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

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Do any of these exist in Michigan with a path to Super Regionals/Champs? It was my understanding that while in theory there were no options for high school aged FTC teams to compete inside Michigan, they could be allowed to compete elsewhere. This phrasing makes it sound like there might be an in-state option.

Sorry I was not clear. I don't think there is any in-state option available for FTC at this time that is not FiM sanctioned. However, I know there were Jr.FLL and FLL non FiM sanctioned unofficial events in Michigan. If somebody wants to do it, they can theoretically have their own FTC tournament. Is there a path to Super Regionals/Champs? The answer would be unlikely.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

Is there a path to Super Regionals/Champs? The answer would be unlikely.

So, let me get this straight. I'm going to be very blunt here, probably too blunt, but this is what an outsider sees.

If someone, for whatever reason, wants to go by official FIRST age ranges (rules made by FIRST) that do not match up with FiM age ranges (rules made by FiM), they do NOT get supported by FiM in terms of events, have extra travel*, and unless they make that extra travel they have no conceivable way to get to anything beyond a local event.

I am assuming that they could (in theory) still get a grant--but if they are required to compete in FiM events to get the grant, and cannot due to age limits, then the grant would naturally need to be returned if it was even awarded in the first place.

If I might make a translation: Play by FiM rules or don't play at all.** Just as a point of note, I realize that that's kind of the cost of working under a particular area's management--they set the rules--but at the same time, if those rules don't make sense for some reason--in this case, the varying development of kids--then maybe some thinking needs to be done. As a second note, additional commentary I might have based on that translation is left to the imagination other than that it's short and uses 4-5 letter words.


I don't see this going over well outside of MI if it is expanded--I might even go so far as to say the ChampionSplit discussion would be a gentle summer shower in comparison; witness the length and tone of this thread. As I noted earlier, different kids of the same age/grade level are going to be at different levels of readiness to move on/up, and thus having a one-size-fits-all solution is more of a Procrustean bed than anything else. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there's any better method for determining the readiness level given the rules being put into place. (Given the FIRST official age rules, there's a lot more flexibility. This may be a good thing, it may not be. Depends on the kids in your area, I suppose--I know of at least one middle-school FRC team, at least a few years ago there was one.)


*I am assuming, for purposes of this statement, that there are places they can travel to to compete that are not run by FiM. This may or may not be accurate.

**I'm deliberately leaving out the other robotics programs here, because--at this time--those aren't under discussion. And, if someone opts to compete in those, they would not be supported by grants, or by FiM, in any way, I assume--hopefully I'm incorrect.

[aspiece]

Originally Posted by adias.angel

Hi everyone,
For the last year our first affiliate partner in 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. Thanks for your support, Carla

I would like to comment on this from my experience. I am the current Team Leader of Truck Town Thunder Robotics team. (2015 MSC RCA Winner) I currently have a program that I oversea that has 15 Jr. FLL Teams, 6 FLL Teams, 2 FTC Teams, 1 OCCRA Team, 4 VEX Teams and one FRC Team. We have started programs in my neighboring communities that are very similar to ours and was our argument to emulation for our DCA submission. In that community, in less than two years, we were able to start an FTC Team, Three FTC teams and are primed to start 6 FLL teams. The reason I talk about this is to give some context as to my experience.

So, from my experience here are my thoughts.

1. Jr FLL is awesome, inspiring and one of the coolest programs in FIRST. Working with kids that age is ALWAYS fun. This is very doable to get the community, teachers, and administration involved. I even had the principal running two all girls teams. It was awesome. (Age Appropriateness is perfect)

2. FLL - Let's get real for a minute. I am pretty sure the kit says 8+ on the side of the box. Anyhow, this is perfectly suited for students 4th - 6th grade. I had 2 teams make it to the state championships this year and one of them was a rookie team. Both teams the students were involved in all aspects, they were successful, they were able to score massive amounts of points. The rookie team was ran by a sophomore on my high school team. There is no reason students at this age level can't participate and be very successful in the age group.

3. FTC - Yes, this does fit. FIRST programs are successful because of mentorship. It is important that there are good mentors in your program. Yes, high school kids can mentor. (It let's them practice leadership) Its an excellent transition into the bigger robots in FRC and the students begin to work with adults. I have learned a lot of lessons here. 1. Get high school kids involved as mentors. 2. Eliminate barriers for them. 3. be supportive. 4. they just need to be motivated that they can do it.

4. FRC is perfect in high school. Rookie Teams are all coming back the second year.

Overall, this progression works! We have proven it. Feel free to read our Chairmans Submission posted on the FIRST website for all of the teams in the world to see. My high school students learn the ideals of FIRST earlier by mentoring. They learn why FIRST exists by mentoring younger teams. As an educator, there is no program in school that inspires kids to do more with their lives. It has changed my educational philosophy!

So, I will not be signing this petition and encourage all teams not to sign this petition. The FIM progression of programs works fine this way. I would be happy to meet with anyone who would like to discuss how they can better fit their program in this progression. It is way easier than you think.

I will leave you with a quote:

"Leadership is not a license to do less. Leadership is a responsibility to do more." - Simon Sinek

[gblake]

Originally Posted by aspiece

...
Overall, this progression works!

Of course it does; and OBTW, so do other progression paths through the FIRST programs. I am unaware of any good reason to actively work to block, hinder, prevent, deny, or discourage any students or communities who want to take a slightly different, but already proven successful, path. Particularly if a slightly different path suits their needs better.

Originally Posted by aspiece

...
I will leave you with a quote:

"Leadership is not a license to do less. Leadership is a responsibility to do more." - Simon Sinek

I will leave you with a quote:

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it." - Anonymous

[aspiece]

I never meant to imply that anything was broken. My argument is that it works and it's a progression that is what is best for kids and their ability. I was speaking from my experience with ALL levels of the FIRST Progression. Technically, I really don't think anyone is stopping a team to register a team in michigan and compete out of FIM. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

With the growth of program in Michigan, there needs to be some standardization across the program for many reasons. I think it is the responsibility of leadership of FIRST to make these decision to help people to do what is best for kids and what works.

I recently did a mini FLL-style event to prepare and train 6 rookie FLL teams. It was really cool and the will be well equipped to compete as rookies in the fall. The program was funded by title I funds and therefore the program was full of underrepresented and disadvantaged youth. I was able to get parents to show up and coach all 6 teams. They met all of the programming challenges I gave them And they were tricky. With intentional training to prepare an FLL team this age group is perfect. I met with them 8 times and they are ready with the basics to compete. ANY school, ANY SES, ANY size can do this. It's been proven. So, I ask, if it can't happen, why? Is there a barrier that needs to be eliminated? Is there some way I can help?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by aspiece

... [The FiM progression] is what is best for kids and their ability.

No it isn't. It is OK for some students.

Originally Posted by aspiece

I was speaking from my experience with ALL levels of the FIRST Progression.

That's nice, but it remains your experience. Unless you were explicitly studying each of the entire state's communities and their students, you are probably Ill-qualified to suggest which doors FiM should try to close in any/each locale.

Originally Posted by aspiece

Technically, I really don't think anyone is stopping a team to register a team in michigan and compete out of FIM. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

FiM and the state are collaborating to make it hard (very hard in some cases). This seems especially pernicious because it seems completely unnecessary. I'm curious what benefit the pertinent policies are supposed to produce.

Originally Posted by aspiece

With the growth of program in Michigan, there needs to be some standardization across the program for many reasons. I think it is the responsibility of leadership of FIRST to make these decision to help people to do what is best for kids and what works.

There is standardization already, across the entire planet except FiM; and the rest of the planet is evidence that the changes we are discussing aren't necessary, nor are "best for the kids".

Originally Posted by aspiece

I recently did a mini FLL-style event to prepare and train 6 rookie FLL teams. It was really cool and the will be well equipped to compete as rookies in the fall. The program was funded by title I funds and therefore the program was full of underrepresented and disadvantaged youth. I was able to get parents to show up and coach all 6 teams. They met all of the programming challenges I gave them And they were tricky. With intentional training to prepare an FLL team this age group is perfect. I met with them 8 times and they are ready with the basics to compete. ANY school, ANY SES, ANY size can do this. It's been proven. So, I ask, if it can't happen, why? Is there a barrier that needs to be eliminated? Is there some way I can help?

What does this heartwarming success story have to do with telling other students they can't form a team and easily compete, if their team contains older students who are also beginners, or want to form an FLL/FTC team for any other reason?

Where I live, I was, and am, a steadfast advocate of allowing/encouraging MS students form VRC teams (or FTC, or whatever), but I would never consider discouraging HS students from also forming VRC teams (or FTC, or FRC, or ....).

It just isn't necessary for me or anyone else to use my opinions to override their intimate knowledge of their local situation, and close that door.

Blake
PS: You don't need me to encourage you to keep doing good. I just hope you won't insist others do their own good deeds the same way you did yours. Giving advice is good. Essentially insisting is not good.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by gblake

I'm curious what benefit the pertinent policies are supposed to produce.

Originally Posted by FiM Mission Statement

To establish a sustainable FIRST Robotics Competition team at every high school in Michigan

FiM's goal is an FRC team in every high school. I got the impression that FiM does not want FTC to hinder FRC's growth, but if you feel strongly enough about the topic and don't understand why FiM operates the way it does, ask them. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to discuss their reasoning with you.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

FiM's goal is an FRC team in every high school. I got the impression that FiM does not want FTC to hinder FRC's growth, but if you feel strongly enough about the topic and don't understand why FiM operates the way it does, ask them. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to discuss their reasoning with you.

Hmmm,

That page offers links to use if you want to start a team, or if you want to offer corporate support, or if you want to write a snail-mail letter. I don't think I want to do any of those.

I have been planning to ask if anyone following this thread is able to share a copy of the planning document(s) or presentation material that describes the financial arithmetic and other thinking being implemented now.

My guess is that those planning materials would be (are) straight forward; and that It/they might contain some assumptions various FIRST participants could debate, but nothing crazy. Publishing them would create useful clarity that could short circuit threads that start the way this one did.

Of course, FiM doesn't owe me anything, I'm not shaking my fist at them/anyone demanding an answer. However, I am mighty curious. Lots of other folks are too.

Maybe they have already been published, and I simply wasn't paying attention?

Blake

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Mike Schreiber

FiM's goal is an FRC team in every high school. I got the impression that FiM does not want FTC to hinder FRC's growth, but if you feel strongly enough about the topic and don't understand why FiM operates the way it does, ask them. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to discuss their reasoning with you.

Why is FRC considered more important to have than FTC? What if a high school wants a FIRST team, but space is an issue (which is often the case)? They are likely able to support an FTC team but not an FRC team.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by gblake

Hmmm,

That page offers links to use if you want to start a team, or if you want to offer corporate support, or if you want to write a snail-mail letter. I don't think I want to do any of those.

Gail Alpert (the first contact listed on that page) is the president of FiM and would likely be the best person to contact if you were interested in emailing them directly. She is usually pretty good about returning emails fairly quickly too.

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Why is FRC considered more important to have than FTC? What if a high school wants a FIRST team, but space is an issue (which is often the case)? They are likely able to support an FTC team but not an FRC team.

I think the issue is that if you have overlapping programs it becomes harder to sell the more expensive, more time consuming one to new schools. In most areas it would just make sense to just go with the easier option, but FiM has facilitated solutions to these problems through getting state grants to cover funding, and various workshops to help rookie teams throughout the state (amongst other things) that these things aren't really problems as much as they are excuses.

As a result of excluding FTC from High school level to promote FRC, FiM chose to assign FTC to middle school ages and bump FLL down to elementary to prevent overlap from the two programs (which would have limited access to FTC as most schools would not have two programs, and in most cases would likely choose FLL if given the choice).

[gblake]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

Gail Alpert (the first contact listed on that page) is the president of FiM and would likely be the best person to contact if you were interested in emailing them directly. She is usually pretty good about returning emails fairly quickly too.

OK Thanks - I'll shoot her a request soon if she doesn't beat me to the punch by posting something here. [EDIT] Request sent. [/EDIT]

Originally Posted by cbale2000

I think the issue is that if you have overlapping programs it becomes harder to sell the more expensive, more time consuming one to new schools. In most areas it would just make sense to just go with the easier option, but FiM has facilitated solutions to these problems through getting state grants to cover funding, and various workshops to help rookie teams throughout the state (amongst other things) that these things aren't really problems as much as they are excuses.

Surely you didn't mean to write what you just posted in that paragraph.

In the following paragraph, if you replace "me" with any student, parent, administrator, sponsor, or other member of a community, what you just wrote is this:

Because FiM thinks they know better than I do what I want to do with my time, energy and tax money, they have put in place a system that cripples any HS-aged attempt to participate in the normal FTC process that the rest of the world uses. And further, because they think that workshops and grants (and anything else they supply?) are the only things standing between my current desires, and the obviously better choice of starting an FRC team (the more expensive and time-consuming choice), that I now have no excuse for not starting one, if I want to participate in FIRST's/FiMs programs?

Say it isn't so! Surely you miscommunicated the FiM message/motivation, or placed a wrong emphasis on some part of it (or I misunderstood you).

Blake

[EricH]

Originally Posted by gblake

Say it isn't so! Surely you miscommunicated the FiM message/motivation, or placed a wrong emphasis on some part of it (or I misunderstood you).

Blake, you're not the only one who's seeing something like this. I REALLY hope that we're misunderstanding what the Michiganders are saying!

[Basel A]

There can be many interpretations of FiM's choices. No matter the motivation, the interpretation Blake posted above is unavoidable because it's true. Any time an organisation restricts the actions of its constituents, that says "I know better than you what's best for you." Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not.

Michiganders have said all sorts of different things in this thread. I think everybody has been totally honest from their perspective. It goes to show that we're not one big congealed mass of unified opinion and robot awesomeness. We're 360 different FRC teams, about as many as the PNW and California combined.

It's also important to say that Michiganders are not FiM. We don't always agree with FiM's decisions. I know I've disagreed with some things. This isn't at the top of the list, but I don't know much about FLL or FTC.

When folks like Lisa and Spiece say the progression works, I'm willing to believe them, that it works for most students. For groups that are exceptions to that, VEX programs are an available option. If the mandatory progression does in fact increase sustainable growth of FIRST programs, and I'd bet FiM would know better than I if that's true, then it's probably a positive development (but again, I don't know much about FTC and FLL).

As for getting FiM to discuss that with you publicly, well, I think the last time Gail posted on Chief Delphi was several years ago? Of the rest of the FiM Officers and Directors, I believe Jim is the only active member here and at this point I'd say he's chosen not to comment (not that I blame him). It's an organisation that could make big improvements in their transparency and public communication. That's a separate problem.

[maltz1881]

On the Cranbrook campus they have FTC at the high school level. They have a competition on their campus. They also can compete out of state. They send x amount of FTC teams to the Super Regional. This was the case last year, now whether they still will compete which I believe they will, is yet to be seen.

We have an amazing group in FiM from volunteers to Gail and other board members. They work hard and are dedicated to the education of the students of Michigan. We have workshops for all levels. When you leave the workshops you will usually have a operating base of a robot. I run an FTC workshop that has over 500 attendees yearly. We teach them everything from awards, design, programming, building and wiring your chassis. We have even created a book so teams don't have to build the "Ranger Bot".

Do I think FRC is viable to every school in say North or South Dakota. No. However, when we have the teams like we do in the UP, the nothing is impossible! Do I think that in those areas of the country that FTC is easier, most likely. I used to live in that area of the country and I know what is and isn't readily accessible to those teams.

I have 4 teams and they don't qualify for the grants from the state. There are other grants available though. FiM tries there best to make sure anybody can play. FTC is pretty much free for the 1st year with all of the grants available.

I also believe and maybe I am wrong in this, but I believe FiM just doesn't make there own rules, I think they have some guidance from New Hampshire. I may be wrong about that though.

I personally had a difficult time walking away from FLL at first. Then I seen what FTC did for the kids and how happy they were. It changed them and they changed me. FLL is great but I am loving FTC even more. Give the kids an opportunity. I have kids on the teams who are autistic and have cerebral palsy. They are doing just fine with it.

[maltz1881]

I also want to give credit to 68, 70, 494 and 3568 for there help in the workshop for FTC. Without there aid, we would be lost.