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

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Will the FiM model for progression through FIRST progams prosper? Watch and see, or better yet jump in and help.[/size]

This progression would severely impact the methods my team uses to generate interest in STEM and prepare team members for FRC season. I have no desire to help -- and, frankly, will be upset if FIRST rolls these changes out across all regions.

Y'all might celebrate FiM's "revolutionary" behavior, but taking actions that will potentially change the way programs operate across the board without soliciting input from those affected is condescending and problematic.

...and, I'll note, not terribly unlike FIRST HQ's own behavior recently.

[weberr]

Well said, Ed. I agree.

It took four years for Gail from FiM to wear me down to start a High School team. Five years later, it was the best thing I have ever done. I spend over 1000 hours a year, easily.

Each state is different; Each city is different; each county is different; each school district is different; and each student is different. Trying to to find a one size fits all is very hard.

In my case, this model works well with me as a coach, it works well with the growth of my team, and it works well with aligning with the progress of curriculum in my school district. It fits. Yeah! But that may not be true for all people, everywhere.

Time will tell if this concept works for everyone. We won't know unless someone tries. If it doesn't, then we will know.

[GaryVoshol]

I've been watching this from the sidelines for a while.

Like Ed, I have reservations about the FLL age group change, more so than the FTC age limits.

First, when it was decided to not have high school FTC in Michigan, it didn't affect many existing programs, because FTC was pretty new. This one hits a lot of existing FLL teams, teams that had their own internal progression from 4th or 5th grade through middle school. I have heard very little about this change before (but then, I'm not a coach), so I don't know how much existing teams have been able to prepare.

Second, it essentially makes FLL a 4th-5th grade program, because that's the setup for the majority of elementary schools in the state. (There are some exceptions, such as a few middle schools without 6th grade, but not many. And what about those few cases where middle school starts in 5th, or where it is just K-8 without a elementary/middle school split?) Just the time that kids are beginning to master FLL and could do something spectacular, they'll be aged out.

Third, while I believe many 7th and 8th graders are ready for FTC, some are not, and I'm pretty sure the majority of 6th graders are not ready. In fact, the international standard age for FTC doesn't even start until 7th grade.

Fourth, do we have the support for FTC tournaments? If existing middle school FLL teams turn into FTC teams, there would be 100-200 new teams. Are there events? How about up north? It took 5 years to get a FRC event in the UP, how long will it take for FTC? And what do teams do in the meantime?

I will continue to support FLL and FRC as I have in the past. (I tried FTC one year, but with 3 rule sets going through my mind, I didn't feel I could give it a fair effort and still maintain my standards in FLL and FRC.)

I'm afraid that we will see a big drop in FLL teams (simply because we've cut the age eligibility in half) but without a corresponding increase in FTC teams. I hope not - I hope I will be proven wrong. But I'm not convinced yet.

[gblake]

Ed,

You (and the other folks who liked what you wrote) and I are pretty far apart on this topic. Because this general subject has been a raw nerve for me for quite a while, a combative tone probably shows up in what I write.

It's not personal. I do have some strong opinions about the subject(s); but please don't mistake those opinions for a dislike of Ed Law (or Tom Line, or Weberr, or ...)

Originally Posted by Ed Law

I think the discussions here boils down to who should have control over decisions.

I think I might use those exact same words, but mean something significantly different than you meant.

Originally Posted by Ed Law

... we will have to make FLL K-8, FTC 5-12 and FRC 6-12, and parents will decide what they want to sign up. It is all about having control. Is that practical? No...

Two thoughts:

A) The first of the two is a question. Who is the "we" you mention? What are they responsible for? and who made them responsible for it?

B) The second of the two is a disagreement. My answer to whether "that" is practical is this, "Obviously and unambiguously, yes, it is." Without actually poring through the rule books to double-check, with two minor exceptions I think those grade ranges are exactly the ranges the entire rest of planet Earth is using running their FIRST programs/activities.

The two exceptions that I think I see are 1) I think FLL normally goes up through 9th grade (mostly outside of North America?), and 2) I am not aware of a lower age/grade limit on any FIRST program.

Leading up to my next question, I'll suggest that the Michigan schools are experts at dealing with the ages of students on school teams; that they have been experts for decades, and that they can almost certainly continue to handle that matter on their own.

I'll also reiterate that the rest of the world seems to doing just fine using the standard FIRST age/grade ranges. Was I napping when FIRST or some other group announced that FIRST's programs, event partners, etc. were having big problems caused by using those grade ranges? In all the success stories and other (well-deserved) praise I have read in this thread, I haven't seen one single thing described that (IMO) required mandatory changes in team age/grade ranges.

So, in addition to asking the "we" question above, I would sincerely like to learn what specific problem is being affected by FiM trying to change FIRST's age/grade ranges?

Blake
PS: I was trying to wait for a reply from Gail before writing anything new in the thread, but couldn't fight the feeling.

I continue to hope that Gail or someone will shoot me a copy of the presentation(s)/proposal(s)/whatever that FiM used to pitch their plans to the Michigan government, and to others; plus a copy of the arithmetic they used when deciding to recommend the initiatives in that/those documents.

In the request I sent to Gail, I speculated that some of the material would contain items reasonable people might debate. I also speculated that the info in that material would probably also supply the clarity that could short-circuit threads like this one.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

... I guess I'm an FiM apologist, at least until I see their long term decisions start hurting the MAJORITY of the teams in the state, rather than helping them.

Why does a decision have to hurt a "MAJORITY" of the teams in the state before it merits reconsideration?

Suppose an FiM decision hurts 1 team/community and helps none. Would that hypothetical decision keep you in the FiM apologist camp?

Suppose an FiM decision hurts ten teams/communities and helps eight. Neither of those numbers is a majority of the Michigan teams. Would that hypothetical decision keep you in the FiM apologist camp?

Suppose an FiM decision makes forming teams harder than it needs to be in some communities, without making forming teams easier anywhere else? Would that hypothetical decision keep you in the FiM apologist camp?

Also, help me out, when in this thread has anyone said the interests of the majority of teams are being pitted against the interests of a minority of teams? Aren't you picking sides in a battle that doesn't exist? Did I miss something?

Blake

[gblake]

Originally Posted by weberr

...
Each state is different; Each city is different; each county is different; each school district is different; and each student is different. Trying to to find a one size fits all is very hard.

In my case, this model works well with me as a coach, it works well with the growth of my team, and it works well with aligning with the progress of curriculum in my school district. It fits. Yeah! But that may not be true for all people, everywhere.

Time will tell if this concept works for everyone. We won't know unless someone tries. If it doesn't, then we will know.

What is more important is whether anyone needs to try.

It's obvious from my other two posts that I don't think I have read any reason yet why forcing any new progressions on anyone is needed.

Reading what you wrote about one size not fitting all, I would agree emphatically with that, and say that it leads to an obvious conclusion: To the greatest practical extent, no should try to force all into one size.

If using one size ain't necessary, and if it causes poor "fits", don't do it.

Wouldn't you agree?

Blake

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

So, in addition to asking the "we" question above, I would sincerely like to learn what specific problem is being affected by FiM trying to change FIRST's age/grade ranges?

Based on my reading of their published materials (and this thread), the change seems to be aimed at getting an FRC team to cover every high school in Michigan. It seems to be about reducing the competition between FTC and FRC on these terms. I would guess that it's a similar argument for FTC in middle schools, though that seems to be in less focus (granted, I'm chiefly an FRCer).

This seems to produce two different concerns:
1) Is having an FRC team cover every high school in Michigan a good goal? A reasonable one?
2) Separately, is this an appropriate step towards that goal?

For myself: I can see the argument that FRC will end up in more high schools if they can't pursue the lower-cost FTC alternative. (Though I think limiting the grants would've been enough instead of shutting teams out of events.) As to the first question, it has elements of a noble goal, though it'd be much better to see it read "an FRC program for all high schoolers an FTC program for all middle schoolers, and an FLL program for all upper elementary grades--and any other teams as the local community would like to support." I see it as a poor transition plan even if that is the goal.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Siri

Based on my reading of their published materials (and this thread), the change seems to be aimed at getting an FRC team to cover every high school in Michigan. It seems to be about reducing the competition between FTC and FRC on these terms. I would guess that it's a similar argument for FTC in middle schools, though that seems to be in less focus (granted, I'm chiefly an FRCer).

This seems to produce two different concerns:
1) Is having an FRC team cover every high school in Michigan a good goal? A reasonable one?
2) Separately, is this an appropriate step towards that goal?

For myself: I can see the argument that FRC will end up in more high schools if they can't pursue the lower-cost FTC alternative. (Though I think limiting the grants would've been enough instead of shutting teams out of events.) As to the first question, it has elements of a noble goal, though it'd be much better to see it read "an FRC program for all high schoolers an FTC program for all middle schoolers, and an FLL program for all upper elementary grades--and any other teams as the local community would like to support." I see it as a poor transition plan even if that is the goal.

Not arguing with you; but I will point this out: Having a goal is very different from affecting a problem.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by gblake

Not arguing with you; but I will point this out: Having a goal is very different from affecting a problem.

FIM never gave me the impression they were trying to affect a problem. (I'm assuming you don't mean problem in the sense of "there isn't an FRC team in every high school in Michigan", or something similar.) But I'm not sure why that should be considered a critical requirement from FiM's point of view.

[angelah]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I have heard very little about this change before (but then, I'm not a coach), so I don't know how much existing teams have been able to prepare.

They have yet to be notified. According to my reply from FiM, an email will go out this week.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by gblake

Ed,

You (and the other folks who liked what you wrote) and I are pretty far apart on this topic. Because this general subject has been a raw nerve for me for quite a while, a combative tone probably shows up in what I write.

It's not personal. I do have some strong opinions about the subject(s); but please don't mistake those opinions for a dislike of Ed Law (or Tom Line, or Weberr, or ...)

I think I might use those exact same words, but mean something significantly different than you meant.

Two thoughts:

A) The first of the two is a question. Who is the "we" you mention? What are they responsible for? and who made them responsible for it?

B) The second of the two is a disagreement. My answer to whether "that" is practical is this, "Obviously and unambiguously, yes, it is." Without actually poring through the rule books to double-check, with two minor exceptions I think those grade ranges are exactly the ranges the entire rest of planet Earth is using running their FIRST programs/activities.

The two exceptions that I think I see are 1) I think FLL normally goes up through 9th grade (mostly outside of North America?), and 2) I am not aware of a lower age/grade limit on any FIRST program.

Leading up to my next question, I'll suggest that the Michigan schools are experts at dealing with the ages of students on school teams; that they have been experts for decades, and that they can almost certainly continue to handle that matter on their own.

I'll also reiterate that the rest of the world seems to doing just fine using the standard FIRST age/grade ranges. Was I napping when FIRST or some other group announced that FIRST's programs, event partners, etc. were having big problems caused by using those grade ranges? In all the success stories and other (well-deserved) praise I have read in this thread, I haven't seen one single thing described that (IMO) required mandatory changes in team age/grade ranges.

So, in addition to asking the "we" question above, I would sincerely like to learn what specific problem is being affected by FiM trying to change FIRST's age/grade ranges?

Blake
PS: I was trying to wait for a reply from Gail before writing anything new in the thread, but couldn't fight the feeling.

I continue to hope that Gail or someone will shoot me a copy of the presentation(s)/proposal(s)/whatever that FiM used to pitch their plans to the Michigan government, and to others; plus a copy of the arithmetic they used when deciding to recommend the initiatives in that/those documents.

In the request I sent to Gail, I speculated that some of the material would contain items reasonable people might debate. I also speculated that the info in that material would probably also supply the clarity that could short-circuit threads like this one.

I appreciate your clarification about your combative tone. It seems that you were attacking everybody in Michigan that does not agree with you even though they did not make the rules. But now I understand, thanks.

Let me first answer your question. I am going to rewrite it from "To keep all the parents happy in our school district, we will have to make FLL K-8, FTC 5-12 and FRC 6-12" to "To keep all the parents happy in our school district, the program will have to be change d to K-8 for FLL, 5-12 for FTC and 6-12 for FRC."

To save you the trouble to understand the FIRST programs age cutoff. here it is. Jr.LL is K-3 (age 6-9). FLL is 4-8 (age 9-14, 9-16 outside US and Canada). FTC is high school and FRC is high school. There is very little overlap if any. So what I said above to make our parents happy is to widen the range and add a lot of overlap to create flexibility. Obviously I am not advocating for that.

Yes, you and I are miles apart on this issue. And I am not trying to convince you. My biggest disagreement with you is with your philosophy which you quoted "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Just because there is a saying by somebody in the past does not make it right or the truth. Many people have said many things in the past. It depends on the context. Not everything can be applied to every situation. I am a firm believer in Kaizen (continuous improvement). We put a lot of emphasis on Kaizen at my place of work. Many of us work on Kaizen projects on the side. Even if something is not broken, we try to improve process/product that affects our work, to make it more efficient, to make us more productive, to make work life more enjoyable. It directly translate to the bottom line. Customer satisfaction will increase and the company will be more profitable and competitive. A company that does not change things and wait until it is truly broken will most probably not going to be able to survive for very long in this global competitive economy.
I am not trying to convince you that my way is right. You are welcome to stay believing in what you believe in. At the same time, other people have the right to do things differently than you without you getting upset with them.
I remember when Michigan changed to the district model, a lot of people were upset with Michigan teams. One of their concern is that it will be forced upon them. Seven years later, I don't see that happening. That was called a pilot program at that time meaning there was a chance FIRST HQ will adopt it elsewhere. For this issue, Michigan is not running a pilot program. FiM is not trying to convince FIRST that it is good for everybody and they should implement this outside of Michigan.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

...
To save you the trouble to understand the FIRST programs age cutoff. here it is. Jr.LL is K-3 (age 6-9). FLL is 4-8 (age 9-14, 9-16 outside US and Canada). FTC is high schooll and FRC is high school. There is very little overlap if any. So what I said above to make our parents happy is to widen the range and add a lot of overlap to create flexibility. Obviously I Chase Club am not advocating for that.

...

FYI
FTC is not just high school. FTC is Grades 7-12.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

\

To save you the trouble to understand the FIRST programs age cutoff. here it is. Jr.LL is K-3 (age 6-9). FLL is 4-8 (age 9-14, 9-16 outside US and Canada). FTC is high school and FRC is high school. There is very little overlap if any. So what I said above to make our parents happy is to widen the range and add a lot of overlap to create flexibility. Obviously I am not advocating for that.

No FIRST's official ages/suggested grades do have overlap to allow people to participate in the program that best suits them.

Yes originally FTC was purely an alternate program for ages 14-18 ( grades 9-12) It has since transitioned to function as both a less intensive alternative for HS and as a transition between FLL and FTC. It is now specifically noted for ages 12-18 and grades 7-12. http://championship.usfirst.org/abou...ssion-programs

For all of the programs the lower age is a suggested minimum or "soft bottom" meaning that it is fine for a younger student to participate if the leader(s) of the team think that person is mature enough, has the skills, or will just benefit in general from that particular program. Try to register a student in STIMs that is older than a program cut off and it will be rejected but you can register a student that is younger than the suggested minimum age.

It is important to note that the suggested min age for FTC was lowered because of areas where it had been implemented that way. That I suspect is one reason that this change in MI is concerning for folks in other areas. For example in our area there are a districts with 8-9 and 7-9 Jr HS so it was left up to the teachers/leaders of the teams at those schools whether or not they wanted to include the younger students. Many found that the 7th and 8th grade students were ready for FTC and had them on the team.

In the case of my former FRC team we were at a 10-12 HS and the official policy was that since FRC was intended for 9-12 9th grade students that attended our 8-9 Jr HS were welcome to participate even after that school started a FTC team. At that school the 8th grade students were allowed to participate before FIRST officially changed the recommended min age/grade for FTC. Since that time we have had an 8th grade student that participated on both the Jr HS FTC team and the HS FRC team.

One of the reasons MI has been pushing for this change may be because of the state grants and how those funds are accounted for by the state's board of education. The reason I suspect this is because of how the grants in my state are structured. The funding officially is accounted for under CTE funds. In our state only grades 7-12 are eligible for CTE funding. What that means is that the only way a school could get a grant for FLL was if the school included 7th and/or 8th grade students. So a team that was at a K-6 school was not eligible. So maybe the MI system is set up where the funds are allocated by school type and it was just simpler for accounting purposes for them to make only schools that are officially "elementary" schools eligible for FLL grants, middle for FTC and HS for FRC. One of the reasons I say that is because what I have seen so far is that MI is not making the change based on age/grade but by what the school is officially recognized as. So by what I've read so far there may be FLL teams that are 4-6 and teams that are 4-8 because one is located at a K-6 school and one is located at a K-8 school. There could be FTC teams that are 7-9, 7-8 or not at all because of how that district officially refers to their schools.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Mr V

No FIRST's official ages/suggested grades do have overlap to allow people to participate in the program that best suits them.
...
For all of the programs the lower age is a suggested minimum or "soft bottom" meaning that it is fine for a younger student to participate if the leader(s) of the team think that person is mature enough, has the skills, or will just benefit in general from that particular program. Try to register a student in STIMs that is older than a program cut off and it will be rejected but you can register a student that is younger than the suggested minimum age.

Thanks! Mr V. That is exactly how I thought/recalled FIRST HQ runs things.

Originally Posted by Mr V

...
In the case of my former FRC team we were at a 10-12 HS and the official policy was that since FRC was intended for 9-12 9th grade students that attended our 8-9 Jr HS were welcome to participate even after that school started a FTC team. At that school the 8th grade students were allowed to participate before FIRST officially changed the recommended min age/grade for FTC. Since that time we have had an 8th grade student that participated on both the Jr HS FTC team and the HS FRC team. ...

Thanks again Mr V. This is exactly the sort of control that schools exercise all the time over student participation on/in any school team or other activity, whether it's the drama club, a senior field trip, or a robotics team.

And, this is why I and others readers are wondering what situation FiM's proposed age/grade changes are supposed to fix or improve. We can't imagine the schools needed their help, and I can't imagine a large groundswell of requests from non-school teams (maybe I need a better imagination? ).

[216Robochick288]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Fourth, do we have the support for FTC tournaments? If existing middle school FLL teams turn into FTC teams, there would be 100-200 new teams. Are there events? How about up north? It took 5 years to get a FRC event in the UP, how long will it take for FTC? And what do teams do in the meantime?

Great question. As a mentor and leader in one of the most densely populated FIRST areas in the UP my answer is... I have no idea. Superior Roboworks, The Copperbots, and Robotic Turmoil was going to have a huge push in all the lower grades to get more interest in FLL and a few years down the line start switching to FTC. Its hard enough getting funds for us to go places, and the FLL teams run baised on the fact that we have a tournament just a few hours away in Marquette (and hopefully one at Tech soon too).

As for FTC... I guess we will see. Hopefully FIRST will find us the support to get enough teams interested that we can host our own tournament in the UP. Tech certainly has the kids and mentors to run something, but they have certainly twisted our arm on what we have to work with. Certainly not the gradual switch we were hoping for.