[gblake]

Originally Posted by wnewton00

This bill was written to support any STEM team competition program. While it was an FRC team that did this, when the students did their presentations, proposals and sample budgets they submitted to the Governor's office and other officials they included many programs including all levels of FIRST, CyberPatriot as well as other STEM initiatives. They understand completely how FRC may not be feasible for all schools depending on other resources. And ideally the best place is to get programs in the elementary schools. Research has shown that the sooner children are exposed to STEM initiatives the more likely they are to be inspired to choose a STEM education and career path.

Great! (j)FLL and VEX IQ (and any other equally good or better) programs should obviously be promoted as proven options for those elementary schools.

Along those lines, my experience has shown that there is a great need for "training the trainers". It sure would be nice to see a program-neutral method arise for introducing teachers and other mentors to the basic skills needed for success in all the available (VIQ, jFLL, FLL, FTC, VRC, FRC, PLTW?, 4H?, CyberPatriot, BEST, JSS, SeaPerch, etc.) programs.

Originally Posted by wnewton00

This could easily facilitate the start of many FLL teams, JSS, Cyberpatriot, etc. It also could allow that rural high school the chance to start an FRC team and build that 120 pound robot from scratch. We have high schools that are 97% free and reduced lunch. These kids do not have these opportunities right now. These funds are there to give this opportunity to students that might not have had the chance to experience what many of us here on CD has.

Yep. I'm no stranger. Some of those schools are in the county where I live. Some members of my Church congregation teach/work/live in those communities. I have spent time learning about similar schools/communities in Baltimore, and learning about what has succeeded there. While I was with a previous employer I was proud to play a part in creating opportunities in all parts of our county. That past employer continues to great things.

Originally Posted by wnewton00

With that being said, the VA FRC members on here are undoubtedly going to be excited about the prospect of more FRC teams in our state. If a school wants to do FRC and this fund makes it possible then why would we not be happy for them?

I'll be excited and celebrating right along with them, so long as those new teams are built on solid foundations (are supported by more than just grant money "sand"), and so long as those new teams are built using resources available after all interested students have their basic needs met. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.

Comedian John Pinette has a funny bit about going down a big mountain his first time he tried skiing. I recommend listening to it for a chuckle; and there is probably a lesson in that story for folks who want to dip their toes into the STEM robotics pool.

Originally Posted by wnewton00

**The main goal for SB17 was to get STEM labs and equipment into schools that do not have them using money provided by STEM companies and groups. Again think of those schools with 97% free and reduced lunch. That bill did not exclude competition teams but did have a much broader range and would have relied on a different source of funding. We have more work to do in order to get that one through. While it made it sailed through the Senate and then House Committees, it was tabled in appropriations.

One other question that always puzzles me about legislation, is this: What part of SB17, or SB246, if passed, would cause the state $ to be used in the ways you are describing? I can see that both would open the door for those uses, but neither mandates those uses. From what I read, expenses as unusual as hiring tutors or motivational speakers would satisfy both bills' requirements. I understand not wanting to tie the executive branch's hands too tightly when writing a bill, but this wide-open aspect of all STEM legislation I have seen so far always leaves me scratching my head.

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

As someone who grew up in and supports FRC Teams in Virginia I am naturally inclined to initially view things through that lens. Sorry.

Sure. "Sorry" isn't necessary. If anyone says it, perhaps it should be me saying, "Sorry for being a broken record, but let's not forget about the bigger picture."

I'm certain that folks tire of me pushing for public $ to initially be used more for programs that are less costly than FRC (in $ per involved student terms), before those public $ programs are expanded to include FRC, but the simple arithmetic and the other programs' results are both compelling; and here on CD at least, there is a strong FRC bias that creeps into almost all conversations if someone doesn't emphasize that bigger picture.

Blake