Keep FIRST in Michigan (FiM) from killing FIRST Lego League

[EricH]

Originally Posted by x86_4819

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, but would enforcing this separation between FTC and FRC also prohibit middle-school students from participating in FRC?

It'd take a bit of a rules change to do it, but I think it could be done. However, I suspect that someone might figure out that students who were unable to participate in FTC, for any one of a number of reasons, but wanted to participate in FIRST need an outlet, which just might be FRC. At least, I'd think that...

[wgardner]

Originally Posted by EricH

However, I suspect that someone might figure out that students who were unable to participate in FTC, for any one of a number of reasons, but wanted to participate in FIRST need an outlet, which just might be FRC. At least, I'd think that...

Funny, because I'd also suspect that someone might figure out that high school students who were unable to participate in FRC, for any one of a number of reasons, but wanted to participate in FIRST need an outlet, which just might be FTC. Yet FiM seems to be prohibiting that.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

The usage of school-grades as a metric is an exceedingly poor one, and it should be done by ages.

Tom,

While I agree with the 1st half of your statement, I disagree with the 2nd half. Ability is far more important than age/grade and that's the issue I have with bureaucratic entities and the arbitrary metrics they use.

I've been a FRC mentor for 15 years. I've seen 7th graders that were ready for FRC and I've seen 10th graders that weren't.

My question to FiM is: Why must the programs be separated? Why should they not be allowed to overlap?

My question to the Michigan community is: is the program you run a FiM program or a FIRST program? The answer to that should dictate which set of rules you'd want to follow.

FiM has done a lot of good for the FIRST community, thus I am very willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I would be interested to see the data that they based this decision on.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

My question to FiM is: Why must the programs be separated? Why should they not be allowed to overlap?

My question to the Michigan community is: is the program you run a FiM program or a FIRST program? The answer to that should dictate which set of rules you'd want to follow.

I don't speak for FiM, however, I suspect part of the reason for the lack of overlap is this: FTC has often been pegged as a low-cost alternative to FRC for schools where funding is limited, however, because in Michigan funding for rookie FRC teams is basically covered by state grants, the feeling seems to be that having overlap with FTC at the high school level simply detracts from potential FRC teams as the vast majority of schools are unlikely to be willing to have both programs.

To an extent, this also holds true when you compare FTC to FLL, FLL is cheaper and thus more appealing, but since FTC is also largely paid for by state grants in Michigan, making FTC the only Middle School program helps promote FTC at that level and expand the number of teams (which the data posted earlier in this thread has shown).

JrFLL and FLL are then delegated to their own grade ranges giving a very clear progression in the FIRST program.

The real question that needs to be asked is not whether or not this change has benefited team growth (arguably the data shows that it has), but has it benefited students. This is a much harder metric to gauge but it will be an important one going forwards.


Speaking as a student who participated in FLL in 7th and 8th grades; when I moved into high school, I was totally unprepared to join an FRC team, I went to a few meetings in the fall and maintained a "deer in the headlights" mentality the entire time. Needless to say, I dropped out of the team my 9th grade year (something I regret to this day) and ended up joining back the following year. Had I had exposure to a program like FTC in Middle School I think I would have been much more prepared for FRC when I got into high school.


Now to answer your second question: I don't know. The jurisdiction that FiM has over Michigan teams has been one of these confusing grey areas since it was implemented. On one side, I've yet to see any instances where FiM has directly contradicted FIRST, but on the other hand, there are policies that FiM implements that differ substantially from FIRST. In some ways you could think of it like how our government works, the Federal government can create rules that apply to everyone, then states can create non-conflicting rules that are tailored specifically to their needs. If you wanted to take the analogy further, you could compare individual competitions to local governments, where you can again make rules (in FIRSTs case, mostly procedural) for the municipality so long as they don't conflict with state or federal rules.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I don't speak for FiM, however, I suspect part of the reason for the lack of overlap is this: FTC has often been pegged as a low-cost alternative to FRC for schools where funding is limited, ...

Do you realize that you are making a great case (That's good! - I think it is - Isn't it?) for having more FTC teams (instead of FRC teams), and not fewer? Maybe you do/did intend to do that???

Combine what you wrote with the reasonable assertions that:

1. More (way more) students per dollar are directly exposed to hands-on "STEM" in typical FTC teams, than are in typical FRC teams; and
2. The people of the great state of Michigan would like to get the biggest bang-for-the-buck out of their tax dollars; and
3. FTC is a program FIRST aims at HS students and some MS students; and
4. FIRST's goal/role isn't converting students into already-trained STEM professionals during grade school, and is instead inspiring the on-the-fence and non-STEM students to switch to choosing to try a STEM field for their future.

When/if you do this, telling high schools that the FIRST FTC program is off-the-table; is at best, an odd (and changeable) thing to do.

Perhaps there is some other compelling, fiscally-sound, student-focused motivation at work? If there is, someone please post it.

Blake
PS: To stay on-topic, I think the same arguments hold true if you substitute FLL for FTC, FTC for FRC, and you shift the student age ranges appropiately.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by gblake

FIRST's goal/role isn't converting students into already-trained STEM professionals during grade school, and is instead inspiring the on-the-fence and non-STEM students to switch to choosing to try a STEM field for their future.

I absolutely agree with you on this point, and I would suggest it could be argued that FRC does a better job at inspiring students due to it's scale. Building an FTC robot is a great engineering challenge for kids, but it's not nearly as impressive as watching 120lb machines that you helped make driving around a playing field in a sports arena.

I would also point out that another way FIRST has worked to inspire students is to pair them with mentors from STEM fields, while I personally have no experience on an FTC team, I would venture to guess that there is not nearly as much need for professional mentors on an FTC team where kids can build most things by hand, compared to an FRC team where various manufacturing techniques are employed to design and build machines.


You're right that FTC is more cost effective, but it remains to be proven to be equally or more inspiring than FRC.


Again, these thoughts are based on the impressions I've gotten of FiM activities over the years. It's not my intention to say that this is the best solution everywhere, or even that it necessarily works great here in Michigan (time will tell). Either way, essentially what we're doing is hypothesizing about the motives of an organization that no one yet to post in this thread is directly part of. The question that remains to be asked is this: has anyone bothered to actually send an email to FiM and ask them what their rational is for their policy?

[wgardner]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I would also point out that another way FIRST has worked to inspire students is to pair them with mentors from STEM fields, while I personally have no experience on an FTC team, I would venture to guess that there is not nearly as much need for professional mentors on an FTC team where kids can build most things by hand, compared to an FRC team where various manufacturing techniques are employed to design and build machines.

My opinion is that FRC virtually requires adult technical mentors while FTC teams benefit from them but does not require them. FTC teams can get started by simply building using the kit parts, but the best FTC teams will often have 3D printed parts, CNCed parts, laser cut parts, and/or machined parts on their robots. A few have even used 3D printed parts as mold models and used a foundry at their school to mold custom aluminum parts. About the only thing I haven't seen much of in FTC is welding.

I know some kids who are inspired by working with adult mentors on FRC teams and some kids who strongly prefer being able to "own the process" more on their FTC teams. Different kids are inspired by different environments. I think it's great that FIRST offers both.

Originally Posted by cbale2000

You're right that FTC is more cost effective, but it remains to be proven to be equally or more inspiring than FRC.

If you're interested in this question, you should check out this report from 2011 commissioned by FIRST. In particular, from page 7 of the report:

"FRC members were more likely to
report increases in their interest in science and technology (97% vs. 95%), in their plans
to take science or math courses (90% vs. 86%) and in their interest in going to college (92%
vs. 87%). FRC team members were also more likely to report learning about key values,
including Gracious Professionalism (96% vs. 90%) and volunteering in the community (83%
vs. 74%). Team leaders reported a similar set of gains. FTC team members, on the other
hand, were substantially more likely to report an increased interest in computer
programming (91% vs. 78%) and were as likely as FRC participants to report that they were
interested in science and engineering careers (85% vs. 83%). FTC and FRC team
members were also equally likely to report gains on questions related to life and workplace
skills (FRC members were more likely to report gains in communications and cooperation
skills, but there were no significant differences between program on the responses to the
other skill questions). "

The numbers are pretty darn similar, showing the very similar benefits of both programs, IMHO.

[gblake]

These are my replies and opinions. I think we agree more than disagree.

Originally Posted by cbale2000

... but it's not nearly as impressive as watching 120lb machines that you helped make driving around a playing field in a sports arena.

Once an FRC team reaches a certain size range, many of the students doing the watching in the stands, are the same ones that watched someone else build, program, design, drive, iteratively revise, maintain, etc. that machine. With only one expensive machine (per team) involved, as the number of students goes up on an FRC team, the hands-on experiences per student inevitably decline. For me, watching (or driving) an FTC machine that I was an intimate part of creating is far more STEM-spirational than watching an FRC machine someone else built, that I (for the most part) can't drive/change.

A subtle, but important point is that over the course of a day I might enjoy watching an FRC circus more than I would enjoy watching an FTC circus (the same is probably true for my next-door neighbor and other average joes); but! I would get more STEM-spiration out of being an intimate part of my FTC team, than I would get out being one of the herd in an FRC team; especially if I'm not one of the core members of that FRC team.

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I would also point out that another way FIRST has worked to inspire students is to pair them with mentors from STEM fields, while I personally have no experience on an FTC team, I would venture to guess that there is not nearly as much need for professional mentors on an FTC team where kids can build most things by hand, compared to an FRC team where various manufacturing techniques are employed to design and build machines.

FRC teams can put together a kit-bot with very little tool use. In fact, every year some (too many!) show up at competitions with little more than a pile of parts; and then the teams around them turn those parts into a working robot. There are differences in mentor needs and involvement for FTC and FRC, but they are minor, not major.

Originally Posted by cbale2000

You're right that FTC is more cost effective, but it remains to be proven to be equally or more inspiring than FRC.

My belief, arising from extensive personal experience, is that you get more inspiration per dollar (in addition to more robots per dollar) from FTC/VRC than you do from FRC. By this I mean that more students are directly involved (hands-on) in a greater number of inspirational STEM activities. YMMV

Originally Posted by cbale2000

... The question that remains to be asked is this: has anyone bothered to actually send an email to FiM and ask them what their rational is for their policy?

Plenty of FiM folks read CD. If they care to, they will write something here. Alternatively, they might individually choose to (or have a policy of that says to) stay out of CD conversations, much like FIRST HQ stays out of CD conversations.

Blake
PS: FRC is a great program to use as the cherry on top of the sundae, but it's not so great as the one-size-fits-all sundae.

[April]

As an FLL coach for over 10 years, I have seen many teams and individuals grow through the FLL program learning research skills, presentation skills, teamwork skills, learning the process of designing, building and programming, and developing innovative solutions to real issues. The elementary kids do ok with that but the middle school students really get it.

I see value in offering FTC for middle school students who are ready for a new challenge and not ready to jump into FRC, however taking FLL away as an option for middle school is limiting skills these students can develop. I have had several students go directly from FLL to FRC with no issue because they have learned the FIRST values, and basic skills that have given them the ability to learn the new skills needed for FRC.

I have no problem with FIM limiting grant money to fit their goals, but for those of us not running teams in schools, I hope FIRST will not allow them to continue to create separate standards that would limit FIRST growth in areas where there are no FIRST programs in the local schools.

I currently have 25 new families on my list who have specifically contacted me about "LEGO robotics." For the students who are in the 6-8th grade range, I would hate to tell them that LEGO Robotics is not an option for them and lose the opportunity to have them get involved in FIRST because it was the LEGO that attracted them in the first place. I cannot count how many people have joined one of our FIRST (75-100 kids total in JrFLL, FLL, and FRC) teams originally because of the LEGO connection.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by wgardner

My opinion is that FRC virtually requires adult technical mentors while FTC teams benefit from them but does not require them. FTC teams can get started by simply building using the kit parts, but the best FTC teams will often have 3D printed parts, CNCed parts, laser cut parts, and/or machined parts on their robots. A few have even used 3D printed parts as mold models and used a foundry at their school to mold custom aluminum parts. About the only thing I haven't seen much of in FTC is welding.

I know some kids who are inspired by working with adult mentors on FRC teams and some kids who strongly prefer being able to "own the process" more on their FTC teams. Different kids are inspired by different environments. I think it's great that FIRST offers both.



If you're interested in this question, you should check out this report from 2011 commissioned by FIRST. In particular, from page 7 of the report:

"FRC members were more likely to
report increases in their interest in science and technology (97% vs. 95%), in their plans
to take science or math courses (90% vs. 86%) and in their interest in going to college (92%
vs. 87%). FRC team members were also more likely to report learning about key values,
including Gracious Professionalism (96% vs. 90%) and volunteering in the community (83%
vs. 74%). Team leaders reported a similar set of gains. FTC team members, on the other
hand, were substantially more likely to report an increased interest in computer
programming (91% vs. 78%) and were as likely as FRC participants to report that they were
interested in science and engineering careers (85% vs. 83%). FTC and FRC team
members were also equally likely to report gains on questions related to life and workplace
skills (FRC members were more likely to report gains in communications and cooperation
skills, but there were no significant differences between program on the responses to the
other skill questions). "

The numbers are pretty darn similar, showing the very similar benefits of both programs, IMHO.

The other big difference between FTC and FRC is time commitment. A FTC team can do well meeting under 10 hours per week while FRC teams typically put in way more hours per week in build season. Finding a coach that is willing to make the time commitment necessary for FTC is easier than finding one that is willing to make the commitment for a FRC team. The other is the student time commitment, some students have other activities. With 1 or 2 days per week you'll be able to take part in the bulk of an FTC build while on a FRC team you miss 3 or 4 days in a row and things may have changed dramatically.

So yeah they may have funding available for FRC teams at HS level in MI but do they have the people willing to make the time commitment at every school?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Mr V

The other big difference between FTC and FRC is time commitment. A FTC team can do well meeting under 10 hours per week while FRC teams typically put in way more hours per week in build season. [...]
So yeah they may have funding available for FRC teams at HS level in MI but do they have the people willing to make the time commitment at every school?

On the other hand, an FTC team's build and competition season stretches over nearly a full school year, if I'm not mistaken. An FRC team's offseason is the first half of the school year, while FRC's competition season only lasts for the second half...

I'd be willing to bet that if you stacked up FTC and FRC total time commitments, they'd be pretty close, as far as building and competing go. (Other items, no contest it'll be FRC eating the time.)

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by wgardner

If you're interested in this question, you should check out this report from 2011 commissioned by FIRST. In particular, from page 7 of the report:

"FRC members were more likely to
report increases in their interest in science and technology (97% vs. 95%), in their plans
to take science or math courses (90% vs. 86%) and in their interest in going to college (92%
vs. 87%). FRC team members were also more likely to report learning about key values,
including Gracious Professionalism (96% vs. 90%) and volunteering in the community (83%
vs. 74%). Team leaders reported a similar set of gains. FTC team members, on the other
hand, were substantially more likely to report an increased interest in computer
programming (91% vs. 78%) and were as likely as FRC participants to report that they were
interested in science and engineering careers (85% vs. 83%). FTC and FRC team
members were also equally likely to report gains on questions related to life and workplace
skills (FRC members were more likely to report gains in communications and cooperation
skills, but there were no significant differences between program on the responses to the
other skill questions). "

The numbers are pretty darn similar, showing the very similar benefits of both programs, IMHO.

Given the sample size of a few hundred and partially self-selected nature of that survey (only half of the teams contacted responded), I highly doubt those numbers are statistically significant.

[wgardner]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Given the sample size of a few hundred and partially self-selected nature of that survey (only half of the teams contacted responded), I highly doubt those numbers are statistically significant.

I agree. But for the big picture, it's hard to argue something like "FRC is much more inspiring than FTC" or "FTC is much more inspiring than FRC" when the data looks pretty darn similar.

And there's this in the report too: "FTC team members
were more likely to report that team members made the important decisions (97% vs. 93%)
and to reject the idea that adults on the team did the most difficult jobs (87% vs. 78%). FRC
team members, were more likely to report that they had a chance to get to know one of the
adults on the team (93% vs. 90%); that they learned a lot from the adults (92% vs. 81%);
that adults on the team talked about college (70% vs. 57%), and that they felt they belonged
on their team (94% vs. 92%). While those differences were statistically significant (i.e.,
unlikely to have occurred by chance), in practical terms they are small and likely reflect
differences in emphasis rather than major differences in program quality. Overall 97% of the
FTC participants and 99% of those in FRC reported that they “had fun working on my FIRST
team” – another important indicator of a quality program experience. "

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by EricH

On the other hand, an FTC team's build and competition season stretches over nearly a full school year, if I'm not mistaken. An FRC team's offseason is the first half of the school year, while FRC's competition season only lasts for the second half...

I'd be willing to bet that if you stacked up FTC and FRC total time commitments, they'd be pretty close, as far as building and competing go. (Other items, no contest it'll be FRC eating the time.)

Well the FTC build season length varies greatly depending on area and how well the team does. In our area the FTC competition season is in Nov and Dec with the state CMP in January if the team makes it that far.

For FTC I'd estimate a low of 70hrs and a high of 140hrs per season in our area.

For FRC I'd estimate a low of 250 hrs and a high of 360 hrs per competition season in our area.

Note we do a league play format for FTC so 3 plays before the state CMP and we do the District System for FRC so two plays before DCMP and in both of those cases the time I estimated did not include moving on to the state/District CMP.

The other thing is that even in an area with a long FTC season the time commitment per week is low so it allows time to study for all those AP classes, and other activities while the usual 6 days per week of many FRC teams makes it hard to do those other things too.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Mr V

For FRC I'd estimate a low of 250 hrs and a high of 360 hrs per competition season in our area.

We schedule 100-120 hours a build season and tack on at most 20 additional hours of build. We come in at well under 200 hrs a season for a typical team member (+ events & practice - missed meetings) and I have a hard time believing we are uniquely qualified to balance the FIRST/life equation.