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

[maltz1881]

I ran an FLL team for 7 years along with an FRC team. I found the kids who were older in FLL getting bored. They wanted to use tools like the older kids. We made the decision to move up to FTC. Love it! It has made our FRC team much stronger. We have our FRC students mentor the FTC students and this year they even decided to take on a JrFLL team.

We now have 2 FTC teams and could have 3 if we wanted to. Both teams have made it to the Super Regional and competed against the 18 year old students. One of our teams had the highest qualifying score at the event and they scored a majority of those points. Middle school students are very capable of competing against high school students.

We are a home schooled group. We don't receive the funding like everybody else. We are able to gain sponsors though. That being said, I would rather the kids gain sponsors than to rely on the state to support us. The sponsors we have currently see the importance of what we are doing and have increased yearly the funding.

Please don't knock what FiM is trying to do. Give it a try. I remember when FiM went to the district model, people weren't happy. Many said it was the end of FIRST. Change is always difficult at first but when you give kids the chance, they are pretty resilient and can rise to the challenge. I have kids who are autistic and 1 who is dealing with cerebral palsy. They are handling it just fine. In fact they win the Inspire Award 3 years in a row at a district level.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

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.

The hours I have posted come from talking to lots of teams in WA. I'm not saying it can't be done in 100-120 hours because I did that this season with my rookie team. That was the hours that the school set for the teachers that rotated the duty of sitting in the corner grading papers until it was time to lock the build space for the night.

On the other hand I know several teams that typically meet 4-6 or more hrs per week day and 6-8 or even 10 or 12 on Sat through out the build season and then meet at least 20 or more hours per week through the competition season not including events.

When I was with 2046 there were two years we had the shop open and working furiously from the time school got out on Fri until Midnight on bag day, or about 105 hrs in the last half of the last week. No not everyone was there all of those hours as there were 3 shifts but a handful of people, both students and mentors worked more than one 8 hour shift per day.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by maltz1881

...
Please don't knock what FiM is trying to do.
...

I don't think anyone has said their intentions are bad.

However, I am definitely curious to learn more about the financial model that is coupled to those intentions.

When I ran the numbers in the situations I have been in, the results always clearly lead me to push for a different compromise on behalf of the students and the financiers.

I'm curious what's different in their situation.

Blake

[Lil' Lavery]

While the discussion of age cutoffs and the progression of programs is important and relevant, I feel it is drowning out another very important topic that is raised. It's been briefly alluded to a couple times already, but hasn't been really discussed. What degree of autonomy should the various region/district affiliates of FIRST be granted from FIRST HQ? Are they allowed to deviate from HQ's standards? In what areas and by how much?

While the expansion of the district format* will certainly make this an increasingly relevant concern (and we've seen some notable differences between districts in how they handle aspects of their competitions), it's not just limited to districts. There are other entities that exist in regional-format areas that run events, some "official" and some not. Should their organizing powers be limited to how they run events? How they administer funds/support to teams in their "jurisdiction?" And who determines their jurisdiction? Can they impose additional restrictions on the teams in their areas**? Should teams be given an "opt-out" standard from whatever organization runs their area***? Would these opt-outs allow them to opt out of a district standard? Can these organizations actively prohibit teams from registering or competing at events****? What burden of proof/explanation is required for any deviations away from the FIRST HQ standards? As you can see, this is opening quite the can of worms. There needs to be some sort of standard created for the delegation of authorities to these organizations.

*Michigan's reluctance to have the FIRST Tech Challenge available to high school students predates the district format, going back to at least 2007.
**Such as Minnesota's additional bag'n'tag requirements for an "off-season" State Championship event
***There was one MAR team that attempted to register as being from a different state in 2012 so they could continue to attend regional competitions instead of switching to the district format.
****Can FiM actively prevent a middle school FLL team from registering? From competing in an event organized by FiM?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

While the discussion of age cutoffs and the progression of programs is important and relevant, I feel it is drowning out another very important topic that is raised. It's been briefly alluded to a couple times already, but hasn't been really discussed. What degree of autonomy should the various region/district affiliates of FIRST be granted from FIRST HQ? Are they allowed to deviate from HQ's standards? In what areas and by how much?

While the expansion of the district format* will certainly make this an increasingly relevant concern (and we've seen some notable differences between districts in how they handle aspects of their competitions), it's not just limited to districts. There are other entities that exist in regional-format areas that run events, some "official" and some not. Should their organizing powers be limited to how they run events? How they administer funds/support to teams in their "jurisdiction?" And who determines their jurisdiction? Can they impose additional restrictions on the teams in their areas**? Should teams be given an "opt-out" standard from whatever organization runs their area***? Would these opt-outs allow them to opt out of a district standard? Can these organizations actively prohibit teams from registering or competing at events****? What burden of proof/explanation is required for any deviations away from the FIRST HQ standards? As you can see, this is opening quite the can of worms. There needs to be some sort of standard created for the delegation of authorities to these organizations.

I was thinking the same thing. I definitely want to avoid the incoherent mess that characterizes sports governing bodies at the local/school level. On the other hand, FIRST HQ doesn't always seem well-equipped to make big-picture decisions with the benefit of all the available evidence about local conditions—or at least fails to communicate the degree to which those conditions were considered but deprioritized in service of a perceived greater good.

My recommendation is that FIRST provide a list of what is and is not permissible for local governing bodies, and release it to the public—so that everyone knows who's not playing by the rules. The standards need to be equitable—and it will require some thought as to how that should be measured—and should be designed to be re-evaluated at known intervals. Part and parcel of setting out these standards is an explanation of why the standards exist—for example, if a particular vendor is required because of contract terms, then disclose that. Definitely spell out the powers of the local governing body here, and explain exactly why they're entitled to vary certain procedures, particularly when it could appear to be an advantage for some teams.

Jurisdiction is tricky because it's convenient to form organizations that follow neat administrative boundaries, and correspond to the same boundaries forever. So there's a natural urge to go state-by-state. But that's inequitable and frankly, laughable.¹ Representation by population of teams, participants or general population all have their advantages. Some geographic grouping is clearly desirable, but the optimal extent is unclear. I think the guidance should be that local governing bodies should make every attempt to adopt a structure that permits adjustment as the competition's needs change.

Changing game rules should, for the moment and the foreseeable future, be prohibited. Changing tournament rules should be something that FIRST formalizes and publishes in their rules, thereby proving that FIRST assented to the changes instead of letting them slip through.² There are precedents in other sports for different sanctioning bodies to establish slightly different rules, and it hinders interchangeability of players, facilities and statistics. Until such time as the FRC game doesn't change annually, there's enough uncertainty in the new game that adding more (due to the whims of a local governing body) doesn't seem wise.

¹ In the same way that apportionment of seats in the U.S. senate is difficult to justify, given the powers that the body wields and its legislative role.
² When (some years ago) FIRST Robotics Canada ran a regional with an extra playoff round, or another regional with byes instead of an 8^th alliance, those changes were not widely known outside of those events. They certainly weren't announced officially, and were clearly inconsistent with the rulebook. I don't know who at FIRST gave the approval to do that. They weren't bad changes, but the process was not ideal.

[ttedrow]

Help stop the spread of this insanity.


Michigan has been setting non-standard age ranges for our FLL and FTC programs. They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.

We need the FIRST community to help to bring these issues out in the open and make sure that this doesn't happen in other states. We are asking US FIRST to require all affiliate partners to follow the age requirements as publish by US FIRST. If you have a moment, please consider signing our petition:

https://www.change.org/p/us-first-fi...liate-partners

The more signatures we get, the better chance we will have of getting US FIRST to hear our case.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by ttedrow

Michigan has been setting non-standard age ranges for our FLL and FTC programs. They have excluded middle school students from FLL and high school students from FTC. It has caused problems not only for our students who are not mentally or emotionally ready to move up but also puts a bigger burden on the coaches, schools and organizations that run these teams.

How has FiM managed to affect teams in South Carolina?

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

DISCLAIMER: The following post is my view, and my view alone. My opinions are not affiliated or derived from views held by FIRST in Michigan or Frog Force

With that out of the way, this is a really interesting discussion. As a long-time member of the FiM community, it was a little weird seeing this heated debate taking place NOW, when the concept has been widely circulated in Michigan for several years. I suppose it makes sense for everybody to get hot and bothered about it once it became official.

I've been in FIRST since 6th grade, participated all the way through FLL and FRC, and worked with FTC teams post-graduation. I currently have exposure to our local FTC and FLL teams, which adhere to the current age limit guidelines given by FiM.

I loved FLL when I was in 6th grade. I was bored with it in 7th grade. I had outgrown it in 8th grade and was itching to move up. I genuinely believe, from my own experience and from interacting with many teams and coaches, that elementary FLL and middle school FTC is a fantastic course for many reasons. It is challenging for students, and keeps them engaged for much longer by providing a clear cut progression of programs.

When FTC gets 6th graders that have already been through FLL, they benefit from the prior experience. When FRC gets 9th graders who have been through FTC, they become contributing and useful members from Day 1. It's been great for all of our students and I haven't heard any negative feedback from participants or coaches.

I think it will be a painful transition. I think there are still a lot of things to be figured out. I think it will be a great testing ground for FIRST as a whole, just like districts were. I trust our FiM leadership to make informed, fair, and wise decisions.

[ttedrow]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

How has FiM managed to affect teams in South Carolina?

It hasn't yet. Rouge decisions like this have a tendency to spread. I would like FIRST to step up and say NO to FiM on this issue. They have clear rules and guidelines on ages for each program.

[Hot_Copper_Frog]

Originally Posted by ttedrow

It hasn't yet. Rouge decisions like this have a tendency to spread. I would like FIRST to step up and say NO to FiM on this issue. They have clear rules and guidelines on ages for each program.

Just like we had clear rules and guidelines for regional competition structure, alliance size, or single championship? Effective solutions tend to spread. Ideas that don't work generally...don't. Without innovation being applied to the way FIRST runs as an organization, it's dead in the water. Restricting the ability for change to come from within just suffocates a group.

[MattRain]

I do NOT want this to be a change that FIRST implement's. I understand that this "may" be a "good" model for FiM. But it would not work in many areas of the United States.

I am a mentor and alumni of both FTC and FRC. I have knowledge of both sides.

1. Money

The amount of money that it takes to run an FRC team is through the roof for a lot of schools, including the highschool that I work at. I have spent years trying to get a budget from the school that would allow us to sit comfortably, while still having to go to sponsors to fund the rest needed. Trust me when I say, that amount of money is no where near the amount it takes to run a FRC team. I know how much it take to run a FRC team, as I mentor one.

2. Experience

While I was student in High school, I personally learned more about robotics from my FTC team. Students learn differently. We all know that. I personally learned better in a small group setting than a big setting like FRC. It can all depends on how a team is run, so I understand that a better, more well funded FRC team may allow students to learn more, but when you come from an area that is harder to fund, or don't have the right resources, it changes.

3. Middle School teams Vs High school teams

I don't see a problem here at all. We have a few middle school teams located here in AZ, and some of them were good, if not better than half of the Highschool teams here. I fell that it really depends on the type of kids that you have on the team. Ones that are more active and really want to compete, will build something that is ready to compete with the Highschool teams. I saw a few designs from Middle School students that I never thought of.

FTC and FRC both have their strengths and weakness.

If FIRST was to implement the FiM model into the actual rules, then I would have a hard time with following those rules. I feel that there would be a huge uproar from my state. Most of the AZ FTC teams would disappear too.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog

Just like we had clear rules and guidelines for regional competition structure, alliance size, or single championship? Effective solutions tend to spread. Ideas that don't work generally...don't. Without innovation being applied to the way FIRST runs as an organization, it's dead in the water. Restricting the ability for change to come from within just suffocates a group.

There's a pretty distinct difference between decisions made by or in conjunction with FIRST HQ (like all of the ones you mentioned) and those made by other organizations that openly clash with stated goals from FIRST HQ. That's where he's defining this as a "rogue change." And the varying impact between Michigan and the rest of the country, in terms of the affordability of FRC, has been stated multiple times.

[Michael Corsetto]

I'm very excited to see what FiM looks like in 5-10 years.

Their high school adoption rate of FRC is incredible (I'm looking at you MN, you guys are doing great things as well!), which has created a strong identity for FRC as the "varsity STEM sport" in Michigan (MN teams have described similar sentiments surrounding their state championship, which is awesome!). This has amazing potential for widespread STEM inspiration in the state. Every high school with a sustainable FRC team, what an incredible goal!

Would FiM have gotten the $3 Million grant from the state without their innovative competition model (districts) and progression of programs approach (discussed in this thread)? Is it unfair to speculate some level of causation that resulted in receiving this large State grant? (Honest question!) Could even more funds keep rolling in as FiM proves its effectiveness at starting and sustaining FIRST Teams of all levels?

Personally, my biggest concern is FiM leaving the rest of us in their rear-view mirror as Michigan becomes the undisputed FIRST Program Powerhouse State of the country. Granted, this is a very selfish concern

Time will tell, but I'm watching FiM closely and expect to see more positive changes and innovations from this incredible organization.

-Mike

[gblake]

Some of this is ridiculous, and until it is refuted, infuriating.

There is no need for state educational systems to alter FIRST event rules.

Even if FRC were the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread, there is no need to force it on people, or to deny them alternatives.

School systems are welcome to dictate to their schools what those institutions must do, but there is no need for FIRST, or VRC, or BEST, or ... to convert a large state's surface area into a place where the state dictates what independent teams may do in FIRST.

A state is welcome to give grants to its schools and/or to event organizers. However, those grants should not be accepted if they come with strings that tell independent teams the FIRST rules that allow them to participate are going to be nullified.

Should (school or) non-school teams that happen to occupy a patch of dirt in one state be told by FIRST, and by FIRST's local agent, that they are forbidden to participate in their home state ,and that they are forbidden to compete elsewhere?

None of this was necessary.

And I'm still curious to see any figures that show what's been described so far is getting more bang for the buck than alternatives that start with a clean sheet of paper.

Blake

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by gblake

Some of this is ridiculous, and until it is refuted, infuriating.

There is no need for state educational systems to alter FIRST event rules.

Even if FRC were the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread, there is no need to force it on people, or to deny them alternatives.

School systems are welcome to dictate to their schools what those institutions must do, but there is no need for FIRST, or VRC, or BEST, or ... to convert a large state's surface area into a place where the state dictates what independent teams may do in FIRST.

A state is welcome to give grants to its schools and/or to event organizers. However, those grants should not be accepted if they come with strings that tell independent teams the FIRST rules that allow them to participate are going to be nullified.

Should (school or) non-school teams that happen to occupy a patch of dirt in one state be told by FIRST, and by FIRST's local agent, that they are forbidden to participate in their home state ,and that they are forbidden to compete elsewhere?

None of this was necessary.

And I'm still curious to see any figures that show what's been described so far is getting more bang for the buck than alternatives that start with a clean sheet of paper.

Blake

The Michigan education system has nothing to do with altering the rules. FiM, First In Michigan, is not affiliated with the school districts.

I think many people have missed asking why FiM has done this. I'll take a stab at it. FiM has always focused on spreading FIRST. From the district system to the State Championship that was supposed to be free, FiM has drastically increased the impact, reach, accessibility, and number of Michigan teams.

Dean's vision is to have FIRST in every school. FiM is working toward that, and I think they have decided that one of the steps to having that happen is to set clear break points that coincide with school grades.

It may not be perfect for all kids, and some districts have different definitions of middle school, etc. But I can see the logic behind the move. This is going to create a boom of FTC teams in middle schools as the FLL members move upwards. And with middle schools providing some financial support it will probably be a lot more successful. Right now our local middle school does nothing to support FIRST because their kids go back to FLL and continue competing there. But as a parent you can bet I'll be pushing for an FTC team for my middle schoolers to compete in since they loved FLL so much.

Change is painful, but I can definitely see where this is going. FiM has been offering grants that make starting FLL and FTC teams nearly free. (Not the governmental grants from Lansing).