Ontario Moving to District Model in 2017

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Kleiman

And no, it is definitely NOT because I don't want to do more work.

No one's saying you're too lazy or don't want to put the work in. (If they are, they don't realize how much work it is already to be a lead mentor of any sort for a team).

My difficulties in raising more funding stem largely from an issue I have avoided bring up here due to the Pandora's box of backlash I expect it will open, but here goes... Like many of my fellow Canadians, a core value I hold as an educator is that I don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public schools.

Can I inquire as to why you don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public school? From my perspective, seeking sponsorships is a great way to reach out to the community, get local business and civic leaders involved, and increase the reach and strength of the program. Also, to what level would this belief hold? If I were to write you a check for $1000, would you accept it? What if 10 relatives of students were to send in $100 each? Like it or not, there just isn't enough public funding for these programs; that's one of the reasons why we are all trying to change the culture. However, to get to that point, we need our communities to get the message and rally behind us.

I think we have more than enough fuel to easily sell this program's worth to private sponsors, so why not sell it with equal vigor to our municipal, provincial and federal governments here in Canada. My sense from the discussion on this forum is that more people are concerned about making more WINNING teams rather than making more WORKING teams. I get it... district model = better educational experience and more team growth.

Michigan has done an excellent job of selling the program's worth to the government leaders. Their first and second year teams all got grants to start up. However, that funding wasn't forever; teams needed to be able to find the same level of funding elsewhere.[citation needed, someone from FiM please comment].

One implied assumption is that a winning team or a successful team is a working team. CD tends to have a bias towards fostering competitive FRC teams; just look at the reaction to the split championship announcement. The argument that many of us see as fundamental to our participation in FIRST is that winning is inspiring, and simple participation in the program isn't enough inspiration; we want our students to continue to compete and do what it takes to win fairly.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Matt Ciprietti

I mean, fine. You're taking a philosophical stand on a personal belief, I get it. I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise. But I'm a Canadian educator too who's been doing this for a few years, and I have to say, I've never run across that particular viewpoint as it pertains to FRC. Being an extracurricular activity, I'm willing to accept outside funds to allow a better experience for my students. If suddenly I found myself teaching "Chemistry - brought to you by Pfizer" then I might feel a bit differently, but as far as most of us are concerned, sponsorships for FRC are just part of the game. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages (if there are any disadvantages at all).

I won't try to convince anybody of anything, and I'm certainly not a Canadian educator, but as a former student, the relationships with real corporation meant a lot to me. We had ties into these companies that made us as students feel important in ways my other XCs didn't. Some "real" entity was invested in us, and we would sometimes get opportunities to visit and know local offices, employees, etc. It formed an amazing and valuable perspective on future and "real life" that was a big part of my FRC appreciation and my career trajectory. I don't think it would've turned me off of FRC, but even now it wouldn't have the same spark for me without the private sector relationships. Certainly this is important in the public sector both in and out of the education field as well, but not to the detriment of private community involvement.

[ASD20]

Part of FRC is the entrepreneurial side, hence FIRST giving out an Entrepreneurship Award. Even if you don't want to seek out corporate grants, there are plenty of other ways to raise money, such as bake sales, charging small amounts to drive previous robots, raffles, etc. I'm sure other people can list dozens if not hundreds of more ideas. Not only will fundraising increase your build capabilities, it will teach your students skills equal to more valuable than are taught by building the robot itself, such as public speaking, organization and planning, and money management. Community fundraisers also tend to assist with publicity and recruiting along with funds.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Kleiman

I think this post sums up very clearly what the general sentiment has been from the FIRST community on this one. This program is expensive and hard to grow/sustain, I am lucky that I was sustained by public funds, but welcome to the reality that other teams face who do not have as much public funding. Now deal with it, don't complain about it, or just leave (P.S. I hope you don't leave #sorrynotsorry).

Firstly, I am not running a "struggling team" as has been implied on this forum repeatedly. I am running a relatively small scale, but hard working, competitive team with room to grow. In the regional model we would have required zero private money to operate.

No one ever said 5699 was a struggling program in this thread. In the regional model with the TDSB sponsorship never adjusting, you may have been able to operate without any private funds, but relying 2/3 of an operating budget on a force clearly outside of your control is interesting.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

Second, it has been implied that my difficulty in more than doubling my annual budget for future years is reflective of a lack of willingness to do the hard work of being an FRC team. Over the past two years, I have dedicated astronomical amounts of time, energy and passion as all of you have to build this program from nothing. I am a biology teacher with zero engineering background and I have converted my science class and a tiny storage area into a workshop.

My difficulties in raising more funding stem largely from an issue I have avoided bring up here due to the Pandora's box of backlash I expect it will open, but here goes... Like many of my fellow Canadians, a core value I hold as an educator is that I don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public schools. In the regional model with the generous public financial backing of the TDSB I could indefinitely run a successful (though maybe not world champion) FRC team on public funds and through grass-roots fund raisers in a sustainable way. I am aware that the overall FIRST program doesn't exist without private sponsorship. It is a compromise I am currently willing to accept in exchange for the unprecedented experience. Developing private partnerships within my own school program is where I draw a firm line. I will continue to work myself to the bone for this team so I can run a STEM project funded with no-strings-attached and I will also continue to lobby public education to recognize the educational return on investment in FIRST. Perhaps rather than you asking me to STOP complaining about added cost, I should ask you to START complaining about lack of public funds if a dedicated team requires heavy private sponsorship to exist. "Greying Jay" implies that his wish for Ottawa's program to expand like Toronto's will come as a result of a higher cost to participate and an increased time commitment.

I wish we had more public investment in the FIRST program at our own state and local levels. Our good friends nearby from 1086 recently worked with Virginia's General Assembly to get a bill passed and signed by our governor to grant money to programs that otherwise could not exist without the funds.

I also recognize that FIRST was founded in 1992 when COMPANIES went to SCHOOLS to start their teams. The private-public partnership between FIRST and public schools has existed since the founding of the program.

The entirety of the FIRST kit of parts is donated by private enterprises, with key control system and mechanical equipment coming for free from National Instruments, AndyMark, Innovation First International, and Cross the Road Electronics. These are all for-profit companies that donate an absurd (AN ABSURD) amount of money to FIRST. Not only does FIRST as a program not exist without private partnerships, but unless you are shipping your kit back to Manchester and buying these items yourselves, your robot does not exist without them.

I do find it curious that you must think that teams with private sponsors are suddenly enslaved to the corporation. I don't think that's the case with any teams. You are welcome to maintain your stance that no corporations dare lay a finger on your program, just understand that is not a stance shared by a majority of teams in FIRST. It's also a very insular and restrictive way to approach the FIRST program. Some organizations (ourselves included) use private sponsors to support community initiatives that bring our program to places outside of classrooms. Public money would not be able to support hall-of-fame programs because they do work that costs more money than the public can provide.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

Third, I believe that we don't just participate in the FRC program, we are helping to build it. It can become whatever we want it to become. Looking backwards and sideways at what works currently and what has worked in the past is valuable, but it is equally valuable to imagine how we want to change this program looking into the future. I know for many people reading this, their response is that they envision a higher proportion of large-scale, competitive teams and more robust programs. For others they may be imagining that the benefits of this program spread as far and as wide as possible to afford more students the opportunity to be transformed by FIRST. Both views have merit, but on some levels these views may find themselves at odds with each other. A program that builds better teams may cost more and require more commitment, but this could also lead to the program becoming more exclusive.

You seem to think that competitive teams are the end goal, where in the end sustainability and success are the main goals. I have been looking into attrition rates globally vs large states/provinces vs district systems, and even if you threw out Michigan and the new systems, all districts are experiencing lower attrition than the global average. Creating as many sustainable teams as possible is not a goal that fights between many competitive teams and as many teams as possible, but takes a firm middle.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

I think we have more than enough fuel to easily sell this program's worth to private sponsors, so why not sell it with equal vigor to our municipal, provincial and federal governments here in Canada. My sense from the discussion on this forum is that more people are concerned about making more WINNING teams rather than making more WORKING teams. I get it... district model = better educational experience and more team growth. But I say again; at what cost? In the US, for the same price you get more FRC. More power to you. Enjoy it. In Toronto, it costs my team and other "one-regional" teams like mine at least double the previous cost (after public funding) to now play two district events. Why not imagine a model like ours of FRC where more teams can run strong, sustainable teams on less than ~$2500 CAD per year. This does not exclude the option to grow into a mega-world-class team (as many here in Canada already have done), but it just costs more to do so.

This is a STEM competition! Using math, I have determined that it is pretty much impossible to create more winning teams unless FIRST starts giving out trophies to everyone who shows up to all of their events or we start creating even more events than the district system even allows. I really don't give a toss if we win. I'd really like to win more/at all, but I don't have to win every event we enter to justify re-entering next year. Operating on $7500 a year does not in many parts of the FRC world lead to even "working teams." Three cheers on apparently being the exception to that rule, but the reality is that teams with little money also likely have little available for them in physical and human resources to make their program sustainable.

The model that costs less is called VRC in Ontario and either VRC or FTC in the States. FRC, VRC, and FTC are all programs that can produce similar educational results. FRC, as the founders of the program will argue, is not a primarily educational program, but a program that is designed to be an agent of change in their communities. The cost to do that has been described with the outlay of the district system's plans.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

Finally, what seems to have been forgotten on this forum is that the move to Districts was a CHOICE. The decision was made by FIRST Canada that the district model was right for Ontario. More cost and commitment to participate, but less cost for more value in terms of number of plays and the educational experience for participating teams. This was a choice that makes it harder for public funding to facilitate more universal participation in the long run. I can accept it, and I will do my best to continue to play within the new framework, but I can confidently say that this choice moves in a direction contrary to my personal preference. I wish for this program to reach as many schools as possible for as little money as possible even if it means some degree of dilution to the level of competition. And no, it is definitely NOT because I don't want to do more work.

For the third time, I will reiterate that no gun has been pointed to anyone's head, and it won't be in the future. Whether or not FIRST Canada was right in making their choice has yet to be seen. I wish them the best and expect them to succeed and continue to be one of the best regions in the world for competitive robotics. I also wish you the best in continuing your efforts to maintain an FRC team at your school. It takes a lot of effort to put a team out there year after year without any significant engineering experience and not enough money. It has been worth it for me still and I trust it will be worth it for you.

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by Kleiman

Like many of my fellow Canadians, a core value I hold as an educator is that I don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public schools.

Canadian Alliance Selections must make you Cringe.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Canadian Alliance Selections must make you Cringe.

Yeh the NASA teams never end.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Canadian Alliance Selections must make you Cringe.

I am disappointed in this comment. I believe each team should decide for themselves how they want to be funded and I respect whatever decision is made. If 5699 leadership chooses not to have sponsors from the corporate world, than that is how 5699 shall be run.

I am not going to say it is the right decision, I am not going to say it is an easy decision and I am definitely not going to try to bring that idea to any team I associate with.

To Kleiman and the rest of 5699, you run your team how you feel appropriate. That means that you have to live with the results of your decision and in this case, that means having to find $2500 some way other than corporate support. I know that might sound daunting, but that is the reality you are faced with. I am sure that the people in this thread (and others) would be willing to help you find ways to do this if you go over to the fundraising forum. I know your price was increased, you can either continue to be upset or you can take the challenge and grow your team to be more resourceful. To do this effectively you should create a business plan and involve your students in fundraising. You might even get the KPCB award out of it. I wish you the best of luck.

[bkahl]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

I am disappointed in this comment.

The comment is solely meant to draw humor (or humour) to the fact that Canadian Teams like to say some/all of their Private/Corporate sponsors before their Team name during alliance selections.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Kleiman

My difficulties in raising more funding stem largely from an issue I have avoided bring up here due to the Pandora's box of backlash I expect it will open, but here goes... Like many of my fellow Canadians, a core value I hold as an educator is that I don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public schools.

As a fellow Canadian who believes strongly that schools should be free of undue corporate influence (a feeling held by people of many nations, I'm sure) I have to say that the corporate sponsors I worked with during my time running our FRC team were not only generous, but also very careful to ensure that they were enabling, as opposed to influencing paths to student success. GMC, in particular, was an examplar of how a corporate sponsor can help improve public education.

It is a small point in a larger discussion, but developing meaningful, supportive partnerships between the team and community is an important part of the FRC experience. I would encourage you to explore how your team can work with your community... the partnership and benefits usually go well beyond the purely financial.

Jason

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Michigan has done an excellent job of selling the program's worth to the government leaders. Their first and second year teams all got grants to start up. However, that funding wasn't forever; teams needed to be able to find the same level of funding elsewhere.[citation needed, someone from FiM please comment].

FIM Grant information

$7500 for rookies, $5000 for 2nd year teams, $2500 for older teams. Plus $1500 coach stipends.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by bkahl

The comment is solely meant to draw humor (or humour) to the fact that Canadian Teams like to say some/all of their Private/Corporate sponsors before their Team name during alliance selections.

Wait, they don't all work that way?

(And yes, some teams go on and on and on... )

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Kleiman

Like many of my fellow Canadians, a core value I hold as an educator is that I don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public schools.

By actively preventing relationships with sponsors to form, you're doing a disservice to your team and students. There are thousands of former FIRST students who have careers now because of the great sponsor relationships teams have formed. I personally know a lot of people who had internships or co-ops directly set aside for FIRST students by team sponsors. Why wouldn't we want to help our students and get their foot in the door with a sponsoring company?

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by Kleiman

My difficulties in raising more funding stem largely from an issue I have avoided bring up here due to the Pandora's box of backlash I expect it will open, but here goes... Like many of my fellow Canadians, a core value I hold as an educator is that I don't believe that private sponsorship belongs in public schools.

Kleiman, thank you for your thoughtful responses and for elaborating on this position. I admit that I have been a little bit perplexed by your particular scenario. The thinking was "So they need to raise another $2500... big deal, they could do that in a week or two of phone calling and emailing". Now I understand why that is a tougher problem than it sounded to me.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

Developing private partnerships within my own school program is where I draw a firm line. I will continue to work myself to the bone for this team so I can run a STEM project funded with no-strings-attached and I will also continue to lobby public education to recognize the educational return on investment in FIRST. Perhaps rather than you asking me to STOP complaining about added cost, I should ask you to START complaining about lack of public funds if a dedicated team requires heavy private sponsorship to exist. "Greying Jay" implies that his wish for Ottawa's program to expand like Toronto's will come as a result of a higher cost to participate and an increased time commitment.

I admit to being more than a little envious of your previous situation. I always assumed that it was because of your program density - every school wants one because the school next door has one too - and I figured that when you approach a sponsor they must say "oh yes, I've heard of FRC" rather than "huh? robots? you mean like LEGO?". And I already figured competitions were cheaper for you guys since you didn't need to travel and book hotels.

I'm still hoping for a district event to be held closer to us, such as Ottawa or Kingston. Having a local event would greatly reduce logistics and cost for teams in my region, and would also kick start the "hey, I want one too!" sentiment in our schools.

Of course I think it would be absolutely fantastic if our school boards would kick in like TDSB has done. However, truth be told, such a decision wouldn't even help my team, as 2706 is a community driven with no school backing. Our lead mentors aren't teachers or educators, we are engineers and scientists and other professionals.

And I guess that leads to my other point, which is that although I totally understand your point of view on partnerships, I think your team is missing out on a whole other aspect of FRC because of it. One of the biggest differences between FRC and something like FLL or IEEE or any of the smaller scale LEGO competitions is, apart from sheer size, students are participating in an experience that looks and feels like the real engineering workforce. They think about things like strategy and competition, marketing, branding, and communication. They deal with real issues like project management, splitting the workload, supply chain issues (witness the Great Pneumatic Tire Shortage of 2016), version control (which is of course where my team name derives from!) and, yes, they learn to communicate, present, and sell themselves to others. It's the real thing - they talk to real companies, real suppliers, real engineers.

I understand your point about "no strings attached" but I'll just observe that the only "string" we have ever been asked for is a demo: We'll give you money to build a robot, and we want you to come in and show the robot to our employees! That is a fun experience which draws excitement, encourages new students and mentors to join, and encourages students to network and interact with other people. At sponsor demos I step back and watch the students as they talk to curious onlookers. I marvel at the students' ease at answering "so... what does it do?" for the umpteenth time. I watch a student who was super-shy in September comfortably launch into an elevator pitch about FIRST and STEM.

When I was that age, I was a complete wreck when it came to talking to anybody in public, let alone strangers! Not to mention all the other stuff like writing grant applications or sponsor request letters or planning fundraising events. This is a huge skill development opportunity.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

I think we have more than enough fuel to easily sell this program's worth to private sponsors, so why not sell it with equal vigor to our municipal, provincial and federal governments here in Canada. (...) Why not imagine a model like ours of FRC where more teams can run strong, sustainable teams on less than ~$2500 CAD per year.

I do absolutely agree with you here. That would be a dream come true. I wasn't kidding about approaching the Ottawa school boards. We're going to do our darndest.

Originally Posted by Kleiman

My sense from the discussion on this forum is that more people are concerned about making more WINNING teams rather than making more WORKING teams. (...) I wish for this program to reach as many schools as possible for as little money as possible even if it means some degree of dilution to the level of competition.

I do not think these are mutually exclusive. The focus should be on building long-term, sustainable, working teams, and the more of them there are, the better it is for everyone. "Winning" (and I don't necessarily refer to blue banners and trophies here) will come as a natural progression as teams develop and improve themselves.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

I understand your point about "no strings attached" but I'll just observe that the only "string" we have ever been asked for is a demo: We'll give you money to build a robot, and we want you to come in and show the robot to our employees! That is a fun experience which draws excitement, encourages new students and mentors to join, and encourages students to network and interact with other people. At sponsor demos I step back and watch the students as they talk to curious onlookers. I marvel at the students' ease at answering "so... what does it do?" for the umpteenth time. I watch a student who was super-shy in September comfortably launch into an elevator pitch about FIRST and STEM.

When I was that age, I was a complete wreck when it came to talking to anybody in public, let alone strangers! Not to mention all the other stuff like writing grant applications or sponsor request letters or planning fundraising events. This is a huge skill development opportunity.

I wouldn't even call that a "string", let alone a string. It is one of the most valuable aspects of FIRST and something that is useful to all team members, not just the ones interested in going into engineering.

Also, this conversation seems to be taking over the thread and it is an interesting discussion that doesn't just apply to Ontario. Maybe a mod should spin this off into a separate thread.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

FIM Grant information

$7500 for rookies, $5000 for 2nd year teams, $2500 for older teams. Plus $1500 coach stipends.

To add this this, the funding is distributed on an "as available" basis, prioritizing newer teams. Meaning that if the funding runs out early (as it did this year) teams either don't get as much or don't get anything at all. This year I believe FiM/Michigan cut the grants that normally payed for teams registrations for the State Championships (and/or possibly also World Championships, though I don't remember which it was) because the program ran out of money due to the large number of teams.

Government funding is great, but it shouldn't be your only funding source if you can avoid it. Don't put all eggs in one basket.