high school students learn the ideals of FIRST earlier by mentoring. They learn why FIRST exists by mentoring younger teams. As an educator, there is no program in school that inspires kids to do more with their lives. It has changed my educational philosophy!

So, I will not be signing this petition and encourage all teams not to sign this petition. The FIM progression of programs works fine this way. I would be happy to meet with anyone who would like to discuss how they can better fit their program in this progression. It is way easier than you think.

I will leave you with a quote:

"Leadership is not a license to do less. Leadership is a responsibility to do more." - Simon Sinek

[gblake]

...
Overall, this progression works!
Of course it does; and OBTW, so do other progression paths through the FIRST programs. I am unaware of any good reason to actively work to block, hinder, prevent, deny, or discourage any students or communities who want to take a slightly different, but already proven successful, path. Particularly if a slightly different path suits their needs better.
...
I will leave you with a quote:

"Leadership is not a license to do less. Leadership is a responsibility to do more." - Simon SinekI will leave you with a quote:

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it." - Anonymous

[aspiece]

I never meant to imply that anything was broken. My argument is that it works and it's a progression that is what is best for kids and their ability. I was speaking from my experience with ALL levels of the FIRST Progression. Technically, I really don't think anyone is stopping a team to register a team in michigan and compete out of FIM. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

With the growth of program in Michigan, there needs to be some standardization across the program for many reasons. I think it is the responsibility of leadership of FIRST to make these decision to help people to do what is best for kids and what works.

I recently did a mini FLL-style event to prepare and train 6 rookie FLL teams. It was really cool and the will be well equipped to compete as rookies in the fall. The program was funded by title I funds and therefore the program was full of underrepresented and disadvantaged youth. I was able to get parents to show up and coach all 6 teams. They met all of the programming challenges I gave them And they were tricky. With intentional training to prepare an FLL team this age group is perfect. I met with them 8 times and they are ready with the basics to compete. ANY school, ANY SES, ANY size can do this. It's been proven. So, I ask, if it can't happen, why? Is there a barrier that needs to be eliminated? Is there some way I can help?

[gblake]

... [The FiM progression] is what is best for kids and their ability.No it isn't. It is OK for some students.
I was speaking from my experience with ALL levels of the FIRST Progression. That's nice, but it remains your experience. Unless you were explicitly studying each of the entire state's communities and their students, you are probably Ill-qualified to suggest which doors FiM should try to close in any/each locale.
Technically, I really don't think anyone is stopping a team to register a team in michigan and compete out of FIM. (Correct me if I'm wrong)FiM and the state are collaborating to make it hard (very hard in some cases). This seems especially pernicious because it seems completely unnecessary. I'm curious what benefit the pertinent policies are supposed to produce.

With the growth of program in Michigan, there needs to be some standardization across the program for many reasons. I think it is the responsibility of leadership of FIRST to make these decision to help people to do what is best for kids and what works. There is standardization already, across the entire planet except FiM; and the rest of the planet is evidence that the changes we are discussing aren't necessary, nor are "best for the kids".

I recently did a mini FLL-style event to prepare and train 6 rookie FLL teams. It was really cool and the will be well equipped to compete as rookies in the fall. The program was funded by title I funds and therefore the program was full of underrepresented and disadvantaged youth. I was able to get parents to show up and coach all 6 teams. They met all of the programming challenges I gave them And they were tricky. With intentional training to prepare an FLL team this age group is perfect. I met with them 8 times and they are ready with the basics to compete. ANY school, ANY SES, ANY size can do this. It's been proven. So, I ask, if it can't happen, why? Is there a barrier that needs to be eliminated? Is there some way I can help? What does this heartwarming success story have to do with telling other students they can't form a team and easily compete, if their team contains older students who are also beginners, or want to form an FLL/FTC team for any other reason?

Where I live, I was, and am, a steadfast advocate of allowing/encouraging MS students form VRC teams (or FTC, or whatever), but I would never consider discouraging HS students from also forming VRC teams (or FTC, or FRC, or ....).

It just isn't necessary for me or anyone else to use my opinions to override their intimate knowledge of their local situation, and close that door.

Blake
PS: You don't need me to encourage you to keep doing good. I just hope you won't insist others do their own good deeds the same way you did yours. Giving advice is good. Essentially insisting is not good.

[Mike Schreiber]

I'm curious what benefit the pertinent policies are supposed to produce.



To establish a sustainable FIRST Robotics Competition team at every high school in Michigan

FiM's goal is an FRC team in every high school. I got the impression that FiM does not want FTC to hinder FRC's growth, but if you feel strongly enough about the topic and don't understand why FiM operates the way it does, ask them (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/contact_us.html). I'm sure they'd be more than happy to discuss their reasoning with you.

[gblake]

FiM's goal is an FRC team in every high school. I got the impression that FiM does not want FTC to hinder FRC's growth, but if you feel strongly enough about the topic and don't understand why FiM operates the way it does, ask them (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/contact_us.html). I'm sure they'd be more than happy to discuss their reasoning with you.Hmmm,

That page offers links to use if you want to start a team, or if you want to offer corporate support, or if you want to write a snail-mail letter. I don't think I want to do any of those.

I have been planning to ask if anyone following this thread is able to share a copy of the planning document(s) or presentation material that describes the financial arithmetic and other thinking being implemented now.

My guess is that those planning materials would be (are) straight forward; and that It/they might contain some assumptions various FIRST participants could debate, but nothing crazy. Publishing them would create useful clarity that could short circuit threads that start the way this one did.

Of course, FiM doesn't owe me anything, I'm not shaking my fist at them/anyone demanding an answer. However, I am mighty curious. Lots of other folks are too.

Maybe they have already been published, and I simply wasn't paying attention?

Blake

[Michael Hill]

FiM's goal is an FRC team in every high school. I got the impression that FiM does not want FTC to hinder FRC's growth, but if you feel strongly enough about the topic and don't understand why FiM operates the way it does, ask them (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/contact_us.html). I'm sure they'd be more than happy to discuss their reasoning with you.

Why is FRC considered more important to have than FTC? What if a high school wants a FIRST team, but space is an issue (which is often the case)? They are likely able to support an FTC team but not an FRC team.

[cbale2000]

Hmmm,

That page offers links to use if you want to start a team, or if you want to offer corporate support, or if you want to write a snail-mail letter. I don't think I want to do any of those.

Gail Alpert (the first contact listed on that page) is the president of FiM and would likely be the best person to contact if you were interested in emailing them directly. She is usually pretty good about returning emails fairly quickly too.

Why is FRC considered more important to have than FTC? What if a high school wants a FIRST team, but space is an issue (which is often the case)? They are likely able to support an FTC team but not an FRC team.

I think the issue is that if you have overlapping programs it becomes harder to sell the more expensive, more time consuming one to new schools. In most areas it would just make sense to just go with the easier option, but FiM has facilitated solutions to these problems through getting state grants to cover funding, and various workshops to help rookie teams throughout the state (amongst other things) that these things aren't really problems as much as they are excuses.

As a result of excluding FTC from High school level to promote FRC, FiM chose to assign FTC to middle school ages and bump FLL down to elementary to prevent overlap from the two programs (which would have limited access to FTC as most schools would not have two programs, and in most cases would likely choose FLL if given the choice).

[gblake]

Gail Alpert (the first contact listed on that page) is the president of FiM and would likely be the best person to contact if you were interested in emailing them directly. She is usually pretty good about returning emails fairly quickly too.OK Thanks - I'll shoot her a request soon if she doesn't beat me to the punch by posting something here. Request sent.


I think the issue is that if you have overlapping programs it becomes harder to sell the more expensive, more time consuming one to new schools. In most areas it would just make sense to just go with the easier option, but FiM has facilitated solutions to these problems through getting state grants to cover funding, and various workshops to help rookie teams throughout the state (amongst other things) that these things aren't really problems as much as they are excuses.Surely you didn't mean to write what you just posted in that paragraph.

In the following paragraph, if you replace "me" with any student, parent, administrator, sponsor, or other member of a community, what you just wrote is this:
Because FiM thinks they know better than I do what I want to do with my time, energy and tax money, they have put in place a system that cripples any HS-aged attempt to participate in the normal FTC process that the rest of the world uses. And further, because they think that workshops and grants (and anything else they supply?) are the only things standing between my current desires, and the obviously better choice of starting an FRC team (the more expensive and time-consuming choice), that I now have no excuse for not starting one, if I want to participate in FIRST's/FiMs programs?

Say it isn't so! Surely you miscommunicated the FiM message/motivation, or placed a wrong emphasis on some part of it (or I misunderstood you).

Blake

[EricH]

Say it isn't so! Surely you miscommunicated the FiM message/motivation, or placed a wrong emphasis on some part of it (or I misunderstood you).


Blake, you're not the only one who's seeing something like this. I REALLY hope that we're misunderstanding what the Michiganders are saying!

[Basel A]

There can be many interpretations of FiM's choices. No matter the motivation, the interpretation Blake posted above is unavoidable because it's true. Any time an organisation restricts the actions of its constituents, that says "I know better than you what's best for you." Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not.

Michiganders have said all sorts of different things in this thread. I think everybody has been totally honest from their perspective. It goes to show that we're not one big congealed mass of unified opinion and robot awesomeness. We're 360 different FRC teams, about as many as the PNW and California combined.

It's also important to say that Michiganders are not FiM. We don't always agree with FiM's decisions. I know I've disagreed with some things. This isn't at the top of the list, but I don't know much about FLL or FTC.

When folks like Lisa and Spiece say the progression works, I'm willing to believe them, that it works for most students. For groups that are exceptions to that, VEX programs are an available option. If the mandatory progression does in fact increase sustainable growth of FIRST programs, and I'd bet FiM would know better than I if that's true, then it's probably a positive development (but again, I don't know much about FTC and FLL).

As for getting FiM to discuss that with you publicly, well, I think the last time Gail posted on Chief Delphi was several years ago? Of the rest of the FiM Officers and Directors, I believe Jim is the only active member here and at this point I'd say he's chosen not to comment (not that I blame him). It's an organisation that could make big improvements in their transparency and public communication. That's a separate problem.

[maltz1881]

On the Cranbrook campus they have FTC at the high school level. They have a competition on their campus. They also can compete out of state. They send x amount of FTC teams to the Super Regional. This was the case last year, now whether they still will compete which I believe they will, is yet to be seen.

We have an amazing group in FiM from volunteers to Gail and other board members. They work hard and are dedicated to the education of the students of Michigan. We have workshops for all levels. When you leave the workshops you will usually have a operating base of a robot. I run an FTC workshop that has over 500 attendees yearly. We teach them everything from awards, design, programming, building and wiring your chassis. We have even created a book so teams don't have to build the "Ranger Bot".

Do I think FRC is viable to every school in say North or South Dakota. No. However, when we have the teams like we do in the UP, the nothing is impossible! Do I think that in those areas of the country that FTC is easier, most likely. I used to live in that area of the country and I know what is and isn't readily accessible to those teams.

I have 4 teams and they don't qualify for the grants from the state. There are other grants available though. FiM tries there best to make sure anybody can play. FTC is pretty much free for the 1st year with all of the grants available.

I also believe and maybe I am wrong in this, but I believe FiM just doesn't make there own rules, I think they have some guidance from New Hampshire. I may be wrong about that though.

I personally had a difficult time walking away from FLL at first. Then I seen what FTC did for the kids and how happy they were. It changed them and they changed me. FLL is great but I am loving FTC even more. Give the kids an opportunity. I have kids on the teams who are autistic and have cerebral palsy. They are doing just fine with it.

[maltz1881]

I also want to give credit to 68, 70, 494 and 3568 for there help in the workshop for FTC. Without there aid, we would be lost.

[Mike Schreiber]

That page offers links to use if you want to start a team, or if you want to offer corporate support, or if you want to write a snail-mail letter. I don't think I want to do any of those.

I was linking this for the email addresses.

Why is FRC considered more important to have than FTC? What if a high school wants a FIRST team, but space is an issue (which is often the case)? They are likely able to support an FTC team but not an FRC team.

I don't know, I'm not sure I disagree with you either. I just wanted to point out that FIRST's mission statement and FiM's are NOT the same.

Don Bossi even said at championships (I'm paraphrasing, don't remember the exact quote) that the only organization that believes FRC in every high school is an ideal/viable solution is FiM.

[angelah]

Don't bother trying to contact FiM. I have several middle school FLL teams and am in the process of starting more, so this thread has concerned me. I sent an email this week outlining what was said and my concerns. I received a one line reply today that an email would be sent to FLL teams in the next few days. No information.

I'm deeply invested in this topic, and I have a lot to say. I'm holding off until there is official, public information available, though.

[Siri]

Questions I have in reading this thread:

1) Do we understand how many (whether greater than or equal to zero) students will now not be able to participate in FIRST? In their preferred program? In any robotics program? Is FiM making an active effort to prevent this, and can someone knowledgeable assess that effort?

2) Do the FiM/MI grants sufficiently offset costs for teams that need to convert from FLL to FTC? Is this transition being facilitated, and how well?

3) Does the dislike around telling teams what to do extend to the current worldwide age cutoffs? (I'm not saying this negates any argument, not the least because change itself is important.) FLL is capped at 14yo in North America and 16yo externally. Are there 15/17-year-olds who want to continue in FLL or are in places without alternatives? What if any help happens there that might be adopted here?

[RMiller]

Can someone enlighten me on this question - is it possible for non-high school teams (homeschool, 4-H groups, community teams, etc) to receive funds from the state/FiM for FTC and/or FRC?

To another group of individuals (maybe) - is VRC strong enough in Michigan that teams/organizations could go that route without significant difficulty (e.g. needing to travel outside of Michigan to compete at all)? Really, is the suggestion that a high school or high school aged group compete in VRC as an alternative a viable alternative?

[Allison K]

Can someone enlighten me on this question - is it possible for non-high school teams (homeschool, 4-H groups, community teams, etc) to receive funds from the state/FiM for FTC and/or FRC?

To another group of individuals (maybe) - is VRC strong enough in Michigan that teams/organizations could go that route without significant difficulty (e.g. needing to travel outside of Michigan to compete at all)? Really, is the suggestion that a high school or high school aged group compete in VRC as an alternative a viable alternative?

State of Michigan Grant funds for FTC/FRC - The emails from last year are pretty clear that only public school districts may benefit from the state grant funding. Private schools, community groups, etc. are not eligible. I'm not sure where charter schools fall.

Viability of VRC in Michigan - VRC is in general a very accessible option in Michigan for middle school and high school level teams. There were at least 25 VRC events in Michigan last season (2014-2015), as well as 9ish VEX IQ events for elementary school/middle school age group.

(There's a number of other posts that I'd like to respond to as well, but this one was a straightforward response)

[Tom Line]

Questions I have in reading this thread:

1) Do we understand how many (whether greater than or equal to zero) students will now not be able to participate in FIRST? In their preferred program? In any robotics program? Is FiM making an active effort to prevent this, and can someone knowledgeable assess that effort?

2) Do the FiM/MI grants sufficiently offset costs for teams that need to convert from FLL to FTC? Is this transition being facilitated, and how well?

3) Does the dislike around telling teams what to do extend to the current worldwide age cutoffs? (I'm not saying this negates any argument, not the least because change itself is important.) FLL is capped at 14yo in North America and 16yo externally. Are there 15/17-year-olds who want to continue in FLL or are in places without alternatives? What if any help happens there that might be adopted here?

#2 - FTC is essentially free to start teams with the amount of grant money FiM provides.

[angelah]

Can someone enlighten me on this question - is it possible for non-high school teams (homeschool, 4-H groups, community teams, etc) to receive funds from the state/FiM for FTC and/or FRC?

The state funding is handled through public schools only. Our team is a community team, so we affiliated with an ISD (Intermediate School District, like a county school.) The state allowed homeschoolers and private school students to participate on the team, as well as public schools students, under the umbrella of the school district.

[gblake]

Here's some publically available information relating to a few of your questions:
http://www.firstinmichigan.org/Documents/2015FIRSTgrants.pdf
http://www.techplan.org/downloads/pdfs/99h_first_rfp_20130814_105933_3.pdf
FYI: The material at these links describe the eligibility requirements Michigan was using at some point (I don't recall what academic year they are for). More than one type of "school" is eligible, but I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of Michigan education to interpret everything there for someone else. Interested folks should follow the links.

One thing that is obvious is that the tax dollars involved (Michigan and NASA) are being aimed at schools, not at communities (communities include schools, and many other groups that are fine vehicles for accomplishing broad STEM inspiration).

[Mr V]

FYI: The material at these links describe the eligibility requirements Michigan was using at some point (I don't recall what academic year they are for). More than one type of "school" is eligible, but I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of Michigan education to interpret everything there for someone else. Interested folks should follow the links.

One thing that is obvious is that the tax dollars involved (Michigan and NASA) are being aimed at schools, not at communities (communities include schools, and many other groups that are fine vehicles for accomplishing broad STEM inspiration).

The grant money from the MI public schools is for public schools, I'm not sure why you keep suggesting that it should go anywhere but public schools. I'm sure doing so would violate and least a couple of rules about spending public school money.

MI has nothing to do with NASA grants and the NASA grants are not targeted to teams at public schools, I know of community teams that have received the grant in the past.

The FIRST grant also mentioned in some of the materials again has nothing to do with MI and is not open to only public schools. Again I know of teams that were not at a public school that have received that grant in the past.


While we are at it FiM's reason for being is not to promote or facilitate robotics or STEM it is to promote FIRST in the state of MI. So when they went to the MI public schools and asked for grants for FIRST programs that is what they were doing, asking for funding for FIRST programs, not robotics or STEM activites even though FIRST is robotics and a STEM activity.

I've seen something similar brought up in regards to the OSPI (Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction) grants in Washington state. "Why aren't they available to start or run VEX teams?" Because it was members of Washington FIRST Robotics and FIRST Robotics Competition teams who lobbied the Legislature and OSPI for the funding. "Why aren't non-Public schools eligible?" Because the Washington state public education funds can only be given to public schools per the laws of WA state.

[Peter Chen]

The issue in Michigan isn't really about which teams FiM gives grants to. The issue is which ages FiM will allow to participate in FLL (and FTC). Here's part of the e-mail that was sent out by FiM:

Date: Mon, May 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Starting FTC teams in your middle schools, FLL in elementary

Teams
As the FIRST website opens for registration of FLL and FTC, I want to clarify how the Michigan progression differs from the US FIRST progression. Teams inside of Michigan must follow our progression. This is the only way to have team within Michigan.

Here is our progression:
FRC High School only
FTC Middle School only (as defined by your school district)
FLL Late Elementary (4th grade to end of your elementary schools)
Jr. FLL Early Elementary K-3

While no new middle school FLL teams may be started, there are some middle school FLL teams that have been around since before we started FTC. By next year (Sept 2016) they will all have to be aligned.

[EricH]

The issue in Michigan isn't really about which teams FiM gives grants to. The issue is which ages FiM will allow to participate in FLL (and FTC). Here's part of the e-mail that was sent out by FiM:

That part: "This is the only way to have team in Michigan." concerns me.

Translation #1: Either somebody didn't copy this right, or somebody needs more English classes. Probably the latter is the case.

Translation #2: All the alternate approaches discussed previously are OUT. Regardless of whether the students, teachers, or schools are ready for this progression, they have to make it. That's FiM's line, and they're sticking to it. Whether it's a good idea or not is up for debate.



I'm going to make a prediction. I don't know if it's possible to track it, but I suspect that the number of high schools involved in FIRST will FALL, rather than RISE. And I'm going to go out even farther and predict that the driving factor--for once--won't be the lack of mentors. It'll be the lack of funding, or the lack of administration support for playing in FRC. I REALLY hope I'm wrong on both counts.

The reason I'm saying this is simple: Right now, that number of high schools is FRC+FTC+rookies. Now, we remove FTC from that equation. FRC+rookies. But, some FTC schools will make the jump--call them FRC2 to distinguish from raw rookies. Now we have FRC+FRC2+rookies. If that number of rookie FRC school teams is < the number of FTC teams lost, the number of high schools involved in FIRST will be going down. Plain and simple.

I leave it to the reader's discretion as to whether it is better for a high school to be in FRC, FIRST, or some other STEM program (VRC--who, if they're alert enough, can probably scoop up a few extra teams--or somebody else I'm not aware of).

[Madison]

Apologies if this has been answered and I missed it, but I wanted to ask again:

Is this being done with FIRST HQ's awareness and blessing?

[Richard Wallace]

Is this being done with FIRST HQ's awareness and blessing?Probably it is, but in the same sense that District competition was -- FiM began as a revolution, and was later called a 'trial program' by HQ.

As the late sixteenth century courtier* Sir John Harington is famously quoted, "Treason never prospers -- what's the reason? For, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

Will the FiM model for progression through FIRST progams prosper? Watch and see, or better yet jump in and help.

-----

*Sir John's career was marked by many episodes of royal disfavor. He was more skilled at seeking forgiveness than permission. He is credited with inventing the flush toilet.

[Ed Law]

I think the discussions here boils down to who should have control over decisions. I debated for a while if I should just be quiet and stay out of this. I decided to explain where I come from and share my personal opinion.

I coached youth sports for many years from T-ball to soccer. My kids were involved in many other competitive sports from swimming to tennis to golf. I had to deal with parents as the coach or have experience with how other parents on the team demand from the coaches. My conclusion is it is very difficult to keep all the parents happy if their primary motive is only advocating for their son or daughter. In general parents are not happy with fixed age groups. Some parents want their kids move up to play or practice with older or better kids because they think their kids are more advanced than their peers. Some parents want their kids to stay back so their kids will feel more successful. The only way to keep all parents happy is if the league allow parents to decide which group to sign up their kids. Even then some other parents will not be happy because they don't want their kids playing with other kids who are not at their level. It never ends. Another way to keep parents happy is to let them decide what position/role their kids will play on the team and how much playing time. Obviously this would not be best for the team which is why there are coaches who have to make these decisions.

Now let's talk about the FIRST program. I have had parents who want their 8 year olds to be on FLL teams because they are more mature and more advanced according to them. There are also parents who want their 7th and 8th graders stay on FLL teams instead of FTC teams (in Michigan). There are parents who want their 8th graders on FRC teams and I have parents who want their 9th graders to be able to do both FTC and FRC. They all have their reasons: maturity, convenience, logistics, being with friends etc. To keep all the parents happy in our school district, we will have to make FLL K-8, FTC 5-12 and FRC 6-12, and parents will decide what they want to sign up. It is all about having control. Is that practical? No.

Do I agree with all of FiM's decisions over the years? The honest answer is no. It is because some things were not convenient for me or it didnot benefit me or any other me me me reasons. Do I support FiM's decisions? The answer is 100% yes. I will do everything I can to make sure what FiM decided will have a chance of being successful. It is about trusting they do it for good reasons. It is about those decisions benefiting the most number of teams or the FIRST programs in Michigan in general.

Do I like the FLL, FTC and FRC cutoff in Michigan? No. It makes my life more difficult because it is more work for us (in our district). But I will accept their decision and move on, and I will fully support it.

[Tom Line]

I think the discussions here boils down to who should have control over decisions. I debated for a while if I should just be quiet and stay out of this. I decided to explain where I come from and share my personal opinion.

I coached youth sports for many years from T-ball to soccer. My kids were involved in many other competitive sports from swimming to tennis to golf. I had to deal with parents as the coach or have experience with how other parents on the team demand from the coaches. My conclusion is it is very difficult to keep all the parents happy if their primary motive is only advocating for their son or daughter. In general parents are not happy with fixed age groups. Some parents want their kids move up to play or practice with older or better kids because they think their kids are more advanced than their peers. Some parents want their kids to stay back so their kids will feel more successful. The only way to keep all parents happy is if the league allow parents to decide which group to sign up their kids. Even then some other parents will not be happy because they don't want their kids playing with other kids who are not at their level. It never ends. Another way to keep parents happy is to let them decide what position/role their kids will play on the team and how much playing time. Obviously this would not be best for the team which is why there are coaches who have to make these decisions.

Now let's talk about the FIRST program. I have had parents who want their 8 year olds to be on FLL teams because they are more mature and more advanced according to them. There are also parents who want their 7th and 8th graders stay on FLL teams instead of FTC teams (in Michigan). There are parents who want their 8th graders on FRC teams and I have parents who want their 9th graders to be able to do both FTC and FRC. They all have their reasons: maturity, convenience, logistics, being with friends etc. To keep all the parents happy in our school district, we will have to make FLL K-8, FTC 5-12 and FRC 6-12, and parents will decide what they want to sign up. It is all about having control. Is that practical? No.

Do I agree with all of FiM's decisions over the years? The honest answer is no. It is because some things were not convenient for me or it didnot benefit me or any other me me me reasons. Do I support FiM's decisions? The answer is 100% yes. I will do everything I can to make sure what FiM decided will have a chance of being successful. It is about trusting they do it for good reasons. It is about those decisions benefiting the most number of teams or the FIRST programs in Michigan in general.

Do I like the FLL, FTC and FRC cutoff in Michigan? No. It makes my life more difficult because it is more work for us (in our district). But I will accept their decision and move on, and I will fully support it.

Very well said, and I'm in the same boat. For reference, as of this year I will have 1 son in high school, one in middle, and one in elementary. Last year, I coached their (non-school affiliated) FLL team which was funded through grants from a number of local Michigan companies. This next year, each will be on a different team. You want to talk about logistical headaches? It's going to be a pain in the posterior.

Yet I understand the long term goals, I see what FiM has done so far in Michigan, and I'm going to support them 100%. In a different thread I saw someone called a 'FIRST apologist' because they stuck behind First decisions. I guess I'm an FiM apologist, at least until I see their long term decisions start hurting the MAJORITY of the teams in the state, rather than helping them.

[Madison]

Will the FiM model for progression through FIRST progams prosper? Watch and see, or better yet jump in and help.[/SIZE]

This progression would severely impact the methods my team uses to generate interest in STEM and prepare team members for FRC season. I have no desire to help -- and, frankly, will be upset if FIRST rolls these changes out across all regions.

Y'all might celebrate FiM's "revolutionary" behavior, but taking actions that will potentially change the way programs operate across the board without soliciting input from those affected is condescending and problematic.

...and, I'll note, not terribly unlike FIRST HQ's own behavior recently.

[weberr]

Well said, Ed. I agree.

It took four years for Gail from FiM to wear me down to start a High School team. Five years later, it was the best thing I have ever done. I spend over 1000 hours a year, easily.

Each state is different; Each city is different; each county is different; each school district is different; and each student is different. Trying to to find a one size fits all is very hard.

In my case, this model works well with me as a coach, it works well with the growth of my team, and it works well with aligning with the progress of curriculum in my school district. It fits. Yeah! But that may not be true for all people, everywhere.

Time will tell if this concept works for everyone. We won't know unless someone tries. If it doesn't, then we will know.

[GaryVoshol]

I've been watching this from the sidelines for a while.

Like Ed, I have reservations about the FLL age group change, more so than the FTC age limits.

First, when it was decided to not have high school FTC in Michigan, it didn't affect many existing programs, because FTC was pretty new. This one hits a lot of existing FLL teams, teams that had their own internal progression from 4th or 5th grade through middle school. I have heard very little about this change before (but then, I'm not a coach), so I don't know how much existing teams have been able to prepare.

Second, it essentially makes FLL a 4th-5th grade program, because that's the setup for the majority of elementary schools in the state. (There are some exceptions, such as a few middle schools without 6th grade, but not many. And what about those few cases where middle school starts in 5th, or where it is just K-8 without a elementary/middle school split?) Just the time that kids are beginning to master FLL and could do something spectacular, they'll be aged out.

Third, while I believe many 7th and 8th graders are ready for FTC, some are not, and I'm pretty sure the majority of 6th graders are not ready. In fact, the international standard age for FTC doesn't even start until 7th grade.

Fourth, do we have the support for FTC tournaments? If existing middle school FLL teams turn into FTC teams, there would be 100-200 new teams. Are there events? How about up north? It took 5 years to get a FRC event in the UP, how long will it take for FTC? And what do teams do in the meantime?

I will continue to support FLL and FRC as I have in the past. (I tried FTC one year, but with 3 rule sets going through my mind, I didn't feel I could give it a fair effort and still maintain my standards in FLL and FRC.)

I'm afraid that we will see a big drop in FLL teams (simply because we've cut the age eligibility in half) but without a corresponding increase in FTC teams. I hope not - I hope I will be proven wrong. But I'm not convinced yet.

[gblake]

Ed,

You (and the other folks who liked what you wrote) and I are pretty far apart on this topic. Because this general subject has been a raw nerve for me for quite a while, a combative tone probably shows up in what I write.

It's not personal. I do have some strong opinions about the subject(s); but please don't mistake those opinions for a dislike of Ed Law (or Tom Line, or Weberr, or ...)

I think the discussions here boils down to who should have control over decisions. I think I might use those exact same words, but mean something significantly different than you meant.

... we will have to make FLL K-8, FTC 5-12 and FRC 6-12, and parents will decide what they want to sign up. It is all about having control. Is that practical? No...Two thoughts:

A) The first of the two is a question. Who is the "we" you mention? What are they responsible for? and who made them responsible for it?

B) The second of the two is a disagreement. My answer to whether "that" is practical is this, "Obviously and unambiguously, yes, it is." Without actually poring through the rule books to double-check, with two minor exceptions I think those grade ranges are exactly the ranges the entire rest of planet Earth is using running their FIRST programs/activities.

The two exceptions that I think I see are 1) I think FLL normally goes up through 9th grade (mostly outside of North America?), and 2) I am not aware of a lower age/grade limit on any FIRST program.

Leading up to my next question, I'll suggest that the Michigan schools are experts at dealing with the ages of students on school teams; that they have been experts for decades, and that they can almost certainly continue to handle that matter on their own.

I'll also reiterate that the rest of the world seems to doing just fine using the standard FIRST age/grade ranges. Was I napping when FIRST or some other group announced that FIRST's programs, event partners, etc. were having big problems caused by using those grade ranges? In all the success stories and other (well-deserved) praise I have read in this thread, I haven't seen one single thing described that (IMO) required mandatory changes in team age/grade ranges.

So, in addition to asking the "we" question above, I would sincerely like to learn what specific problem is being affected by FiM trying to change FIRST's age/grade ranges?

Blake
PS: I was trying to wait for a reply from Gail before writing anything new in the thread, but couldn't fight the feeling.

I continue to hope that Gail or someone will shoot me a copy of the presentation(s)/proposal(s)/whatever that FiM used to pitch their plans to the Michigan government, and to others; plus a copy of the arithmetic they used when deciding to recommend the initiatives in that/those documents.

In the request I sent to Gail, I speculated that some of the material would contain items reasonable people might debate. I also speculated that the info in that material would probably also supply the clarity that could short-circuit threads like this one.

[gblake]

... I guess I'm an FiM apologist, at least until I see their long term decisions start hurting the MAJORITY of the teams in the state, rather than helping them.Why does a decision have to hurt a "MAJORITY" of the teams in the state before it merits reconsideration?

Suppose an FiM decision hurts 1 team/community and helps none. Would that hypothetical decision keep you in the FiM apologist camp?

Suppose an FiM decision hurts ten teams/communities and helps eight. Neither of those numbers is a majority of the Michigan teams. Would that hypothetical decision keep you in the FiM apologist camp?

Suppose an FiM decision makes forming teams harder than it needs to be in some communities, without making forming teams easier anywhere else? Would that hypothetical decision keep you in the FiM apologist camp?

Also, help me out, when in this thread has anyone said the interests of the majority of teams are being pitted against the interests of a minority of teams? Aren't you picking sides in a battle that doesn't exist? Did I miss something?

Blake

[gblake]

...
Each state is different; Each city is different; each county is different; each school district is different; and each student is different. Trying to to find a one size fits all is very hard.

In my case, this model works well with me as a coach, it works well with the growth of my team, and it works well with aligning with the progress of curriculum in my school district. It fits. Yeah! But that may not be true for all people, everywhere.

Time will tell if this concept works for everyone. We won't know unless someone tries. If it doesn't, then we will know.What is more important is whether anyone needs to try.

It's obvious from my other two posts that I don't think I have read any reason yet why forcing any new progressions on anyone is needed.

Reading what you wrote about one size not fitting all, I would agree emphatically with that, and say that it leads to an obvious conclusion: To the greatest practical extent, no should try to force all into one size.

If using one size ain't necessary, and if it causes poor "fits", don't do it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Blake

[Siri]

So, in addition to asking the "we" question above, I would sincerely like to learn what specific problem is being affected by FiM trying to change FIRST's age/grade ranges?Based on my reading of their published materials (and this thread), the change seems to be aimed at getting an FRC team to cover every high school in Michigan. It seems to be about reducing the competition between FTC and FRC on these terms. I would guess that it's a similar argument for FTC in middle schools, though that seems to be in less focus (granted, I'm chiefly an FRCer).

This seems to produce two different concerns:
1) Is having an FRC team cover every high school in Michigan a good goal? A reasonable one?
2) Separately, is this an appropriate step towards that goal?

For myself: I can see the argument that FRC will end up in more high schools if they can't pursue the lower-cost FTC alternative. (Though I think limiting the grants would've been enough instead of shutting teams out of events.) As to the first question, it has elements of a noble goal, though it'd be much better to see it read "an FRC program for all high schoolers an FTC program for all middle schoolers, and an FLL program for all upper elementary grades--and any other teams as the local community would like to support." I see it as a poor transition plan even if that is the goal.

[gblake]

Based on my reading of their published materials (and this thread), the change seems to be aimed at getting an FRC team to cover every high school in Michigan. It seems to be about reducing the competition between FTC and FRC on these terms. I would guess that it's a similar argument for FTC in middle schools, though that seems to be in less focus (granted, I'm chiefly an FRCer).

This seems to produce two different concerns:
1) Is having an FRC team cover every high school in Michigan a good goal? A reasonable one?
2) Separately, is this an appropriate step towards that goal?

For myself: I can see the argument that FRC will end up in more high schools if they can't pursue the lower-cost FTC alternative. (Though I think limiting the grants would've been enough instead of shutting teams out of events.) As to the first question, it has elements of a noble goal, though it'd be much better to see it read "an FRC program for all high schoolers an FTC program for all middle schoolers, and an FLL program for all upper elementary grades--and any other teams as the local community would like to support." I see it as a poor transition plan even if that is the goal.Not arguing with you; but I will point this out: Having a goal is very different from affecting a problem.

[Siri]

Not arguing with you; but I will point this out: Having a goal is very different from affecting a problem.FIM never gave me the impression they were trying to affect a problem. (I'm assuming you don't mean problem in the sense of "there isn't an FRC team in every high school in Michigan", or something similar.) But I'm not sure why that should be considered a critical requirement from FiM's point of view.

[angelah]

I have heard very little about this change before (but then, I'm not a coach), so I don't know how much existing teams have been able to prepare.

They have yet to be notified. According to my reply from FiM, an email will go out this week.

[Ed Law]

Ed,

You (and the other folks who liked what you wrote) and I are pretty far apart on this topic. Because this general subject has been a raw nerve for me for quite a while, a combative tone probably shows up in what I write.

It's not personal. I do have some strong opinions about the subject(s); but please don't mistake those opinions for a dislike of Ed Law (or Tom Line, or Weberr, or ...)

I think I might use those exact same words, but mean something significantly different than you meant.

Two thoughts:

A) The first of the two is a question. Who is the "we" you mention? What are they responsible for? and who made them responsible for it?

B) The second of the two is a disagreement. My answer to whether "that" is practical is this, "Obviously and unambiguously, yes, it is." Without actually poring through the rule books to double-check, with two minor exceptions I think those grade ranges are exactly the ranges the entire rest of planet Earth is using running their FIRST programs/activities.

The two exceptions that I think I see are 1) I think FLL normally goes up through 9th grade (mostly outside of North America?), and 2) I am not aware of a lower age/grade limit on any FIRST program.

Leading up to my next question, I'll suggest that the Michigan schools are experts at dealing with the ages of students on school teams; that they have been experts for decades, and that they can almost certainly continue to handle that matter on their own.

I'll also reiterate that the rest of the world seems to doing just fine using the standard FIRST age/grade ranges. Was I napping when FIRST or some other group announced that FIRST's programs, event partners, etc. were having big problems caused by using those grade ranges? In all the success stories and other (well-deserved) praise I have read in this thread, I haven't seen one single thing described that (IMO) required mandatory changes in team age/grade ranges.

So, in addition to asking the "we" question above, I would sincerely like to learn what specific problem is being affected by FiM trying to change FIRST's age/grade ranges?

Blake
PS: I was trying to wait for a reply from Gail before writing anything new in the thread, but couldn't fight the feeling.

I continue to hope that Gail or someone will shoot me a copy of the presentation(s)/proposal(s)/whatever that FiM used to pitch their plans to the Michigan government, and to others; plus a copy of the arithmetic they used when deciding to recommend the initiatives in that/those documents.

In the request I sent to Gail, I speculated that some of the material would contain items reasonable people might debate. I also speculated that the info in that material would probably also supply the clarity that could short-circuit threads like this one.
I appreciate your clarification about your combative tone. It seems that you were attacking everybody in Michigan that does not agree with you even though they did not make the rules. But now I understand, thanks.

Let me first answer your question. I am going to rewrite it from "To keep all the parents happy in our school district, we will have to make FLL K-8, FTC 5-12 and FRC 6-12" to "To keep all the parents happy in our school district, the program will have to be change d to K-8 for FLL, 5-12 for FTC and 6-12 for FRC."

To save you the trouble to understand the FIRST programs age cutoff. here it is. Jr.LL is K-3 (age 6-9). FLL is 4-8 (age 9-14, 9-16 outside US and Canada). FTC is high school and FRC is high school. There is very little overlap if any. So what I said above to make our parents happy is to widen the range and add a lot of overlap to create flexibility. Obviously I am not advocating for that.

Yes, you and I are miles apart on this issue. And I am not trying to convince you. My biggest disagreement with you is with your philosophy which you quoted "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Just because there is a saying by somebody in the past does not make it right or the truth. Many people have said many things in the past. It depends on the context. Not everything can be applied to every situation. I am a firm believer in Kaizen (continuous improvement). We put a lot of emphasis on Kaizen at my place of work. Many of us work on Kaizen projects on the side. Even if something is not broken, we try to improve process/product that affects our work, to make it more efficient, to make us more productive, to make work life more enjoyable. It directly translate to the bottom line. Customer satisfaction will increase and the company will be more profitable and competitive. A company that does not change things and wait until it is truly broken will most probably not going to be able to survive for very long in this global competitive economy.
I am not trying to convince you that my way is right. You are welcome to stay believing in what you believe in. At the same time, other people have the right to do things differently than you without you getting upset with them.
I remember when Michigan changed to the district model, a lot of people were upset with Michigan teams. One of their concern is that it will be forced upon them. Seven years later, I don't see that happening. That was called a pilot program at that time meaning there was a chance FIRST HQ will adopt it elsewhere. For this issue, Michigan is not running a pilot program. FiM is not trying to convince FIRST that it is good for everybody and they should implement this outside of Michigan.

[orangemoore]

...
To save you the trouble to understand the FIRST programs age cutoff. here it is. Jr.LL is K-3 (age 6-9). FLL is 4-8 (age 9-14, 9-16 outside US and Canada). FTC is high schooll and FRC is high school. There is very little overlap if any. So what I said above to make our parents happy is to widen the range and add a lot of overlap to create flexibility. Obviously I Chase Club am not advocating for that.

...
FYI
FTC is not just high school. FTC is Grades 7-12.

[Mr V]

\

To save you the trouble to understand the FIRST programs age cutoff. here it is. Jr.LL is K-3 (age 6-9). FLL is 4-8 (age 9-14, 9-16 outside US and Canada). FTC is high school and FRC is high school. There is very little overlap if any. So what I said above to make our parents happy is to widen the range and add a lot of overlap to create flexibility. Obviously I am not advocating for that.



No FIRST's official ages/suggested grades do have overlap to allow people to participate in the program that best suits them.

Yes originally FTC was purely an alternate program for ages 14-18 ( grades 9-12) It has since transitioned to function as both a less intensive alternative for HS and as a transition between FLL and FTC. It is now specifically noted for ages 12-18 and grades 7-12. http://championship.usfirst.org/about-first/progression-programs

For all of the programs the lower age is a suggested minimum or "soft bottom" meaning that it is fine for a younger student to participate if the leader(s) of the team think that person is mature enough, has the skills, or will just benefit in general from that particular program. Try to register a student in STIMs that is older than a program cut off and it will be rejected but you can register a student that is younger than the suggested minimum age.

It is important to note that the suggested min age for FTC was lowered because of areas where it had been implemented that way. That I suspect is one reason that this change in MI is concerning for folks in other areas. For example in our area there are a districts with 8-9 and 7-9 Jr HS so it was left up to the teachers/leaders of the teams at those schools whether or not they wanted to include the younger students. Many found that the 7th and 8th grade students were ready for FTC and had them on the team.

In the case of my former FRC team we were at a 10-12 HS and the official policy was that since FRC was intended for 9-12 9th grade students that attended our 8-9 Jr HS were welcome to participate even after that school started a FTC team. At that school the 8th grade students were allowed to participate before FIRST officially changed the recommended min age/grade for FTC. Since that time we have had an 8th grade student that participated on both the Jr HS FTC team and the HS FRC team.

One of the reasons MI has been pushing for this change may be because of the state grants and how those funds are accounted for by the state's board of education. The reason I suspect this is because of how the grants in my state are structured. The funding officially is accounted for under CTE funds. In our state only grades 7-12 are eligible for CTE funding. What that means is that the only way a school could get a grant for FLL was if the school included 7th and/or 8th grade students. So a team that was at a K-6 school was not eligible. So maybe the MI system is set up where the funds are allocated by school type and it was just simpler for accounting purposes for them to make only schools that are officially "elementary" schools eligible for FLL grants, middle for FTC and HS for FRC. One of the reasons I say that is because what I have seen so far is that MI is not making the change based on age/grade but by what the school is officially recognized as. So by what I've read so far there may be FLL teams that are 4-6 and teams that are 4-8 because one is located at a K-6 school and one is located at a K-8 school. There could be FTC teams that are 7-9, 7-8 or not at all because of how that district officially refers to their schools.

[gblake]

No FIRST's official ages/suggested grades do have overlap to allow people to participate in the program that best suits them.
...
For all of the programs the lower age is a suggested minimum or "soft bottom" meaning that it is fine for a younger student to participate if the leader(s) of the team think that person is mature enough, has the skills, or will just benefit in general from that particular program. Try to register a student in STIMs that is older than a program cut off and it will be rejected but you can register a student that is younger than the suggested minimum age. Thanks! Mr V. That is exactly how I thought/recalled FIRST HQ runs things.
...
In the case of my former FRC team we were at a 10-12 HS and the official policy was that since FRC was intended for 9-12 9th grade students that attended our 8-9 Jr HS were welcome to participate even after that school started a FTC team. At that school the 8th grade students were allowed to participate before FIRST officially changed the recommended min age/grade for FTC. Since that time we have had an 8th grade student that participated on both the Jr HS FTC team and the HS FRC team. ... Thanks again Mr V. This is exactly the sort of control that schools exercise all the time over student participation on/in any school team or other activity, whether it's the drama club, a senior field trip, or a robotics team.

And, this is why I and others readers are wondering what situation FiM's proposed age/grade changes are supposed to fix or improve. We can't imagine the schools needed their help, and I can't imagine a large groundswell of requests from non-school teams (maybe I need a better imagination? ;)).

[216Robochick288]

Fourth, do we have the support for FTC tournaments? If existing middle school FLL teams turn into FTC teams, there would be 100-200 new teams. Are there events? How about up north? It took 5 years to get a FRC event in the UP, how long will it take for FTC? And what do teams do in the meantime?


Great question. As a mentor and leader in one of the most densely populated FIRST areas in the UP my answer is... I have no idea. Superior Roboworks, The Copperbots, and Robotic Turmoil was going to have a huge push in all the lower grades to get more interest in FLL and a few years down the line start switching to FTC. Its hard enough getting funds for us to go places, and the FLL teams run baised on the fact that we have a tournament just a few hours away in Marquette (and hopefully one at Tech soon too).

As for FTC... I guess we will see. Hopefully FIRST will find us the support to get enough teams interested that we can host our own tournament in the UP. Tech certainly has the kids and mentors to run something, but they have certainly twisted our arm on what we have to work with. Certainly not the gradual switch we were hoping for.

[gblake]

I appreciate your clarification about your combative tone. It seems that you were attacking everybody in Michigan that does not agree with you even though they did not make the rules. But now I understand, thanks.I'm not attacking anyone; but you might catch me disagreeing with a policy or two (and supporting one or two).

Let me first answer your question. I am going to rewrite it from "To keep all the parents happy in our school district, we will have to make FLL K-8, FTC 5-12 and FRC 6-12" to "To keep all the parents happy in our school district, the program will have to be change d to K-8 for FLL, 5-12 for FTC and 6-12 for FRC."Thanks to Mr V's help we now know that FIRST HQ will prevent participation by any student who is too old for a program, and will allow participation by all other (younger) students.

So, I'm guessing that means the "program" doesn't need to change. FIRST HQ will enforce FIRST's rules (I'm thinking that FIRST HQ owns the "program"), and schools will enforce school system rules.

Am I overlooking some reason for a third set of rules (FiM rules) to be introduced? I realize that you are Ed, and you are not FiM; but if you happen to know FiM's reason, I'm curious.

Yes, you and I are miles apart on this issue. And I am not trying to convince you. My biggest disagreement with you is with your philosophy which you quoted "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Just because there is a saying by somebody in the past does not make it right or the truth. Many people have said many things in the past. It depends on the context. Not everything can be applied to every situation. I am a firm believer in Kaizen (continuous improvement). We put a lot of emphasis on Kaizen at my place of work. Many of us work on Kaizen projects on the side. Even if something is not broken, we try to improve process/product that affects our work, to make it more efficient, to make us more productive, to make work life more enjoyable. It directly translate to the bottom line. Customer satisfaction will increase and the company will be more profitable and competitive. A company that does not change things and wait until it is truly broken will most probably not going to be able to survive for very long in this global competitive economy.Ed, we agree here more than you know.

I'm familiar with kaizan-style quality improvement methods. I have the tee-shirt (OK, it's really a polo shirt, but that's close enough). Here is how I use the phrase, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."

Properly applied, that phrase is part of exactly the sort of thinking that is at the core of those methods. In those methods you start by identifying defects, and then you look for their root cause(s), or at least for a way to exert some control over parts/processes that will have a desired effect on the defect.

In addition to the obvious defects that exist when a product or process doesn't satisfy a requirement (function, performance, whatever), lost opportunities to make a product/process cheaper, or otherwise better, are defects in something (I won't quibble about what that "something" is).

However, if no one involved in an improvement exercise can identify a defect, neither the product or process is changed just for change's sake. Changes are only made for an identified reason. In other words, you don't fix it if ain't broken.

Bringing the conversation back to the thread's general topic... I continue to look forward to learning what motivated FiM's plans to enforce a local change in the ages/grades allowed to participate in local (local to the communities affected by FiM policies) FIRST programs.

I know the FiM volunteers are earnest, sincere volunteers working very hard to accomplish something good. It's for that very reason, that it should be very easy to describe what defect, whether it was a lost opportunity or an outright failure to satisfy some requirement, they are attempting to affect.

Blake

[Tom Line]

FYI, proving FiM pays attention, they put out this email today.

__________________________________________________ ________
FLL® program registration is now open! Below is exciting news!

PROGRESSION OF FIRST PROGRAMS WITHIN MICHIGAN
Michigan is strongly committed to the FIRST® progression of programs. Each FIRST program, from Jr. FLL® to FLL® to FTC® to FRC®, offers our students unique opportunities to learn, grow, and build upon previous knowledge. Outstanding growth across all of our programs in the past few years positions Michigan well to implement a FIRST Robotics program progression pilot across the state. Many of our school districts now have the full complement of FIRST programs from K-12, enabling participants to start in Jr. FLL in early elementary, progress through all of our FIRST programs, and be on a high school FRC team when it comes time to make that critical decision to pursue a STEM career.

When we established FIRST in Michigan in 2008, we adopted Dean Kamen’s vision at the time as our mission: to establish a sustainable FRC team in every high school. Dean’s vision has expanded to give younger students the opportunity to experience STEM through hands on, real world challenges too. Jr. FLL, FLL, and FTC are now critical building blocks to FRC. A few years ago, we took the first step by piloting FTC in the middle school to build a stronger bridge between FLL and FRC. Using extensive grants to incentivize middle schools to choose FTC, the results after just four FTC seasons were overwhelmingly positive: the majority of students on FTC teams finished middle school eager and ready to join their high school FRC team. Furthermore, their skills and expectations better align with FRC.

It’s now time to formalize the lessons we’ve learned. FIRST and FIRST in Michigan are pleased to announce phase two of the pilot in Michigan, which utilizes an adjusted progression of programs:

Elementary School Programs: Jr. FIRST LEGO League (Jr. FLL) (K-3) and
FIRST LEGO League (FLL) (4th - end of elementary)

Middle School Program: FIRST Tech Challenge (FTC)

High School Program: FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC)

Transitioning Your FLL Middle School Teams to FTC
Starting in 2015, all new teams forming in late elementary (4th grade through the end of elementary), or the equivalent outside of the school system, register for FLL. All new teams forming in middle school, or the equivalent outside of the school system, register for FTC. Existing middle school FLL teams within or outside of a school setting have the choice to stay with FLL for up to two more years, or move to FTC beginning this season.

Several events have transpired to make this the perfect season to start, or transition your middle school team to FTC, and pass your FLL kit down to the elementary level. Foremost is the new platform for FTC: The LEGO MINDSTORMS® NXT has been replaced with the Java-based Android platform powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. This means new and old FTC teams will be on equal footing with programming this year, as all FTC teams will learn Java for the first time. With grants through FIRST in Michigan and the state of Michigan, along with potential grants FIRST is working to secure with sponsors, the transition from FLL to FTC could be essentially free. Passing your kit down to elementary students is easy. We can show you how to run a community night to engage families and students of all ages in FIRST.

If you have already registered a middle school FLL team this season but would prefer to move to FTC, we can help. Please contact *********

We are looking forward to another incredible year.

***********
***********


Note: I removed contact information and names to prevent them from being spammed.

[Peter Chen]

Here's the official announcement from FiM. Bottom line is that middle school FLL teams have two years to transition to FTC. After that, middle schools (and presumably, teams with middle school students) will no longer be allowed to participate in FLL in Michigan -- FLL will be for 4th-5th grade only.

Note that this being described as a pilot program by FIRST and FiM, which implies to me that FIRST is considering making this change more broadly.

Any suggestions for Michigan teams who believe FLL has tremendous value for middle school students and want to continue in FLL?

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 19:38:18 -0400
Subject: FLL Announcement - Progression of Programs (MI FLL Team Blast 2015.01)

FLL® program registration is now open! Below is exciting news!

PROGRESSION OF FIRST PROGRAMS WITHIN MICHIGAN

Michigan is strongly committed to the FIRST® progression of programs. Each FIRST program, from Jr. FLL® to FLL® to FTC® to FRC®, offers our students unique opportunities to learn, grow, and build upon previous knowledge. Outstanding growth across all of our programs in the past few years positions Michigan well to implement a FIRST Robotics program progression pilot across the state. Many of our school districts now have the full complement of FIRST programs from K-12, enabling participants to start in Jr. FLL in early elementary, progress through all of our FIRST programs, and be on a high school FRC team when it comes time to make that critical decision to pursue a STEM career.

When we established FIRST in Michigan in 2008, we adopted Dean Kamen’s vision at the time as our mission: to establish a sustainable FRC team in every high school. Dean’s vision has expanded to give younger students the opportunity to experience STEM through hands on, real world challenges too. Jr. FLL, FLL, and FTC are now critical building blocks to FRC. A few years ago, we took the first step by piloting FTC in the middle school to build a stronger bridge between FLL and FRC. Using extensive grants to incentivize middle schools to choose FTC, the results after just four FTC seasons were overwhelmingly positive: the majority of students on FTC teams finished middle school eager and ready to join their high school FRC team. Furthermore, their skills and expectations better align with FRC.

It’s now time to formalize the lessons we’ve learned. FIRST and FIRST in Michigan are pleased to announce phase two of the pilot in Michigan, which utilizes an adjusted progression of programs:

Elementary School Programs: Jr. FIRST LEGO League (Jr. FLL) (K-3) and FIRST LEGO League (FLL) (4th - end of elementary)
Middle School Program:FIRST Tech Challenge (FTC)
High School Program: FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC)

Transitioning Your FLL Middle School Teams to FTC

Starting in 2015, all new teams forming in late elementary (4th grade through the end of elementary), or the equivalent outside of the school system, register for FLL. All new teams forming in middle school, or the equivalent outside of the school system, register for FTC. Existing middle school FLL teams within or outside of a school setting have the choice to stay with FLL for up to two more years, or move to FTC beginning this season.

Several events have transpired to make this the perfect season to start, or transition your middle school team to FTC, and pass your FLL kit down to the elementary level. Foremost is the new platform for FTC: The LEGO MINDSTORMS® NXT has been replaced with the Java-based Android platform powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. This means new and old FTC teams will be on equal footing with programming this year, as all FTC teams will learn Java for the first time. With grants through FIRST in Michigan and the state of Michigan, along with potential grants FIRST is working to secure with sponsors, the transition from FLL to FTC could be essentially free. Passing your kit down to elementary students is easy. We can show you how to run a community night to engage families and students of all ages in FIRST.

If you have already registered a middle school FLL team this season but would prefer to move to FTC, we can help. Please contact [information elided for privacy--send me a private message if you need this].

We are looking forward to another incredible year.

Michigan FLL Partner

[EricH]

Any suggestions for Michigan teams who believe FLL has tremendous value for middle school students and want to continue in FLL?

I'd suggest a letter to FIRST HQ (ideally, to the FLL director) with some examples of why you believe that. Not sure I'd copy FiM, but that might be a good idea as well.

[gblake]

...
Any suggestions for Michigan teams who believe FLL has tremendous value for middle school students and want to continue in FLL?Possible courses of action are numerous, and more or less obvious (I think). Choose one that is appropriate for a volunteer focused on students, and then graciously and resolutely embark upon it.

[Mike Schreiber]

Any suggestions for Michigan teams who believe FLL has tremendous value for middle school students and want to continue in FLL?

Register your FLL team. From the sound of it you still have two years to petition your case with FiM and FIRST HQ.


Existing middle school FLL teams within or outside of a school setting have the choice to stay with FLL for up to two more years, or move to FTC beginning this season.

[leon r]

Wow, just wow, this is first I am hearing of this issue in MI and am shocked by it! I can sort of see why they are doing this (mainly to accommodate FTC), but they are seriously shortchanging MI middle school kids from FLL experience! FLL is SO MUCH more than just robots! The project, the research, the core values and teamwork is invaluable!

I have coached FLL for 7 years and FRC for combined 5 years (97/98, 2014-2016) and I consider FLL as a vital step in STEM education. As a parent of three FLL kids, I wouldn’t trade FLL for any other level of FIRST activity (even FRC!).

Also consider that internationally, FLL goes up the age of 16 (as of Jan 1st of competition year), that means that kids will turn 17 during the year. Which means that they can be 18 years old by the time World Festival comes around! So, if you ever send any MI kids to that tournament, they are going to be up against 18 year old! Talk about stacking the game against them!

I do not know what I would do if Mass ever did something like this, perhaps traveling to one of the adjacent states to compete? But that is easy to do in a small New England state :).

[cbale2000]

Wow, just wow, this is first I am hearing of this issue in MI and am shocked by it! I can sort of see why they are doing this (mainly to accommodate FTC), but they are seriously shortchanging MI middle school kids from FLL experience! FLL is SO MUCH more than just robots! The project, the research, the core values and teamwork is invaluable!

The accomodating FTC part is the key thing here. Because of the prevalence of FRC in Michigan, there's no real place for FTC unless you move it to middle school. There were only a handful of FTC teams in Michigan prior to the switch and maybe one or two events, now both are much more common.

While pushing FLL back to lower grades may not be ideal, having FTC at the middle school level and making teams more prevelant helps students transition into FRC much more easily (speaking from first-hand experience as an FLL student who was totally lost when joining an FRC team in 9th grade). This may put FLL teams at a slight disadvantage for competitions, but maybe if the system works well it's something that can be standardized in the future.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

Wow, just wow, this is first I am hearing of this issue in MI and am shocked by it! I can sort of see why they are doing this (mainly to accommodate FTC), but they are seriously shortchanging MI middle school kids from FLL experience! FLL is SO MUCH more than just robots! The project, the research, the core values and teamwork is invaluable!

I have coached FLL for 7 years and FRC for combined 5 years (97/98, 2014-2016) and I consider FLL as a vital step in STEM education. As a parent of three FLL kids, I wouldn’t trade FLL for any other level of FIRST activity (even FRC!).

I couldn't agree more that FLL is a vital step in STEM education that offers a wide range of positive experiences for students. The transition to FLL in elementary school and FTC in middle school is, in part, to improve their FIRST experience overall. I'm a graduate of FLL/FRC myself, and I wish I had been able to experience FTC as a middle step between the two. By the time I aged out of FLL I was bored - the build and programming weren't challenging enough. But hopping right into FRC was overwhelming. FTC is a great middle step.

Also consider that internationally, FLL goes up the age of 16 (as of Jan 1st of competition year), that means that kids will turn 17 during the year. Which means that they can be 18 years old by the time World Festival comes around! So, if you ever send any MI kids to that tournament, they are going to be up against 18 year old! Talk about stacking the game against them!

Well then I guess it's a good thing that winning at the world festival level isn't the focus when creating an overall stronger FIRST community.

I think people are seriously underestimating how capable elementary and middle school students are. Now that our program has matured (our first middle school FTC teams were founded in 2011) and we have students coming up to FRC that have been through the full progression of programs, I'm blown away by how prepared these freshman are. They've had 3-4 years of FIRST core values, and the more technically challenging FTC build has prepared them very well for FRC. I don't think I've spoken with a single student who has gone through this progression and had anything negative to say about it.

[kgzak]

I think people are seriously underestimating how capable elementary and middle school students are.

I would just like to point out that the Ortberg division finalist alliance had 2 teams that where middle school teams. One of those teams was the captain of the alliance that moved on to the championship and placed 10th in the Edison division.

[gblake]

The accomodating FTC part is the key thing here. Because of the prevalence of FRC in Michigan, there's no real place for FTC unless you move it to middle school. There were only a handful of FTC teams in Michigan prior to the switch and maybe one or two events, now both are much more common.
Respectfully - This isn't correct - FTC and FRC can coexist quite easily in a single "team". - There are great heaping piles of prima facie evidence that says they can, and that when they do the students benefit in several ways.

I can understand that the "there is no real place for FTC" [because high schools have FRC teams] can sound reasonable if you say it fast, or if that idea is woven into a PowerPoint slide deck describing a plan to constrain what students are offered; but it's just not correct.

We can discuss the benefits of complementary FTC/FRC participation by a single "team" if you like. I'll be glad to share my opinions, along with pointers to real-world examples.

I couldn't agree more that FLL is a vital step in STEM education that offers a wide range of positive experiences for students. The transition to FLL in elementary school and FTC in middle school is, in part, to improve their FIRST experience overall. I'm a graduate of FLL/FRC myself, and I wish I had been able to experience FTC as a middle step between the two. By the time I aged out of FLL I was bored - the build and programming weren't challenging enough. But hopping right into FRC was overwhelming. FTC is a great middle step.
...
I don't think I've spoken with a single student who has gone through this progression and had anything negative to say about it.I agree with everything I have explicitly quoted here, and with your post in general; but ...
(IMO) It is irrelevant.

The topic being discussed isn't whether FTC prepares students for FRC, nor is the topic whether FTC is a good intermediate program to experience between FLL and FRC.

The topic is whether anyone should actively discourage and/or put barriers in the way of students, schools, 4H Clubs, Scouting troops, whoever who want to participate in FLL after they are out of elementary school, or participate in FTC after they are out of middle school.

In my opinion, no one should discourage them and/or erect any barriers.

There are plenty of reasons why I think this. The most fundamental is this. If an undecided/tentative student or group wants to try (for the first time) a hands-on STEM activity during their middle school or high school years; FRC can be good for them, but to get honest-to-goodness, hands-on, hardware and software, design/construction/integration/testing/operating/speaking experience in a lower-pressure, lower-cost, less-time commitment, simpler environment; forming or joining an FLL or an FTC team is the way to go. Forming or joining an FLL or FTC team that is associated with (mentored by) an FRC team is even better.

So, in my opinion, the OP, and the person who resurrected this thread yesterday both are on the right track. Encouraging the Michigan school systems to offer FLL/FTC/FRC in elementary/middle/high school respectively is a good idea. Discouraging the Michigan school systems, and/or anyone else, from offering FLL/FTC to older students is not a good idea. The cons far outweigh the pros.

When is it ever a good idea to tell a pre-college student of any age that because of someone else's opinion, their only viable FIRST STEM robotics option is FRC?

Blake
PS: The VEX VRC and VIQ programs, and a few other STEM programs are obvious alternatives to FIRST's programs - For the purposes of this discussion, I'm focusing only on the FIRST programs.

[cbale2000]

Respectfully - This isn't correct - FTC and FRC can coexist quite easily in a single "team". - There are great heaping piles of prima facie evidence that says they can, and that when they do the students benefit in several ways

I agree that there are examples of this being the case, but in Michigan it was more of the exception than the rule. Consider that prior to the switch to middle school there were like 20 FTC teams and like 300 FRC teams, clearly the vast majority of teams did not have FTC teams.

[gblake]

I agree that there are examples of this being the case, but in Michigan it was more of the exception than the rule. Consider that prior to the switch to middle school there were like 20 FTC teams and like 300 FRC teams, clearly the vast majority of teams did not have FTC teams.That is interesting, but again - Whether or not examples existed in Michigan isn't the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is about whether FiM or any other entity should be putting up barriers to, or explicitly discouraging people from, or recommending that any organization explicitly prevent, forming FLL (or FTC) teams for the benefit of older students.

I wrote about the abundant entities/groups that participate in and benefit from both the FTC and FRC programs simply to keep the discussion rooted in easily examined, real world facts (instead of me only asserting an opinion).

I'll grant you that for any number of reasons, it might not have ever been common in Michigan, but that might simply mean that the good people of Michigan were missing out on some really good STEM opportunities.

Blake

[leon r]

Michigan is certainly a special case, because of how well they have integrated FIRST into their school curriculum and I understand that there was (is?) a tremendous imbalance between their FRC and FTC teams. But… do you ruin kid’s FLL experience in order to boost FTC participation? Forcing kids to move up into FTC in 6th grade is just not right!

I agree that they could suggest it, but do not force it! Current system allows 10th graders on FLL teams (in 49 states), but students are encouraged to move up to FRC/FTC in 9th grade! The point is, they have a choice!

BTW, this is a pilot program, which means that if they like it, they might apply it to the other states and/or the world…