View Single Post
  #163   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-06-2016, 20:46
Kleiman Kleiman is offline
Registered User
FRC #5699 (Robo Sapiens)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9
Kleiman is just really niceKleiman is just really niceKleiman is just really niceKleiman is just really niceKleiman is just really nice
Re: Ontario Moving to District Model in 2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyingJay View Post
I've been involved with a few FRC teams in the Ottawa region and we would love to see FRC grow in popularity here, but it's been slow going. It's hard to start new teams, and meanwhile older teams are leaving the program because they find it too difficult to sustain. For a long time I wondered how long it would take, how many teams it would take, before there was enough momentum here for FRC to catch on as big as it has in Toronto.

Now I understand that all your teams had a huge head start. And going forward you will have slightly less of one. While I understand that's disappointing, I hope you can see why I think it's unproductive to be grumbling about it.
I think this post sums up very clearly what the general sentiment has been from the FIRST community on this one. This program is expensive and hard to grow/sustain, I am lucky that I was sustained by public funds, but welcome to the reality that other teams face who do not have as much public funding. Now deal with it, don't complain about it, or just leave (P.S. I hope you don't leave #sorrynotsorry).

Firstly, I am not running a "struggling team" as has been implied on this forum repeatedly. I am running a relatively small scale, but hard working, competitive team with room to grow. In the regional model we would have required zero private money to operate.

Second, it has been implied that my difficulty in more than doubling my annual budget for future years is reflective of a lack of willingness to do the hard work of being an FRC team. Over the past two years, I have dedicated astronomical amounts of time, energy and passion as all of you have to build this program from nothing. I am a biology teacher with zero engineering background and I have converted my science class and a tiny storage area into a workshop.

My difficulties in raising more funding stem largely from an issue I have avoided bring up here due to the Pandora's box of backlash I expect it will open, but here goes... Like many of my fellow Canadians, a core value I hold as an educator is that I don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public schools. In the regional model with the generous public financial backing of the TDSB I could indefinitely run a successful (though maybe not world champion) FRC team on public funds and through grass-roots fund raisers in a sustainable way. I am aware that the overall FIRST program doesn't exist without private sponsorship. It is a compromise I am currently willing to accept in exchange for the unprecedented experience. Developing private partnerships within my own school program is where I draw a firm line. I will continue to work myself to the bone for this team so I can run a STEM project funded with no-strings-attached and I will also continue to lobby public education to recognize the educational return on investment in FIRST. Perhaps rather than you asking me to STOP complaining about added cost, I should ask you to START complaining about lack of public funds if a dedicated team requires heavy private sponsorship to exist. "Greying Jay" implies that his wish for Ottawa's program to expand like Toronto's will come as a result of a higher cost to participate and an increased time commitment.

Third, I believe that we don't just participate in the FRC program, we are helping to build it. It can become whatever we want it to become. Looking backwards and sideways at what works currently and what has worked in the past is valuable, but it is equally valuable to imagine how we want to change this program looking into the future. I know for many people reading this, their response is that they envision a higher proportion of large-scale, competitive teams and more robust programs. For others they may be imagining that the benefits of this program spread as far and as wide as possible to afford more students the opportunity to be transformed by FIRST. Both views have merit, but on some levels these views may find themselves at odds with each other. A program that builds better teams may cost more and require more commitment, but this could also lead to the program becoming more exclusive.

I think we have more than enough fuel to easily sell this program's worth to private sponsors, so why not sell it with equal vigor to our municipal, provincial and federal governments here in Canada. My sense from the discussion on this forum is that more people are concerned about making more WINNING teams rather than making more WORKING teams. I get it... district model = better educational experience and more team growth. But I say again; at what cost? In the US, for the same price you get more FRC. More power to you. Enjoy it. In Toronto, it costs my team and other "one-regional" teams like mine at least double the previous cost (after public funding) to now play two district events. Why not imagine a model like ours of FRC where more teams can run strong, sustainable teams on less than ~$2500 CAD per year. This does not exclude the option to grow into a mega-world-class team (as many here in Canada already have done), but it just costs more to do so.

Finally, what seems to have been forgotten on this forum is that the move to Districts was a CHOICE. The decision was made by FIRST Canada that the district model was right for Ontario. More cost and commitment to participate, but less cost for more value in terms of number of plays and the educational experience for participating teams. This was a choice that makes it harder for public funding to facilitate more universal participation in the long run. I can accept it, and I will do my best to continue to play within the new framework, but I can confidently say that this choice moves in a direction contrary to my personal preference. I wish for this program to reach as many schools as possible for as little money as possible even if it means some degree of dilution to the level of competition. And no, it is definitely NOT because I don't want to do more work.
Reply With Quote