Texas Registration 2014
 

I wanted to get all the bright minds together to discuss the Texas Registration Problem.

Current Texas registration is around 90 teams, which is a significant drop from 139 in 2013.

Here's a chart of the Texas Registration Growth since 2003
http://2013.discobots.org/node/84

Any ideas on how to revive these teams ?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Get your RD or your Senior Mentor to give you a list of contacts for last year's teams and reach out to them.

Find out why they haven't returned and work on those issues. Prioritize by teams most likely to be sustainable.

Keeping teams around takes constant work. Training during the off season, help during the build season, and constantly looking for funds.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Those numbers are pretty staggering. Of the 227 FRC teams to have existed between 2003 and 2013, only 83 remain today. That's 37% survival rate. Here it is broken down by rookie year. Listed is the number of teams who are registered for 2014 who were rookies in that year, followed by the number of rookies for that given year. The data only goes back to 2003, as that's all that I could pull from the FIRST website, thus the 2003 number is all teams that exist for 2014 who existed in 2003, followed by the total number of Texas teams in 2003.

2003 - 11/19
2004 - 3/12
2005 - 1/2
2006 - 2/8
2007 - 1/5
2008 - 4/9
2009 - 16/50
2010 - 10/23
2011 - 11/43
2012 - 16/33
2013 - 8/23

I'd be curious to see if these attrition rates are on par with what's happening in the rest of North America. There's probably some value in pulling all this data on a state/provincial level once registration closes for the 2014 season. A 37% survival rate sounds very low at first glance, but when you think about it relative to FIRST's typical growth rate and rookie team rate, it does make sense.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Man, what happened between 2005-2009? In those 5 years Texas had half as many rookies as in 2010 alone.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

The trends you all are referring to certainly appear troubling.

I can't speak for the rest of Texas, but the RD/Assistant RD, Senior Mentor, and Vista staff for Alamo have been busy over the past month contacting all teams who have not yet registered.

In quite a few cases, teams aren't coming back because teachers/lead mentors have been lost. I've been trying to connect teams in those situations, when possible, to other teams to try to help them work through that difficulty. In other cases, teams are just being really slow to actually register although they are still intending to... I've given them quite a bit of prodding.

However, we need to compare these present numbers to last year. I posted some old data below for reference.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Expanding on Karthik's 2003 numbers, the 11 remaining teams are: 57, 118, 148, 231, 418, 457, 499, 624, 647, 653, and 704. However, none of those were rookies that year.

Per TheBlueAlliance and FIRST's info, here are the rookie year breakdowns for surviving teams who had a rookie season prior to 2009:

2008: 2468, 2583, 2587, 2613
2007: 2158
2006: 1801, 1817
2005: 1642
2004: 1255, 1296, 1477
2003: <none>
2002: <none>
2001: 499, 624, 647, 659, 704
2000: 418, 457
1999: 231
1998: 57
1997: 118
...
1992: 148

The current team numbering scheme didn't go into effect until 1998, as I recall. So, that's why 57 has a lower team number than 118 even though 118 has been around a year longer.

Maybe that was too much detail, but I think it definitely shows the drought was longer than just the 2005-2009 stretch.

The 2009 jump probably has to do with the state grant program. I think it was a Texas Workforce Commission grant program that ran from 2009 to 2011. I was still with FRC 41 back in NJ for the 2009 season, so some locals might have to correct me on that. Anyway, that program started a whole bunch of teams because schools could get registration money quickly and easily. It's sad to see that so few survived.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Correct. The Texas Workforce Commission funded the entry fee for all Texas team's first regional registration for a few years. This has not been the case for recent years, and many teams who sprung up and depended on that money to subsidize their programs could not fund themselves anymore.

Proud to be a part of one of the 3 surviving rookies in Texas from 2004! :D

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

IIRC the Texas Workforce grant is still active, now i don't know about rookie help specifically but i do believe you can still apply for it (I might be wrong). I know they help pay entry fees for teams to be able to go to championships but I don't know if they still pay regional registration fees.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

In a similar vein, I'd assume the 2011 and 2012 jump in rookies probably is related to the JCPenney sponsorships(and weren't they a title sponsor for the Dallas Regional?)

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Through FIRST In Texas you can still apply for a Texas Workforce Commission Grant and more (http://firstintexas.org/).
"Each organization which provides funding for these grants has their own targets and goals for their funding. By completing this application your team will be reviewed for eligibility for all grants, and considered for all grants the team is eligible for. All of the information collected in this application is relevant to the targets or goals of one or more of our grantors."


It specifically states that you can use any money received for entry fees or equipment somewhere in the application. However the application process is extensive and required a lot of information that was impossible for me to find (or legally report). I filled out the application in August and I'm still waiting for a response. I've called twice and they have given me the same generic answer both times "We review all grants weekly, eventually we will get back to you."

Since 2010 they have paid championship registration for any Texas team that qualified at a Texas regional. They told us last year that this funding is subject to change every year and we didn't find out about the funding until about 6 days before St. Louis.

If it's frustrating to me, I have to assume I'm not the only one. This could be a deterrent for some teams.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Yes, as their world HQ is in Dallas. That is where kickoff was for a while, and JCPenney was the reason the Dallas Regional(s) were in the expensive-and-massively-oversized-but-convenient-and-awesome Dallas Convention Center.

Since the company is struggling, they have cut most (if not all) funding for robotics teams. The regional has since (2013-now) moved to the appropriately sized Irving Convention Center (30 minutes away), and many of the teams who relied on their funding are worse off than they were.

I know the Texas Workforce Commission did not pay for our first regional in 2012, and maybe not even in 2011. Honestly I do not know more than that.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

FIRST in Texas has gone through major changes this season. It is now under entirely new management - Skillpoint Alliance based in Austin, Texas. Skillpoint has been a longtime FLL Affiliate Partner and Central Texas FTC event manager, however, they have limited experience with FRC. The transition to a new FiT manager less experienced with FRC is part of the reason the granting process is going much more slowly this year. Down the road, the process should hopefully go far more efficiently and we'll reap a variety of benefits from this new partnership. For now, I know it's certainly frustrating for teams.

Another issue faced this year with regard to granting money is that the Texas Workforce Commission is being more assertive about prioritizing money going to teams that meet certain characteristics (regardless of whether they are actual indicators of a team's financial need). They are targeting teams whose members:

• are in 9th through 12th grade ONLY
• from economically disadvantaged families
• are enrolled in schools on military bases
• have disabilities
• are home schooled
• are from traditionally underserved populations (females, minorities, and from rural areas)

Once FiT has granted funding to as many teams as possible who match some of those characteristics, they will then be extending grant money to other teams who have applied. This is further slowing things down and contributing to a less than ideal situation for many teams.

Additionally, there are less Texas Workforce Commission funds to go around this year. Veteran teams may be granted between $2,500 to $3,000. Rookies may be granted between $6,000 and $7,000. There are a little over 50 veteran FRC grants (compared to 80+ last year) and around 18 grants for new FRC teams. Additionally, FiT will likely be granting only half of the registration funds to cover teams Championship registration costs, though that is still being finalized.

For your reference: Attached is an official FIRST in Texas document regarding Texas Workforce Commission Grants that details much of the above information.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

So, I went back to the numbers from around this point in last year, Andy, where you made a very similar observation about Texas bleeding teams. In reality, it appears that this is actually a very typical (although frustrating) trend in Texas. Texas teams have been historically VERY SLOW to get registered. Here's a quote from Mark McLeod on the Registration 2013 thread from 11/06/2012:

Right now, a couple weeks out from the same date last year, we're at a ~33.9 loss. I expect (and hope!) we'll be looking better in Texas a month from now. In the end, we may have either positive (preferable) or negative growth, but as of right now, we're pretty much on track with past Texas registration trends.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

When we take a look at Texas teams and grants, we also have to look at the big picture. If we qualify for a $3000 grant, that money is going to be well spent, but we still have to keep in mind what we describe as a "local regional". Our local Alamo regional tournament is 150 miles away from us, so if we take 24 kids and a few mentors it is very expensive. The local regional with registration, travel, hotel and meals will cost us over $12,000. That does not include robot parts, give aways, team uniforms, ets. If we start analyzing what happened to the Texas teams, we might have to start looking at whether they are urban or rural and the proximity to a "local" regional.

On a side not, we had 78 students register for our team this year...I am affraid to calculate travel costs for that many :-)

Mr. B.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Great point. I keep forgetting the mere 75 miles we go to Alamo is half that for you guys.

In addition to the geographic location of the ephemeral teams, we should also look at the life time distribution. Single year teams in El Paso (for example) could simply have found that a rookie grant of $6K didn't cover the additional $6K for travel and stuff. Combine that with other possible factors (*) and a picture might emerge.

But I suspect that there will be a high rate of ephemeral teams in heavy urban areas too.

-Scott

(*) Factors including..
- Local sponsors (other than state grant provider or school).
- Access to long-term mentors. I know that 2468 would fold without Coach Norm, but I also know he can't do it himself either.
- Committed school and district administration. Schools must be willing to celebrate successful years and help work through unsuccessful years. If a school administration looks on robotics like they do Texas football, they miss the point of FIRST's mission and values.
- Competition for mind share with Texas traditional activities (Football, Band, Cheer, etc.). As someone who moved to Texas from Ontario, I was really taken by surprise just how focused Texas schools *and communities* are on Friday night activities. I've yet to see a picture of a high-school robot on the walls of a Dairy Queen.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

I think that funding is probably the biggest issue in Texas, with so many teams being started on JCPenny, NASA, and TWC grant money and then having no plan for survival after.

The other thing to look at in Texas is alternatives. Texas has some HUGE BEST hubs. Texas Instruments is in Texas after all. And I think a lot of these teams were ones that decided to make the jump to FIRST, and realized it was SIGNIFIGANTLY more work and involvement than BEST. I think a lot of programs just say "Well BEST is free and we were doing well there so lets just keep doing that".

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Well, this is pretty disappointing. From grades 6 to 8, I was on an FRC team dependent on the TWC grants for entry fees. Without that team, I would not have the same opportunities that I have today. It saddens me to know that joint middle and high schools will have to exclude half of their students simply because of a prerequisite for their funding.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

We are glad we barely got in for Dallas today at 12:00-12:01 EST today.
We knew we had to given that we may never be able to do it ever again.....*district*

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Coming from a school that does both BEST and FRC. FRC is a huge hassle compared to BEST. But FRC provides a better work and learning experience than best in my opinion. Also If I'm not wrong the Houston BEST hub recently went under and closed. Also I can't speak for other school but the devastators is apart of the HARMONY school system. Which had FRC teams in every school then all of a sudden tons of them quit about 3 years ago, and the only HARMONY FRC teams are us and 2948 in Dallas. Our plan is to go back up to our main office and try to convince them to open the team back up again.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Glad to have 359 come back to Texas and bring many of your Hawaii friends !

Dallas is more stacked than any time in History, It will be interesting to see if 148 can continue their Dallas regional winning streak this year !

Hub City needs the most help right now at 18 teams , any veterans interested in going out to Lubbock , Texas ?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

I am not sure if you would consider us a veteran team, but we will be attending Lubbock if there are slots available upon time of registration.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

4301 will be going to Lubbock again. I'll try to convince 3043 to attend as well, but it's not likely that they will leave Dallas after it being their exclusive regional for five years.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

This was the problem with 2582. I was waiting on an alternate contact issue to be cleared up in TIMs and it was fixed today. We have finally registered for Lone Star so you can add one more Texas rookie from 2008 still alive and kicking.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Really enjoyed Hub City last year, and can recommend it to any other team thinking about a week 1 week 2 venue. With the addition of week 0 events it seems like most of the bugs were worked out before the actual season started. Back in the day we used to anticipate a major rule change after week 1. Even though last minute changes (like no human player throwing of white discs) are never pleasant, at least we all played under the same rules this year, including week 1 events. Hub City ran very smoothly. Should be even better as a week 2 event this year.

Teams who are signing up for a 2nd or 3rd event right now are probably doing so with the ability to travel. That makes having a webcast for family and friends back home an added bonus. Last year we had to rig up a cellular network at the last minute to get a broadcast out. Any word on a webcast for this year? The rest of FRC would love to tune in to a week 1 event to see how the game will be played.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Seconded. I really enjoyed Hub City last year, and I would love for my family to be able to watch from home.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Hub City is actually Week 2 this season. Alamo is back to Week 1 this year after it moved to Week 5 last season. We'll definitely have a webcast for Alamo.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Andrew... you're right to be alarmed by the numbers!

I'm in the middle of my 5th FTC season and about to embark on my 4th FRC season... and I think I've become seasoned enough to know what's going on in Texas and can formulate relevant solutions that would help build towards getting to what Michigan has.

However, trying to do this on CD _never works_ because in my experiences as soon as you touch-on the sacred-cows and the sacred-people, the flaming begins, and the "smarter-than-everyone-else-in-their-own-minds" folks show up, and then the whole thing devolves into irrelevant back-and-forths.

EVERYONE involved in FIRST, in my experience, are good people with good intentions. But, if we're not going to talk in specifics and only in generalities because if we get specific it then forces people to be accountable for their actions and/or their lack of actions, then it's ultimately a futile exercise because it always devolves into the above description.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Let me take an IMHO stab here... and risk getting flamed... lol

1. Texas RD's should work directly with school district superintendents that already have 1 or more FRC teams and urge the supers to convert them ALL to school district-wide teams that take ALL passionate robotics students in their district, and can spawn into new teams as their rosters grow.

2. Texas RD's should contact and work with school district superintendents that DO NOT HAVE at least 1 FRC team in their district available to ALL students in their district. Those RD's should offer to do themselves and/or supply with others the necessary manpower for the first 2 seasons to get the FRC team formed and established.

3. The Texas RD's should provide a base-line financial commitment of a minimum of $10,000.00/year to ALL school district sanctioned teams during their first 4 years. This money could come from donations/corporate/government and filtered directly to the teams through the FIRST district's coffers _ONLY_ if these teams take the extra step and establish their own checking account. < $12,000.00/year would probably be better >

***You can't give $$ directly to a school/school district entity's checking account because it mostly becomes a black-hole of access to those funds for team use due to bureaucracy and the _dreaded_ team-killing Purchase Order process***


The Texas RD's should prioritize available funds to help these "golden-spike" school district sanctioned teams _first_... before moving to support financially the rookie teams that percolate up around Texas because of some EASY initial money available.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Is there any information about how many of the missing Texas FRC teams just went back to doing BEST exclusively after the easy FRC money dried up?

I am seeing that here in Arkansas.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

This could definitely work. Given there are around 1,300 school districts in Texas. But possibly increasing the number of teams in Houston, DFW, San Antonio, and Austin could work due to the large potential for corporate sponsorship. (Something our team has a problem with in Central Louisiana)

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

We have in Texas about 1,032 school districts, many of those are very small and these small districts are contiguous with each other and could be combined for a single multi-district FRC teams.

We also have the state divided into 4 FIRST FRC districts that make that initial larger number less daunting. Maybe Texas needs more districts, therefore more RD's?

But, you're right... the initial efforts should start in Dallas/Ft.Worth - Houston - Lubbock - San Antonio/Austin and fan out over the years to cover the whole state.

Maybe there needs to be a cap on the number of FRC teams Texas has capacity for? I wonder what that number is?

However, if there is ever a cap put on the number of teams, I hope the teams are purpose-designed to be dispersed geographically balanced enough around Texas _and_ have team charters that allow for ANY proximate Texan student who is passionate about competition robotics to be able to join.

I don't think in Texas there is even ONE student who can't get access to football, band, or cheer... WHY can't that be the same for competition robotics?

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

I love this quote. When I lived in Texas, no one was ever denied the right to participate in XX program or XX sport. A major difference we saw when we moved to Louisiana.

This year so far:
California - 215 Teams - 38,041,430 - 1 team per 176,936 people
Louisiana - 26 Teams - 4,601,893 - 1 team per 176,996 people
Michigan - 235 Teams - 9,883,360 - 1 team per 42,057 people
Minnesota - 155 Teams - 5,379,139 - 1 team per 34,706 people
New York - 139 Teams - 19,570,261 - 1 team per 140,793 people
Texas - 95 Teams - 26,059,203 - 1 team per 274,307 people
Washington - 111 Teams - 6,897,012 - 1 team per 62,135 people

Kind of scary for Texas, considering it should be one of the more active states.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

I don't have my finger on the pulse of Texas, but it looks like there were multiple grant programs that got too big for their britches and had to scale down, and teams not ready to face that black hole decided to cave in and move on.

A problem I've seen as someone who has never been on a team sustained by a rookie grant or something like that is that like it's been "easy money" as it's been pointed out in the thread. My question is, why have there never been grant programs that have strict requirements that help push teams to make themselves stable and sustainable?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Those are some _eye-opening_ stats... THANKS for sharing!

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Hi Meredith!

We don't see much BEST here mixing in with FRC in San Antonio area so I can't help with feedback on that... but maybe Jess can if she has info and can weigh-in?

--Michael

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Texas will benefit from the reduced cost of districts more than anywhere else I'd guess...

The issue becomes: can we get back the teams we've lost?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

I don't think there's reduced cost... you'll still need to have minimum $10k-$12k/year to have a sustaining program.

$5,000.00 of that budget still goes to FIRST for registration and the only difference, to my understanding, is 2 competitions instead of one for the $5k.

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Commenting specifically on the registration fees, in some sense they go up. Yes, you do get "two events for the price of one" but the events are smaller in size and don't qualify you to attend Championship.

Regarding schedule, the MAR district event schedule from the one I attended in 2012 as a volunteer looks like this:

Friday: 4pm-11pm Inspection and Practice
Saturday: 8am-8pm Quals
Sunday: 8am-2pm quals, 3-5pm elims, 5-7pm awards, packup,etc

According to MAR's website, they did something similar in 2013.

However, winning such an event (or accumulating sufficient points in the District) qualifies you for the District Championship, which has an additional $4000 registration fee and which you may qualify for the week before the event. Then, if you win certain awards or accumulate sufficient points at the District Championship, your ticket is punched to St. Louis, you pay an additional $5000 registration fee to go to the big show.

So, your total registration fee to have a chance at qualifying for St. Louis goes up to $9000, which is the equivalent of a 2-regional season. However, you get +50% or so total matches before Championship compared to a 2-regional regular season.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Jeffrey... EVERYTHING you're saying here is legit and helpful info...

But I think the increase only applies to teams who don't traditionally do 2 or more regionals per season. In our case there's no increase in cost with the district model and like you said we're going to be +50% more matches for the same $9,000.00 spend pre-St. Louis Championship. < assumption that the 2 qualifiers are local to San Antonio >

It would be interesting to see what the number of teams will be capped at for the Texas State Championship? And also the number of teams in Texas that do 2 or more regionals presently?

I think the teams that presently do 2 or more regionals (as long as they avoid aluminum gears and helix's... lol) will pretty much dominate the ranks of the teams qualifying for state championship the first couple of years... anybody disagree?

--Michael Blake

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

This is true, also teams don't have to attend the State Championship if they don't want too. If some teams only have enough money for the initial registration fee then they still get more matches with the district system and the possibility of attending the State Championship if they qualify and they fundraise or find a funding source.

I would hope Texas would be able to find funding for teams that qualify for the State Championship and for World Championship just like Michigan has now. (If TWC is lowering their support, this may be a challenge.)

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

I don't have any of those numbers off-hand (and know that it hasn't been a problem in the Austin area either), but I'll see what I can do about tracking down such stats! My suspicion is that BEST isn't the main reason we're seeing large attrition of Texas. Like I voiced before, too, I think we’ll be closer to expected numbers within the next month or slow as our historically slow Texas teams start registering.

I like a lot of your suggestions. I hope my comments below are not perceived as flaming! Let me see if I can address some of them with what I know as a Texas Assistant RD. I'm not at all involved with money and fundraising, but I have some knowledge about what goes on with it and I do work with teams.

1. Superintendents can be a great resource. Sometimes contacting them works, sometimes it doesn’t. They have different priorities. As of right now, I’m certain most teams (within Texas ISDs) allow other students from schools within their district to join their teams, which is great. It just needs to be better publicized. It’s homeschoolers and non-district kids who are often not allowed to join those teams due to liability issues. And we don’t want to exclude those kids either! Texas has definitely benefited from the involvement of many wonderful non-school teams (Girl Scout, Boy Scouts, etc.). I’m not certain if your thoughts exclude them from getting access to funding or not, but I would hope that isn’t the case. I’m not sure why they couldn’t become financially sustainable after 4 years of initial support as well.

2. One key issue to making sure new teams develop and grow is having an adult, typically a teacher, who is committed to supporting a team. You all know how time consuming FIRST can be. And sadly, many people are not willing to sacrifice their time despite that it’s so worthwhile. It’s a roadblock we often encounter, but it’s one we are actively trying to work around. Inviting teachers, principals, superintendents, etc. to competitions is a method of hooking them that we’ve used, among others.

2 (continued). Michael, can you elaborate a bit more on “Those RD's should offer to do themselves and/or supply with others the necessary manpower for the first 2 seasons to get the FRC team formed and established.” I may or may not be misinterpreting that. I’d like to hear more about your thoughts on the RDs supplying necessary manpower. We definitely try to connect mentors to teams (I work a lot with NI to get Austin area teams connected). Actually, it’s one of my favorite things to do! ☺

3. We absolutely wish we could do that! Right now, the money just isn’t there. The four Texas Regionals cost a sum of ~$500,000. Patrick Felty (Alamo), Lucia Sevcik (Lone Star), and John Shellene (Dallas/Lubbock) and their Executive Advisory Boards spend many many months raising that kind of money. It’s difficult. When we eventually move to districts, events will each individually cost a lot less money to run, but there will be a lot more events. In the end, if the Texas RDs are raising the kind of money they are now, there will hopefully be more money available to go to teams. In addition, FIRST in Texas, soon will be working to bring in more funds by applying for additional grants (not just the Texas Workforce Commission grant). That’s very exciting. Hopefully in the not so distant future we may be able to give teams a greater financial boost during the years where figuring out how to be sustainable is so key.

Well, we have 3 RDs right now (Lubbock is presently overseen by our Dallas RD until a Lubbock one is hired). All the Texans on here should definitely appreciate the fact that Texas is a HUGE state. Supporting teams across that wide expanse is pretty difficult. We really do need more support throughout the state to help with sustainability and growth.

Let’s talk data:
As far as team growth in our largest Texas cities goes, here's hopefully a reasonable comparison. We’ll consider another large state - California - that is having far greater success with team numbers as a state as a whole. They're at around ~215 teams for 2014 compared to ~97 teams in Texas.

Now, California’s population of over 38 million people far dominates Texas’ population of over 26 million people. Texas, the 2nd largest state in the union at 268,580 some square miles dominates California by over 100,000 sq mi (they’re at 163,695 sq mi). Our population density here in Texas is at just over 98 people per sq mil compared to California’s 244 people per sq mi. Taking all that into consideration, we can see that we (FIRST staff, teams, mentors, volunteers, etc.) face a greater challenge of being able to physically support potential teams across the state because people (and businesses) are distributed much more thinly. Certainly reasonable to feel that city growth is a better focus.

So let’s consider focusing on cities. If we break the number of teams down into cities, things start actually appearing a bit similar (at least in some examples) to California. Let's consider San Antonio and San Diego.

San Antonio is currently ranked the 7th largest city (~1,382,951 people). San Diego is currently ranked the 8th largest city (~1,338,348 people).

NUMBER OF FRC TEAMS:
San Antonio: 11 (missing 7 from 2013, we’re working to get them back)
San Diego: 16

NUMBER OF HIGH SCHOOLS:
San Antonio: ~110
San Diego: ~125

If we’re able to get a handful of those San Antonio teams back for the 2014 season, we’re basically on par with a city of similar population size (although San Antonio has a population density of 3000 per sq mi while San Diego has a population density of 4000 per sq mi). Now, this is perhaps not the case across the board with all major Texas cities, but it does highlight one area where we’re actually not that far off!

One of the worries of many teams (and RDs) in big cities is that there isn’t as much corporate money to go around as is needed. FIRST isn’t the only program corporations support and many of the big corporations already support at some level or another (FRC, FTC, or FLL competitions and teams). Adding more teams to the mix creates greater competition for what funds are available in the region. At some point, it isn’t entirely sustainable. Your suggestion of schools in ISDs combining to form teams might help with dealing with that type of growth and financial need.

This would be wonderful! It takes time though. High School football got its start in the late 19th century (over 100 years ago!). Initially, it wasn't at every high school. In fact, high school and college teams used to play each other back then (one reason being team numbers and density). FIRST and high school robotics in general are still very young in comparison (just over 20 years old!). With more time and effort and greater emphasis, I'm certain it will become a reality. We all as enthusiastic supporters of these programs are working to make it a reality. It takes time, money, and a lot of really good people to make it happen. ☺

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Well if you take a look at Houston, there is definitely a distinction in where corporations donate money. For example, BP only supports teams near the Katy area, Anadarko only supports The Woodlands area, Johnson Space Center only supports Clear Creek, and so on. Plus there are many corporations and manufacturers that are currently not involved with FIRST Robotics. However, I do agree that any increase in teams will create a competition for funds.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

BP approached our high school in 2000-2001 and asked to create a robotics team as outreach, it's not that they began sponsoring us and only Katy teams in the area, they've been there since the beginning.

Likewise, I only know of one team in the Woodlands, 1477, and only one team in Clear Creek ISD, 118.

Yes, there is competition for funding as the number of teams increase, but the areas mentioned only had/have one team at the time they began sponsoring them.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting fact I didn't know about 624.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

We have an acquaintance who has worked in the fundraising departments of many of the Houston arts organizations (opera, symphony etc.) and she said that they are having trouble because many of the major corporations are now directing their donations toward the massive Medical Center facilities.

It may be more fruitful to direct fundraising efforts towards the many medium-sized companies in the Houston area. It will take some work to find them but one might then have less competition. Many of them are likely to be making decent profits serving the oil and gas industry. The profit margins are much better here than in other industries. The owner of one such company provides funding, a build space and mentorship for one of the Houston area teams.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Hey, all,

Sorry I'm a little late to the thread, I've got a new job this year (still at my school, I'm still on the team), and so I've had to take a little CD break...but I'm back!

The big grant everyone was talking about earlier in the thread that helped kickstart several teams about 5 years or so ago was from the Texas High Schools Project (now known as Educate Texas)...We were one of those teams...what helped us stay afloat is that we got the big grant to get started and we also had a strong fundraising/logistics mentor that made sure we were stable as we were being weaned off of the big grant.

This underscores my favorite part about this community...the fact that there are so many ways to approach FIRST as a team. Our team didn't see very much on the field success during our first few years, but I feel that we developed in an organic and sustainable way. We did two regionals per year starting our second year and weren't necessarily "dominant" on the field, but we had a different focus from other teams.

I think there have been several recommendations on here that focus on "top-down" or "money" solutions looking at what sponsors, RD's, isd superintendents and the state can do...To add to the discussion and not necessarily "flame" anyone, I'd like to propose that teams collaboratively organize geographically to help develop relationships between teams to help better support struggling or new teams. I realize that not every established team might want to take part in such an endeavor, but I feel like it would be worth the effort to give it a shot. I know that there has been discussion (in particular in Central Texas) to do this in the past, and I know our team has seen at least one example of how this type of collaboration can be successful (at Chesapeake), so I'll put that out there.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

For our team, we've had to move our physical lab for the third time in three years. Our funding hasn't come in as quickly as last year. Apparently, some of the grants are either slow in coming or have not been awarded yet. The correspondence from the granter organization is "no reply". I'm getting nervous and am thinking of our team selling lightbulbs or something like that to pay the bills. Hopefully the funding will come through.:eek:

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

When we were in St. Louis this last April, I was speaking with some people from some of the Toronto area teams and they described a system much like what is being proposed by Bobby. Can anyone from a team that has done this give their perspective?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

While I am not currently a part of any Toronto-area team, the system described is likely a combination of the efforts of individual teams on top of the efforts done by FIRST Robotics Canada. In short, there is a considerable amount of teams in Ontario that share resources (e.g. the famed practice field that the Niagara teams share, machine shops such as 865's etc.). Also, teams like 1241, 610, 771 and many others do help other teams through distance-mentoring and seminars that occur in the preseason or just after kick-off.

On top of that, I believe FIRST Robotics Canada also tries to assign a mentor team to every rookie team when they start off.

In other words, we're kind of a big, maple syrup-guzzling family that also makes great robots (and people :D !) .

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Great to hear. Assigning teams to mentor other teams is such an important step to sustainability.

I hope that Texas can implement a similar system.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

It's also important that veteran teams stick with rookies for as many years as possible until they are self-sustaining; as in they can manage the program without any outside help themselves. It's easier to start a new team than it is to maintain and grow a single team, as suggested by the numbers.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Last year we mentored 4610 and it was a great experience for both our teams and I'll +1 Abhishek's comment above! A good next step to implementing a similar system might be to coordinate with other teams to identify nearby teams that are new or struggling and reach out to them...if nothing more than a phone call or having lunch just to make connections.

Whats the best way to get team contact info?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

The number one way is to contact your Senior Mentor, if there is one in your area, and let them know that you want to mentor a rookie/young team.

Contact info for them can be found here: http://www.usfirst.org/regional-contacts. Note you have 3 Senior Mentors in TX and the two that I know are great to work with and very helpful.

You can also find team contact info here: http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on Note for this season the lowest rookie number is 4900, the lowest rookie number for the 2013 season was 4450. Teams that have an 8 digit number have registered in TIMS but have not actually registered for an event.

You could also contact your RD and their contact info can be found on the regional contacts page too.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Awesome, thanks, I'll have our team do some leg work to see what we can do!

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Interesting number on the TWC Overall Grant chart. Any idea how it is broken down by cities in TX?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

We just came off of our second year as a Texas team (and are headed to Houston for the Remix tomorrow). Funding the team the second year was immensely more difficult than as a rookie team.

As an explorer post we are not affiliated with a school. Outside of the fact that we have to scramble for a place to meet, we have also discovered that there is a definite bias towards school programs. This not a complaint, it is just another possibility as to why some teams fold.

The observation about sports vs. STEM or the arts is absolutely too true.

We are also greatly helped by being in San Antonio. I do not believe that we would exist in a smaller town. It is already very hard to get participants (no school to draw from).

I would love a system where mentors share some time with newer teams. We already lend out teens, mentors would be invaluable.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Could you expand on this a bit? Are you referring to grants?

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

First let me start with FRC itself has never given us any problems.

Grants are a part of it, although there are more aspects to it than that.

We operate as an afterschool program and we take anyone who wishes to join regardless of their location or school affiliations. Because of this we have been accused stealing students from schools that have (or wish to have) FRC teams. We do not actively try to take anyone from another team, but we still catch grief if we are chosen over another. We have actually lost more to new school teams than we have taken.

When we applied for the TWC monies we were informed that we would have to get verification of the teens grade levels from their schools. And in fact if they are homeschooled (about a third of the team) that we would need to go to the schools they would have attended for verification. They backed off of this when they were informed it is illegal to require this in Texas (homeschools are considered to be private schools here). Schools are reluctant (rightly so) to release such information to other organizations. Try collecting this from six different ones.

As an Explorer Post we are provided with liability coverage and legal protection. This is normally a provided by a school. I am not sure how other teams that are not under a Scout/school umbrella address this.

We established ourselves as a not-for-profit organization and have had to establish titles and a non-residential address to be able to fill in the blanks for grants, approaching sponsors, establishing websites, ordering parts/tools from some companies and sometimes getting retailers to acknowledge our tax free status.

When you put your group forward as a youth group not directly affiliated with a school you would be surprised how many people treat the group with suspicion. They ask questions to find out what your "agenda" is. I think many assume that you are either a cult or a group of pedophiles (and sometimes both). We had a neighbor near the garage we meet in accuse us of running a sweatshop. As funny as this was it is an excellent example of how many approach us.

Please don't get me wrong, it is not all up hill battles. It is just that many things related to FRC are approached from the assumption that you are operating through a school.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

It is definitely more difficult to operate when the team is not district affiliated. We are the second FRC team in the area and the original has been the only game in town for a long time. Because of that our district does not look very kindly on us. Having said that, it is is still possible to operate without district help. We have to find alternate funding sources and so far we have been successful.Teams cannot exist year to year on grant funding alone.It was very easy to get a lot of money to start a team but most fund sources seem to want rookies.Time Warner Cable was a great example of this.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Has the Texas Workforce Commission stopped sponsoring teams or have hey stopped giving grants for rookie teams or something else? As I understand it, they still sponsor teams that they originally gave the grants to.

And yeah, it's a good point that many people don't see FRC as they see "regular sports" or a fine art.

Also, district affiliation doesn't necessarily mean they receive support from the district, it may just be that some teams are affiliated with a school as a club and therefore associated with the district.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Great discussion here, very thought provoking and informative.

-----Warning - long post here -----

Michael, I like some of the ideas you have proposed to be district wide teams rather than multiple teams within a school district to start off. Growth within the school district can promote new teams and support for each other.

Michael, I believe that a staggered support system would be something to consider. I believe that Kansas had something similar to this a few years back. 1st year - $15000 grant to start, 2nd year - $10000 grant but must raise $5000, 3rd year - $5000 grant but must raise $10000. Next year on your own. I believe this stagger system allows a team to grow but also to be able know that have support over the first three years.

I am from a small town in West Texas. We had several small schools in a county in the Eastern panhandle. Having multiple schools in this situation work together would be tough and would include a large amount of travel for teams and students just to work each day. Many of the kids at these schools are already involved in multiple activities at their schools and adding just one more activity, no matter how important, is very tough.

I do not believe that many teams are moving back to BEST from FRC. In fact here in central Texas, we have seen more teams move away from BEST and focus more on offseason projects or mentoring other teams.


Our program, FRC 2468, at Westlake High School started after visiting successful schools in California - Palo Alto (The Vikings - 8, Gunn (GRT -192), High Tech High (Holy Cows - 1538) and Poway (Team Spyder - 1622), we came home and started our program. Little did I know I was visited such powerful and successful programs. What I did come away from California was that each state is different in education and funding.

A few others and I had a conversation with a representatives from National Instruments and FIRST robotics the year that the Texas Workforce Commission grant was announced. One topic that was discussed was how to sustain veteran teams and the fact that the grant did not support veteran teams in anyway. Veterans were going to be expected to support the new rookies while at the same time trying to sustain themselves. Many teams who were just in their second or third year were going to be asked to support rookie teams who were getting grants. These veteran teams were still trying to find a way to maintain themselves. The grant has continued to become even more restrictive over the years.

District events are two days rather than three days. As a coach, I find the district model much better and more bang for your buck which school district administrations will be interested in. So $5000 for 8-10 matches if you do not make the eliminations or 24 matches without eliminations. Even better is you get a work window on your robot in your home shop the week of each district event you attend, so at least 10 more matches and 2 more work days to improve your robot. That in my opinion will make it more enticing for rookie teams to want to come back after their first year. I also believe that this is a great selling point for schools. If you consider the cost per match, it is much easier to see the benefit.
So if you consider the cost of the year is $12,000 per year.
Lets say a team gets 9 matches in a regional (usually what we get at Alamo) - the cost per match is $555 per match. Only one day of improvement and it is at the tournament during practice matches.

Now, lets say a team gets 24 matches in two districts - the cost per match is $208 per match. The team also gets the chance to improve their robot the week of their first tournament, work on it while at the tournament and then get another 8 hours of work time in their home shop. I am a believer that the second tournament will be a much better experience for a rookie team or inexperienced team.

I see several responses here about not qualifying for Championships thru one district tournament. Many teams are not realistically going to get a chance to qualify for Championships on one tournament anyway.


I am a big believer in FRC but I do not think that it is the answer for each school district to have an FRC team. I think it is feasible for any school anywhere to a FTC team - cost wise, budget wise and technical skills wise.


BTW, I went to a high school that did not have football or band. There are more than you think. As Jess says, football has been around for a long time. FRC has made strides and will continue to do so. I do not believe in comparing us to athletics and I am ex coach. I also do not believe in comparing to other states. I believe we should strive to see growth within out state and work toward that.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Hi Norm! This is a _great_ suggestion for funding!!

What I really love is that you get into stating specifics that are very real and doable for new teams.

--Michael

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Michael,

The numbers might not be correct but it is a plan to begin to look at.

I think that rookies should have some skin in the game at first. So maybe a $2000 raise by them in the first year.

Norman

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

The Kansas City area has had a great retention rate. The Ewing Kauffman Foundation for years had a 3 year grant program. If I remember right it was $10,000 the first year with the advice to use some of the extra money to buy hand tools, $7,000 the second year and $3,000 the third year. Teams were required to keep maticulate financial records on how the money was spent if they wanted to be eligible for the 2nd and 3rd year grants.

It also helps that all teams in the Kansas City area have a local tournament to attend. Travel expenses are huge. In 2007 (our rookie year) the Foundation gave us an extra $3000 to not go to Kansas City because they were concerned it would fill up with all the new teams coming onboard. We ended up in St. Louis which was a stacked event that year. We learned alot of humbling and inspiring lessons from some of the very best teams in FIRST.

We learned not to depend on corporate sponsorships as we transitioned from grant funds to a more self sustaining model. The depreciating grant funds forced this mindset. We started running a couple of summer camps featuring FLL and VEX robots after the 2008 season for elementary and jr. high students. We've continued to add more camps each year, maxing out at 7 different day camps in a summer, usually 2 a day (morning and afternoon). Most of the camps have huge attendance numbers. We also run an annual science carnival where team members each design an interactive science booth. A small entrance fee and a huge turnout nets a couple grand in a single evening. Most students get their travel expenses covered by the team by participating in our fundraisers, and those that don't participate have to come up with those funds on their own. We still seek out grants and corporate donations wherever we can find them, but diversification in funding sources has been key to sustainability.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

Thanks for the post and information on the grants. Good to know there is/was a model to refer to.

Great information on the camps and the interactive science demo activity Sounds like that would be a blast to attend. When do you hold it? and Where?

Thanks
Norman

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

No flame but a reminder that Texas is very different from most states. There is a huge disparity in the size of the school districts. They are independent, could be one city, multiple cities or an entire county.

Still - contacting superintendents is a good idea. And surely they have yearly regional or state-wide meetings where one could make a presentation.

I think the loss of so many teams is kind of a perfect storm. Texas started large numbers of rookies teams in a single year. Two years afterwards all school districts budgets were cut significantly when the economy crashed. Then JC Penny had a change in leadership that hurt many team budgets. Maybe some transitioned to BEST. I know many had poor teacher/mentor support (because I help to run the quick build in Dallas each year). At some point it is just statistics that good ole fashioned foot work might lower. How about a canvas to find out why the teams failed followed by target programs (help from FIRST, formal mentor-ships with veteran teams etc) to mitigate the top two causes of failure?

My money is on sporadic support (personnel and dollars) from the school districts and little effort building a fund-raising infrastructure.

Re: Texas Registration 2014
 

"Burgers, Beakers and Bots" is being held Tomorrow Night (November 5th) in the Commons area of Lee's Summit West High School.

Parents are grilling hamburgers and hotdogs to go along with the chips and canned soda dinner package. Students get entrance to all the activities and dinner for $10. Parents enter for free and can purchase dinner for an additional $5. Several silent auction and raffle items have been donated for parents to bid on as well.

Science Carnival Events include

• Driving past FRC robots
• Racing VEX robots
• Interacting with the current FLL game
• Challenging the Guitar Hero Robot
• Egg Drop Contest
• Build and Launch Stomp Rockets
• Build a Marble Roller Coaster
• Lazer & Mirror Maze Challenge
• Straw Tower Building
• Calculate Your Horsepower
• Gyroscope Chair
• Tessla Coil Experiments
• Vandegraph Generator
• Paper Airplane Contest
• Giant Soap Bubbles
• Exciting Chemistry Demonstrations
• Exploring 3D CAD Models
• Homemade CO2 Fire Extinguishers
• Acid/Base Indicators
• Brain Anatomy
• Non-Newtonian Fluids
• Ferrofluids and Magnets
• Static Electricity
• Experience Smashing Thermite
• Polymer Reactions
• And Much, Much More

Our team members spend weeks planning their booths and making sure they understand how to explain the science they are demonstrating in kid friendly terms. They prep the area from noon until the event starts at 5:30. Event ends at 8:30. Incidently there is no school that day (teacher inservices). Kids look forward to it each year, and parents do too.

Sometimes a corporation or philanthropic organization will match a fundraiser dollar for dollar up to some limit. We don't find a sponsor every year who will do that, but have found this to be the perfect activity for that kind of thing when it works out.

PS. We've found that we can raise funds and promote STEM at the same time. It's also a whole lot more fun than traditional fund raisers.