FIRST and Obama's Innovation Strategy

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally Posted by ebarker

I would ask that we do this in a coordinated fashion so that we can maximize our impact. Email me is you can do this, in particular if you are in Rep. Mike Doyle's district.


Rep. Mike Doyle D-PA, Co-Chair
Rep. Phil Gingrey R-GA, Co-Chair ( team 1311, Kell Robotics )

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-PA
Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-WI
Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-GA
Rep. Joe Barton R-TX
Rep. Michael Capuano D-MA
Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper D-PA
Rep. Parker Griffith, D-AL
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-CO
Rep. John Lewis D-GA ( team 3091, 100 Scholars )
Rep. Jerry McNerney D-CA
Rep. Alan Mollohan D-WV
Rep. Dennis Moore D-KS
Rep. Jim McGovern D-MA
Rep. Tim Murphy R-PA
Rep. John Murtha D-PA
Rep. John Olver D-MA
Rep. Todd Platts R-PA
Rep. Tim Ryan D—OH (Team 48 Delphi E.L.I.T.E., as well as 276, 379, 2010, 2835, 2901, and other NEOFRA teams)
Rep. Bill Shuster R-PA
Rep. Bennie Thompson D-MS
Rep. Glenn Thompson R-PA
Rep. John F. Tierney D-MA
Rep. Niki Tsongas D-MA
Rep. Zach Wamp R-TN
Rep. Robert Wittman R-VA
Rep. Bill Young R-FL

What, no Michigan reps? No fun >.<
Out of curiosity, where would such money go towards, should it be awarded? It would be awesome to have the federal government show an interest in helping FIRST expand, I'm curious though how it would go about doing that.

[ehochstein]

Hm... I vote that all of the twin cities area teams in Minnesota put something together to show to some of our local representatives? Anyone else from Minnesota reading this thread and want to put something together? Shoot me a pm maybe?

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

I'm curious though how it would go about doing that.

Excellent question. This is something a lot of people have thought about beyond the usual "hey Uncle Sam, do something !!".

I will preface the discussion by stating that the following is my opinion based on my gray hair, my worldview, and my view of how the US Constititution allocates powers and responsibilities to the Federal and State governments. Constitutionally education was allocated to the States and remains mostly so. Because of civil and equity rights issues in the 50's, 60's, 70's the Federal sector encroached onto the educational turf and has established a substantial influence in policy matters. Having said all that, I'll proceed.......

If I were writing a policy, here is what I'd do.

Establish the "Teacher STEM Incentive Award Program" administered by the U.S Department of Education.

The award program is simple.

Any public school teacher that coaches a robotics team and takes it to a competition will receive a teacher stipend. The stipend will be listed on a table of stipends that describe the amount of money versus the robotics program. Up to two teachers per team are eligible. The regional director for the robotics competitions would certify that the teacher complied with the requirement which would then trigger US Dept. of Ed. to make the award. No other assessment would be required on a teacher/team basis by US Dept. of Ed, however the department would be authorized to assess the overall program and report accordingly.

I'll pick some stipend amounts out of the air.
FIRST FRC $ 1,500
FIRST FTC $ 1,000
FIRST FLL $ 750
VEX $ 1,000
MATE $ 1,000
and a few other programs

The program sunsets in 5 years, meaning the states have to make arrangements to pick up the slack.

Under the guidelines above the 1st year cost would be under $ 40 M / year.

There is a second way to write this legislation that may be more attractive to teams.
......Offer 1/2 the stipend amount with the stipulation that the state or local district match the amount.
......And offer 1/2 the team registration fee with similiar state / district match.
......And the $ 40 M would still cover this plan.


It may make some mentors cranky but one of the biggest impediments to teacher participation is the lack of incentives. If the Federal sector said I'll put up half if you put up half then that would be substantial progress.

I'm sure I'll get beat up for something here but this is what I think will be a very cost effective program. FIRST has been growing at about 20% a year. I'm not sure we want to grow any faster than 30% a year. Having a shared financial stake will help incentivize teams to manage themselves properly and not view the government as a giant sugar daddy. I'm sure that over time the program could be adapted to give larger stakes in at-risk schools and other tough situations.

I've heard rumors of other proposals that are being considered and for all I know one exists and it will be pushed by the administration when they see fit.

I for one am very interested in a solid proposal that 100 FIRST mentors could sign on to and recommend to the Congress.

This proposal isn't totally without precedent. Several years ago there was a "Teacher Incentive Award" program but it was very broad based and had substantial overhead, both in application and review. This is much more narrow but streamlined and focused.

Potentially - If this all worked out addittional options could be added to incentivize other STEM activities that are not necessarily robotics related but still streamlined, and focused.

Ed

PS - see Corky the Robot clean up the lake right here

.

[Mr. Pockets]

I have doubts about how streamlined the end result would actually be (sorry, my political cycnisim is at a new high at the moment), but in theory it sounds like a neat idea. The idea behind giving teachers incentives might actually kill two birds with one stone. Teachers might as a result be more eager to volunteer to help out teams, and at the same time potentially make them more likely to promote the program among their peers and administrations (this time I'm figuring that I'm being overly optimistic, but it definitely seems worth a shot).

Out of curiosity, is there any way for teams not in the states of the listed representatives to help out?

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

I have doubts about how streamlined the end result would actually be (sorry, my political cycnisim is at a new high at the moment), but in theory it sounds like a neat idea. The idea behind giving teachers incentives might actually kill two birds with one stone. Teachers might as a result be more eager to volunteer to help out teams, and at the same time potentially make them more likely to promote the program among their peers and administrations (this time I'm figuring that I'm being overly optimistic, but it definitely seems worth a shot).

Out of curiosity, is there any way for teams not in the states of the listed representatives to help out?

I share your cynicism. 'streamlined bureaucracy' sounds like an oxymoron. I don't know if you have ever seen some of this highly credentialed measure assessment feedback stuff produced by the PhD's in education but it makes my head really hurt.

I think we have a shot at this if we can influence how the legislation is written.

Presenting to your representative is always desirable whether they are on the caucus or not.

Any Congressman can attend the briefings or join the caucus by contacting one of the co-chair offices list here

Repeating myself for the general audience - for the umpteenth time in the thread - give the presentation carefully and at an executive level. We have a simple presentation that we have given to quite a few policy makers and influencer's and they are captivated by it. It is actually a modified version of the stock FIRST powerpoint but the emphasis points are a little different. Kinda like where you put the accent on a word in a sentence.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by ebarker

<snip>

Establish the "Teacher STEM Incentive Award Program" administered by the U.S Department of Education.

The award program is simple.

Any public school teacher that coaches a robotics team and takes it to a competition will receive a teacher stipend. The stipend will be listed on a table of stipends that describe the amount of money versus the robotics program. Up to two teachers per team are eligible. The regional director for the robotics competitions would certify that the teacher complied with the requirement which would then trigger US Dept. of Ed. to make the award. No other assessment would be required on a teacher/team basis by US Dept. of Ed, however the department would be authorized to assess the overall program and report accordingly.

I'll pick some stipend amounts out of the air.
FIRST FRC $ 1,500
FIRST FTC $ 1,000
FIRST FLL $ 750
VEX $ 1,000
MATE $ 1,000
and a few other programs

The program sunsets in 5 years, meaning the states have to make arrangements to pick up the slack.

Under the guidelines above the 1st year cost would be under $ 40 M / year.

There is a second way to write this legislation that may be more attractive to teams.
......Offer 1/2 the stipend amount with the stipulation that the state or local district match the amount.
......And offer 1/2 the team registration fee with similiar state / district match.
......And the $ 40 M would still cover this plan.


It may make some mentors cranky but one of the biggest impediments to teacher participation is the lack of incentives. If the Federal sector said I'll put up half if you put up half then that would be substantial progress.

<snip>

The emphasis on "It might make some mentors cranky but ..." is mine. What makes me cranky is failing to get teachers involved.

I believe teachers are inadequately compensated for their efforts. Getting teachers with STEM background is even more difficult because people with those skills can find career paths that pay much better and have better working conditions. I fully understand their reluctance to take on the additional effort to support an FRC team. I believe an award/incentive structure for teachers involved in FIRST would be a good thing. Whether teachers' unions would endorse such a program might be a different issue.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by ebarker

If I were writing a policy, here is what I'd do.

Establish the "Teacher STEM Incentive Award Program" administered by the U.S Department of Education.

The award program is simple.

....
I'll pick some stipend amounts out of the air.
FIRST FRC $ 1,500
FIRST FTC $ 1,000
FIRST FLL $ 750
VEX $ 1,000
MATE $ 1,000
and a few other programs


.

First of all, I am delighted that the American government has intentions to invest in education, particularly with regard to science and technology. Hopefully it inspires increased interest on this side of the border as well.

Second of all, I have to admit that I am writing my comments as a teacher in British Columbia's public education system. I am aware that salaries, workloads, educational requirements for teachers and traditions around stipends for coaching school sports are different in the United States, and vary (sometimes greatly) from state to state.

However I know from my experience as a teacher sponsor of an FRC team, FLL teams, FTC teams and VEX teams that I would be happier to see funds allocated towards removing some of the obstacles that stand in the way of sponsoring teams... entry fees, material supplies, workspace and travelling costs, rather than to me, personally. Professional development for teachers new to the program would also help make them more comfortable with stepping forward to sponsor a team.

I can see where this suggestion is coming from and appreciate the good intent behind it, but I have found that when teachers are adequately compensated for their education, dedication and hard work, and are given an environment in which they can be effective teachers, that they will find many ways to volunteer to provide exciting, enriching experiences for students without additional financial motivation.

So if teachers aren't volunteering... perhaps there is a bigger problem than just a lack of financial motiviation. I know we've seen teacher volunteerism here in BC drop off as the government has increased class sizes and generally used education as a political football. That definitely decreases teacher motiviation...

Jason

[Trying to Help]

How about funding to mentors period? I'm doing this as a 4-H leader, not as a teacher. There aren't any bonus points at work for my time spent volunteering. I live in an area where some of the school districts are very small and can't begin to start funding a team, paying stipends, etc. And some federal money could flow to other teams with volunteer mentors like 1519 (Mechanical Mayhem) too.

I'm just wondering why our representative isn't part of this caucus.

Trying to Help

[artdutra04]

Having the government directly pay a stipend to mentors may open up a whole can of worms, and also fails to get private industry more involved in the process. If they were instead to either give tax credits to businesses who will pay full wages/salary to their employees for a time period not to exceed three to five work days in the course of a year for the sole purpose of volunteering in the community. Everyone benefits this way, and I really don't think three or five "lost" days will break the bank of most companies.

Now if there are people worried about such actions as this adding unnecessary programs to the federal government deficit, this is a reasonable assessment. But unlike a family household income, which is pretty single dimensional, where the greatest concern is that money in is greater than money out, large businesses and governments think about money multi-dimensionally. They think not about what a dollar is right now, but what it could become. And ultimately, for as much concern as there is about the deficit (and much of it is justifiably), the absolute figures of the deficit don't matter. The only thing that does matter is the deficit as percent of GDP.

It's like how Person A might have $10,000 in debt and Person B has $15,000 in debt. Some might say that Person B is much worse off, because he has more debt. But they forget about what those people make. If Person A had never graduated high school and is only making $30,000 per year at Dunkin Donuts, but Person B makes $100,000 per year at Widgets Inc, Person B will actually have a much easier time paying off their debt.

So what does this mean for the economy and the country? If the rate at which the economy is growing is faster than the rate of the growth of the national debt, then the debt is actually decreasing on a relative scale. It seems weird, but it's true. And if programs can be demonstrated to generate more economic wealth than they cost, they are actually helping lower the federal deficit in the long run. So if funding STEM activities such as FIRST is shown to generate a huge number of new college engineering students, which will design a new generation of gadgets and gizmos, or start new businesses to sell their ideas, (or in other words, create a lot of economic wealth) then the long-term positive economic impacts generates more wealth than funding such programs cost. This is the real reason why there are so many large corporations sponsoring FIRST. It's not just because of the warm and fuzzy feeling, it's because there are long-term, tangible benefits to their bottom line.

[TNT101]

I think this is a great idea! The teachers at my school get extra pay for coaching sports. Why not our robotics team as well? All of our mentors volunteer all of their time and even have to pay for some things out of pocket due to a decrease in funding.

[ebarker]

You have heard of the three 'r's.

We are talking about the three 'I's.

Last April Dr. Karan Watson gave the keynote speech on the Engineer of the Future 2.0 at Olin University, Dr. Woodie Flowers followed with his speech on educational reform, and then at FIRST Conferences our team presented on FIRSTsteps, which is based in part on work by Clay Shirky.

We talked a lot about institutional barriers, getting around them, coordinating responses to the 'institution'. Karan talked at length at institutional change.

The Three 'I's are:

a) initiate
b) implement
c) institutionalize

200,000 students, 85,000 volunteers, and about 18,000 teams of FIRST have accomplished (a) and (b)

We have to accomplish (c). It will have to become the policy (budget and direction) of the institution (local schools, boards, boe, state boe, etc) to support robotics and other STEM activities.

Having the government directly pay a stipend to mentors may open up a whole can of worms

The award gets paid to teachers, not mentors. Art pointed out a lot of interesting stuff but... I'd keep that stuff in the thread and out of a presentation. Pretty 'wonky' stuff and it isn't necessary in an executive presentation. There are a few slides that explains that in pictures in seconds.

Originally Posted by TNT101

The teachers at my school get extra pay for coaching sports.

It isn't a scientific study but my travels tell me that the 'institution' telegraphs the message to teachers that robotics isn't important because "we are not going to pay you to do this". "We will pay you to coach the ball kickers, the horn blowers, and the thespians, but not the robotics folks." The institutional message has to change.

I'm just wondering why our representative isn't part of this caucus.

Any Congressman can attend the briefings or join the caucus by contacting one of the co-chair offices list here They do not have to actually join the caucus but can if they like.

How about funding to mentors period?

At risk of kicking off a whole new debate I'll put forth what I think the model for robotics should be.

At our school things like the competitive marching band, football, and other stuff is paid for by booster organizations. The teachers receive stipends for their additional efforts. There are part time staffers that support some of these organizations that are paid for by booster, not the schools. Everyone else is an unpaid volunteer parent/mentor.

This model works well and have been around a long time and is likely to be unchanged and also likely to be cited as an example of how to run a program.

The robotics competition (using Dean's sports model) is a co-cirricular activitity that reinforces classroom learning. It is NOT an extra-cirricular activity IMHO. The distinction is important. The presentation to the institution is important. An army of institutional warriers have deemed the cirriculum to be the most important thing they have and our activity is co-cirricular reinforcement, not some little club spinning off into space.


Back to FIRSTsteps, coordination & collaboration.
Without getting into the Phd stuff on the flat space of social networking and policy wonking......

If we can craft an intelligent proposal for legislation and policy, and get 100+ mentors to undersign it and we give it to the caucus that will be a powerful statement. One of three things would then happen.

a) they accept it
b) they reject it
c) or worst of all - they send it out for study.

Calling all mentors !!!

Ed

PS - see Corky the Robot clean up the lake right here

.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by ebarker

Back to FIRSTsteps, coordination & collaboration.
Without getting into the Phd stuff on the flat space of social networking and policy wonking......

If we can craft an intelligent proposal for legislation and policy, and get 100+ mentors to undersign it and we give it to the caucus that will be a powerful statement. One of three things would then happen.

a) they accept it
b) they reject it
c) or worst of all - they send it out for study.

Calling all mentors !!!

Ed

I have no experience in how to 'craft an intelligent proposal for legislation and policy' but I'm willing to learn and to help, Ed.

[oddjob]

If I understand the scenario correctly, the government steered a huge slice of stimulus money ($100B) to education, and the Education Secretary has about a $5B personal account to spend as he wishes, all done without any planning or identified need for the money. Yikes.

I give full credit to President Obama if he is able to enact his education reform agenda and increase the accountability of teachers and schools. That’s probably where the best bang for the buck is e.g. linking teacher merit pay to student performance. In that regard, spending the $5B on teacher stipends for supporting robotics teams or other activities is probably going to have a very positive affect. But I’m glad I don’t have the power to spend $5B of other peoples money as I please, that’s outright crazy.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by oddjob

But I’m glad I don’t have the power to spend $5B of other peoples money as I please, that’s outright crazy.

definitely crazy - I'm straining trying to figure out how to spend more than 100 M if you fully funded all robotics program, FIRST and non-FIRST, plus teacher development, plus stipends.

That is only 1/50th of the 5B. Is that 5B over next year, or the next 10 years ? what are the time units ?

Ed

edit: I think this is the route to your questions, drink lots of coffee before reading http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html

[RoboMom]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:

September 14, 2009 Laurie Pianka, SIATech

408.421.2718 laurie.pianka@siatech.org

Linda Collins Leigh, SIATech

760.994.6587

linda.leigh@siatech.org





ADVISORY / PREVIOUS HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS TO BE HONORED IN WASHINGTON, DC, ON SEPTEMBER 23
SIATech Students from San Jose Job Corps Center Recognized for their Robotics Team which Successfully Competed with Top Schools and Students in Remarkable Season



Washington, DC—The School for Integrated Academics and Technologies, a network of public charter high schools focused on dropout recovery, announces its San Jose Robotics team will participate in Job Corps Day on Capitol Hill on September 23, 2009. Four student team members and several team mentors will put on a Robotics demonstration in the Rayburn House office building. Later that evening, the students will act as greeters at the Oratory Competition at the Capitol Visitor’s Center.



WHAT: An opportunity to meet with previous dropouts who dramatically turned their lives around. These students returned to school at SIATech, joined the Robotics team, and traveled the country to compete against the elite students and schools in the country. The students will be honored as part of the Department of Labor’s Job Corps Day: “45 Years of Building Lives and Launching Careers” Celebration.



WHO: SIATech at San Jose Job Corps’ Robotics Team Members and Mentors (Team 1834, Evolution). Special guests include: Members of Congress invited to demonstration times.



WHEN: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, Complete Event Agenda

Robotics Exhibit Booth, 9:00 am – 4:30 pm (Eastern)

Robotics Demonstration, 11:30 am – 12:30 pm and 2:30 – 3:30 pm (Eastern)

Greeters prior to Oratory Competition, 4:30 – 5:30 pm (Eastern)



WHERE: Rayburn House Office Building, Foyer (Robotics Exhibit Booth and Demonstration)

Capitol Visitor’s Center, Orientation Theatre (Greeters at Oratory Competition)



About SIATech

The School for Integrated Academics and Technologies (SIATech®) is an award-winning dropout recovery program. SIATech is a fully accredited public charter high school that operates in partnership with the federal Job Corps program. The school serves low-income, previously out-of-school youth. SIATech excels at identifying student strengths and individualizing instruction to meet each student’s needs and goals. The school’s safe and caring setting enables students to take charge of their learning and obtain the tools they need for lifetime success, whether it is at their chosen career or further education. More than 8,500 out-of-school youth have graduated from SIATech’s 14 campuses. More information www.siatech.org.



About Job Corps

Job Corps is a voluntary program under the Department of Labor that provides outreach to disadvantaged urban youth, who have either had difficulty in traditional high school programs, dropped out of school, or are facing academic and/or personal challenges that make attending a traditional high school difficult or impossible. Job Corps is a free education and training program that helps young people learn a career, complete high school, and find and keep a good job. There are seven Job Corps centers in California and 122 centers nationwide. Click here for a history of Job Corps. More information www.jobcorps.gov.



About Robotics Team 1834 Evolution

Each SIATech student is a previous dropout who has a remarkable story of overcoming adversity. Robotics gives students experience in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and provides an exciting hands-on opportunity for students to realize they can be successful in higher education and high-tech careers.



Team 1834 Evolution from the San Jose Job Corps Center earned many awards and honors. The team earned the Judges’ Award at the prestigious Silicon Valley Regional. The team earned the Engineering Inspiration Award at the Hawaiian Regional in Honolulu. This award qualified the team to participate in the World Championships. At the FIRST Robotics World Championships the team earned 15th place out of 87 teams in their division. After season completion, the team was honored by State Senator Elaine Alquist on the floor of the California State Capitol in Sacramento. The Washington, DC, demonstration will be the climactic conclusion to the season.



About US FIRST Robotics

US FIRST Robotics is a worldwide competition where teams solve an identical problem during a six-week timeframe using a standard kit of parts. Students are rewarded for excellence in design, team spirit, gracious professionalism and maturity, and the ability to overcome life’s obstacles. More information http://www.usfirst.org/.