[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Kleiman

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.

No one ever said 5699 was a struggling program in this thread. In the regional model with the TDSB sponsorship never adjusting, you may have been able to operate without any private funds, but relying 2/3 of an operating budget on a force clearly outside of your control is interesting.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

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.

I wish we had more public investment in the FIRST program at our own state and local levels. Our good friends nearby from 1086 recently worked with Virginia's General Assembly to get a bill passed and signed by our governor to grant money to programs that otherwise could not exist without the funds.

I also recognize that FIRST was founded in 1992 when COMPANIES went to SCHOOLS to start their teams. The private-public partnership between FIRST and public schools has existed since the founding of the program.

The entirety of the FIRST kit of parts is donated by private enterprises, with key control system and mechanical equipment coming for free from National Instruments, AndyMark, Innovation First International, and Cross the Road Electronics. These are all for-profit companies that donate an absurd (AN ABSURD) amount of money to FIRST. Not only does FIRST as a program not exist without private partnerships, but unless you are shipping your kit back to Manchester and buying these items yourselves, your robot does not exist without them.

I do find it curious that you must think that teams with private sponsors are suddenly enslaved to the corporation. I don't think that's the case with any teams. You are welcome to maintain your stance that no corporations dare lay a finger on your program, just understand that is not a stance shared by a majority of teams in FIRST. It's also a very insular and restrictive way to approach the FIRST program. Some organizations (ourselves included) use private sponsors to support community initiatives that bring our program to places outside of classrooms. Public money would not be able to support hall-of-fame programs because they do work that costs more money than the public can provide.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

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.

You seem to think that competitive teams are the end goal, where in the end sustainability and success are the main goals. I have been looking into attrition rates globally vs large states/provinces vs district systems, and even if you threw out Michigan and the new systems, all districts are experiencing lower attrition than the global average. Creating as many sustainable teams as possible is not a goal that fights between many competitive teams and as many teams as possible, but takes a firm middle.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

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.

This is a STEM competition! Using math, I have determined that it is pretty much impossible to create more winning teams unless FIRST starts giving out trophies to everyone who shows up to all of their events or we start creating even more events than the district system even allows. I really don't give a toss if we win. I'd really like to win more/at all, but I don't have to win every event we enter to justify re-entering next year. Operating on $7500 a year does not in many parts of the FRC world lead to even "working teams." Three cheers on apparently being the exception to that rule, but the reality is that teams with little money also likely have little available for them in physical and human resources to make their program sustainable.

The model that costs less is called VRC in Ontario and either VRC or FTC in the States. FRC, VRC, and FTC are all programs that can produce similar educational results. FRC, as the founders of the program will argue, is not a primarily educational program, but a program that is designed to be an agent of change in their communities. The cost to do that has been described with the outlay of the district system's plans.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

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.

For the third time, I will reiterate that no gun has been pointed to anyone's head, and it won't be in the future. Whether or not FIRST Canada was right in making their choice has yet to be seen. I wish them the best and expect them to succeed and continue to be one of the best regions in the world for competitive robotics. I also wish you the best in continuing your efforts to maintain an FRC team at your school. It takes a lot of effort to put a team out there year after year without any significant engineering experience and not enough money. It has been worth it for me still and I trust it will be worth it for you.