Texas Registration 2015

[AllenGregoryIV]

Just to give some idea of how large Texas is and the distance between teams.
This is data from the 2012 season based on team358.org stats.

Average distance between Michigan teams is roughly 112.902991346 miles
Average distance between Texas teams is roughly 244.666560144 miles

That's a huge difference and a large problem. Even just driving to some of the teams we consider in Greater Houston can take well over an hour without traffic.

By no means is this the only reason for team loss, but it's part of the problem. It's very easy to be isolated in our state.

[jee7s]

It's not only the team-to-team distance, it's also the team-to-sponsor distance. For teams in cities, these distances are small, but that's not the case for many teams, even teams that are relatively close to population centers. There's also the question of mentor support, which can be a problem even in the cities.

FRC 660 comes to mind. They were in Round Rock, the home of Dell, sponsored by BAE, a 2001 Rookie All Star, who suddenly stopped competing in 2010. Probably the departure of a key mentor, but I don't know their story.

Also, there's Reagan High School in Austin. They were FRC 4271, supported by JCP, and decided to move over to FTC. I'm still not sure why they didn't get the support, but that's a prime example of a grant beneficiary who dropped FRC because they couldn't get mentor and industry support.

For example of a manageable distance to a major city, Bastrop is 25 or so miles from Austin. They have good community support, and they are able to sustain a team. From my understanding of their story, this is due in large part to industry located in Bastrop that supports the Austin economy coupled with several dedicated retired community members with technical background who help out.

On the flip side, Del Rio is fairly isolated. You are guaranteed to go through a Border Control checkpoint when leaving it on your way to, well, anywhere. But, they keep their program alive.

Other isolated places that don't have industry or community support will need to rely on grants. That's my earlier point: How many teams got the TWC or JCP grant (both were fairly easy to get as I understand), spawned up a program, but never got the mentor support to sustain the team (like the Reagan situation above)? Or, more recently, how many potential teams and sponsors have looked at events that feature FRC next to FTC or VEX and say "well, I can reach X times more kids with that smaller program" and go after that instead? FRC is a big game, and it can be intimidating. It fits some schools well, and others not so much. But until we can express to Texas teachers, mentors, and sponsors that the FRC game offers so much different a challenge than the challenge of FTC or VEX, we can expect those FRC numbers to keep dwindling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the overall technology education programs are growing, as indicated by VEX and FTC growth. But, I don't like the idea that the FRC team count is shrinking.

Oh, and this decline in new rookies might be part of a broader problem:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=130809

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by lynca

I have no problem at all with Minnesota taking over the Texas thread ! Texas has a lot to learn from the Minnesota model.

I don't see a lot of details about how new teams are funded in Minnesota. What is the typical funding process for a rookie Minnesota team (i.e. 2 years of funding , connecting sponsors to teams) ?

What is the name of the Minnesota non-profit that raises funds from the corporate community ?

As far as I know, there is no regional grant process in Minnesota. Many teams are securing initial funding from national rookie grants and then later finding small local businesses to fill in costs or larger companies like 3M to support then in the long run. We also have some teams that are absolutely fantastic at finding sponsorships, like 1816, who are very willing to help other teams learn from their practices.

MN FIRST is the organization that secures funding for regionals in the state, but as far as I know they don't fund teams.

We also have a relatively high amount of tech companies like 3M, Honeywell, Boston Scientific, PTC, and others who sponsor multiple teams long-term. An interesting fact in this regard is that while in many states health care or financial sector businesses represent the largest lobby, in Minnesota tech companies are the largest lobby at the state legislature. While we don't get funding from the state level, recognition from the state government and initiatives like MNDRIVE, which fund robotics industry growth, raise awareness both in businesses and in the public mind about robotics, which (and I'm just guessing here), makes STEM program growth and funding appealing for schools and businesses. Combined with Minnesota being a significantly smaller state than Texas, where the majority of teams are clustered right next to the majority of tech businesses, and it's a pretty good mixture for robotics growth.

A little bit of further conjecture, but I'd also say that Minnesota's largest robotics program is FLL is also a contributing factor to funding and team sustainability-- there are over three times as many FLL teams as there are FRC teams, which means there's a pretty large pool of students that already exist who are likely to be interested in programs down the line. Many teams will speak to the value of feeder programs, but I think that was and is a pretty important factor in the explosive growth and continuing sustainability of teams MN has experienced.

Hopefully this was at least vaguely useful. I'm sure Evan probably has a bit more to chime in.

[kdcoutts]

I think one of the other factors in Minnesota is that FRC is recognized by the state athletic league as a team sport, just as football, basketball, dance line, etc. So the students are able to letter if their school chooses to do so. It also gives those teams that do not make it to world, a chance to participate in a state championship, just as other varsity teams in the state do.
Our rookie year was 2012 and funding is always an issue, our particular team does not receive any financial support from the school district nor much of any other support for that matter. We made a decision as mentors that even though the school district charges up to $200 for extra correcular participation fee ($25 for free or reduced lunch students) we would not charge it. We want the kids to be involved and did not think that money should hold them back. But, we are still here and even though we lost five seniors from a team of eight this past spring we have added more kids. Success!

[wireties]

Originally Posted by lynca

What is the name of the Minnesota non-profit that raises funds from the corporate community ?

Is there such an organization in Texas? This would be great. Combine a non-profit raising funds for young teams (and teaching them how to do it) with some kind of formal mentor outreach and one could make a big difference.

Also I think the UIL and FIRST are talking, perhaps some kind of 1-year pilot program is being discussed? If FRC/FTC/FLL become UIL approved more money will flow from the school districts (which will help recruit and retain teachers).

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by lynca

I don't see a lot of details about how new teams are funded in Minnesota. What is the typical funding process for a rookie Minnesota team (i.e. 2 years of funding , connecting sponsors to teams) ?

What is the name of the Minnesota non-profit that raises funds from the corporate community ?

Rookies here have typically found the same 1st and 2nd year grants that teams all over the US are offered. I think what makes a big difference is that the RPC (Regional Planning Committee) has done a great job of making connections with the large tech companies in the state, and have hooked many of us up with their contacts. Having several employees of these big companies in your district sending kids to your school helps a lot too.

The only FIRST-affiliated non-profit I am aware of in Minnesota (aside from individual teams) is High Tech Kids, who runs the FLL and FTC programs. The Regional Planning Committee for FRC does not have a non-profit status (as far as I know), and cannot hold any funds intermediately between companies, teams, events, etc.

[Coach Norm]

Originally Posted by lynca

The biggest losses are definitely more rural or small city schools. I can put exact numbers on these with a little data crunching if people are interested.

Texas Regions that struggle.
1. South Texas
2. El Paso
3. West Texas
4. Small towns scattered across the state.

I was raised in the Texas Panhandle. I went to a small high school (six students in my graduating class.) I know how hard it would be to not only start an FRC team but to maintain it in such a small community. My father was an agriculture teacher and he would have been the closest qualifying individual to being a mentor for our team. Many of the teams from West Texas and the Texas Panhandle would fall in the category of small class sizes, little to no computer science taught in the high school, large farming and ranching communities, small amount of financial support from industry, etc. In small schools, students participate in multiple activities at the same time since there is not a large population of students.

Last year, we worked with a team at Hub City that had two mentors and seven students. I think that there are probably more teams that fall into circumstances such as these. I know of a team here in Austin that folded due to the teacher leaving and losing their only technical mentor.

Just as increasing the success of a school, many times it falls on a committed individual and most often that falls on the shoulders of a teacher. Many schools do not a financial structure to compensate teachers for this commitment. FIRST is seeking to get a partnership with UIL in the state with the hopes that this will lead to more finances and support from within the schools. School finance in Texas is in a mess and does not look to be be getting any better in the near future. I believe it is a false hope that such a partnership will open the books up to financing of many teams in the future.

It is very interesting that Minnesota has such a large number of FLL teams and they have seen an increase in the number of FRC teams. Laying the groundwork at younger ages drives success and creates interest not only at the student level but at the elementary level as well. Having taught in public school classroom and being a fourth generation teacher with in Texas. The support of elementary programs from parents is huge. As students begin to move thru school, parental involvement continues to dwindle. Parent support of a program is instrumental in assisting the mentors and teachers of the program.

As some others have mentioned here, geographic isolation is another big factor. Not only is the distance to contests but the distance to supporting veteran teams is a great distance as well.

I also believe that the prevalence of other STEM/Robotics contest in the state have played a factor. The growth of FTC and VEX has been huge in the state of Texas. see post from Andy about the number of teams in the past few years. In addition, BEST robotics continues to be successful throughout the state of Texas. These contests do offer a truly beneficial STEM program to the schools that chose to participate in them. Schools chose to participate in them for a variety of reasons: past experience, costs to startup, space, tools requirement, mentor availability, etc.

I believe Andy's questions are great questions. I also believe something could be learned from the Kansas City growth FRC that included 3 year commitment finances partnership between the teams and grants available.

[AllenGregoryIV]

That's a good summary Norm.

One of the programs that helped grow teams in the 2009-2011 range was the Texas High School Project. There isn't much information online about it but this word doc sums up the program pretty well. Basically it gave schools about $18,000 over two years.

Does anyone have a list of teams that were founded using this money and how many are still around? From the little I know, not many of teams stuck around. A quick search through the team358 database says that 18 teams had "Texas High School Project" as one of their sponsors and are no longer competing as of 2014. Many of the schools were supported by both THSP and JCPenny.

After the poor retention rates that we saw for so many years, I know a lot of veteran Texas teams/mentors that shy away from actively encouraging schools to start FRC teams without some experience with a smaller competition 1st. There are so many other options (FTC/VEX/BEST/Botball/MATE/etc.) to allow schools to get into competition robotics that don't have the costs and drop out rates of an FRC team. I know whenever possible I try to convince teams to take a year and really watch a full season before doing FRC. It's so much easier to start a program when you have some idea of what it actually takes than starting blind just because someone is willing to pay your registration fee.

I would love to have Texas rookies competing at a level where they are all in contention for Rookie All Star. We do a ton of work to help prepare rookie teams for the season and work with them during the season but even with that help many of them fold after a year or two. The teams that do the best are those that either have experienced mentors or FRC alumni helping to run their programs but that's not an easy thing to get for a lot of the teams.

From a school perspective I can also see how it would make more sense to compete in several smaller programs. You can have more teams and compete more often where in FRC you may only be able to compete once per year. Now that Texas has a lot more off season FRC events (4 this season), it might become more compelling to compete in FRC.

The fact that FRC is hard is part of the point. It wouldn't be the same competition if it were easy to run a team but that does come with a cost.

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by compwiztobe

Rookies here have typically found the same 1st and 2nd year grants that teams all over the US are offered. I think what makes a big difference is that the RPC (Regional Planning Committee) has done a great job of making connections with the large tech companies in the state, and have hooked many of us up with their contacts. Having several employees of these big companies in your district sending kids to your school helps a lot too.

The only FIRST-affiliated non-profit I am aware of in Minnesota (aside from individual teams) is High Tech Kids, who runs the FLL and FTC programs. The Regional Planning Committee for FRC does not have a non-profit status (as far as I know), and cannot hold any funds intermediately between companies, teams, events, etc.

This is correct, we have a couple of dedicated RPC members that are great at finding funding for teams. The RPC has identified many very gracious companies and executives that will support MN teams but past the initial $5,000 teams are (usually) on their own to fundraise. In Minnesota it isn't a question of whether or not there is funding to run a team but more of a question if there is leadership to run a team.

The majority of teams are coached by a single science, math or technology teacher that don't always know what they are getting themselves into. There are many teams in MN (2470 being one) that don't have any professional engineers mentoring them, thankfully the number of teams that have professional engineers as mentor is growing every year.

The biggest sustainability issue in my mind for MN is finding those lead mentors/coaches and making sure they don't become overwhelmed throughout a season.

FRC does not have a non-profit that it runs under in Minnesota and in my opinion is the biggest obstacle to districts.

High Tech Kids also runs Jr. FLL.

[itsjustmrb]

I am a coach for the team in Del Rio, Tx., population 36,000, 150 miles from any city larger than us or other FRC team. My personal opinion is the declination of teams is based more on the mentor ratio, available resources and culture of the school district/town. I would bet that all of the teams that are no longer in existence had a limited number of available mentors. Our district recently received approved a stipend for 2 paid head coaches and 4 assistant coaches. We are a PLTW school and offer no robotics classes. When the stipend came out, we had 0 STEM teachers apply for the positions. I suppose their after school time is much more valuable or can get paid more for doing much less work, but that is only speculation.

The technical resources, engineering types, industry resources and community involvement is just not available to us like it is in a larger city.

I am rambling a bit, since I am commenting between classes. To sum things up, I don't think there is a single thing that stops a team from continuing to participate in FRC. Money is a big issue, but I think finances can be overcome more easily than getting qualified people to mentor your team.

Please do not start a flame war, this is only my opinion from a new team from a small isolated town.

Mr. B

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by itsjustmrb

I am rambling a bit, since I am commenting between classes. To sum things up, I don't think there is a single thing that stops a team from continuing to participate in FRC. Money is a big issue, but I think finances can be overcome more easily than getting qualified people to mentor your team.

Please do not start a flame war, this is only my opinion from a new team from a small isolated town.

Mr. B

I agree, but for the teams that don't have a dedicated mentor, when the money dries up no one is pushing to secure more funds and keep the team alive.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Coach Norm

It is very interesting that Minnesota has such a large number of FLL teams and they have seen an increase in the number of FRC teams. Laying the groundwork at younger ages drives success and creates interest not only at the student level but at the elementary level as well... Parent support of a program is instrumental in assisting the mentors and teachers of the program.

Parental support is vital for the health of any youth program. We see stark differences between swim teams that have strong parental support and those that don't. I suspect that a lot of the mentors supporting the FRC teams in Minnesota may have got their start as coaches or mentors for their children's FLL teams. That is where I got started as did a number of the other FRC mentors here in Houston.

Originally Posted by itsjustmrb

My personal opinion is the declination of teams is based more on the mentor ratio, available resources and culture of the school district/town.

The coach of one of the most successful FLL teams in Houston was bemoaning the fact that he had trouble helping to set up new FLL teams because the school district he is in is more interested in football than STEM. Before we moved out of that area, my sons were on two teams there. The first collapsed when the teacher/sponsor retired and could not be replaced. The other had difficulty in getting support from the school district, the school principal and the teachers. They also had trouble finding students who were interested. Several other teams have come and gone in that school district.

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

The fact that FRC is hard is part of the point. It wouldn't be the same competition if it were easy to run a team but that does come with a cost.

It probably becomes prohibitively difficult if the majority of the people involved in running a team (teachers, school administration, mentors, students and parents) have had no prior experience with smaller scale robotics competitions such as FLL, FTC or VEX. One could use the analogy of competing in FRC is like running in a full marathon. One typically works up to it by starting with 5k runs, etc. Of the three teams FRC my sons have been on that are/were struggling, none of the other people involved had any prior experience with any other robotics competitions. Unfortunately, not knowing what they don't know, they did not make good use of resources made available by more experienced teams such as Spectrum and the mentors did not ask to be mentored themselves. The team my son is with now has a strong presence in VEX and VEX iQ. They get much better results in terms of tournament results and, most importantly, the amount of learning that students experience.

[lynca]

As teams from all around the country complain about not having enough regionals.

Texas definitely has enough regionals this year. We welcome all teams to the Lone Star State.
We are up to 115 Texas teams registered.

This year we have lost many notable teams.

1429 - Converted to only VEX
1801 - Converted to only VEX
2936 - Converted to only FTC & MATE

Both 1429 & 2936 are chairman's award winning teams, so this news is tough on the Texas community.
Hopefully Texas can recover back to at least 132 teams, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by lynca

As teams from all around the country complain about not having enough regionals.

Texas definitely has enough regionals this year. We welcome all teams to the Lone Star State.
We are up to 115 Texas teams registered.

This year we have lost many notable teams.


Both 1429 & 2936 are chairman's award winning teams, so this news is tough on the Texas community.
Hopefully Texas can recover back to at least 132 teams, but lets keep our fingers crossed.

Wow, that's very disappointing to hear. I hope they are able to come back to FRC next season...

[AllenGregoryIV]

And we have well over 220 spots at Texas regionals.

Not every team in Texas is going to play two events and a bunch of teams including mine will be playing out of state.

Houston, Alamo, and Hub City should all have open spaces for visiting teams.