The Growing Gap in FIRST & on CD, and Our Responsibility to Fix It

[henryBsick]

I agree Jay. I've been afraid of unguided growth for a while. I am a big fan of quality over quantity.

[Tom Line]

I think you'll find that many of the mentors who post here have expressed concerns over the way FIRST is growing. Instead of looking to sustainability, they are looking toward growth.

I can't remember who said it, but they said something like "I'd take 1 good, sustainable new team over 100 new ones any day".

Growth for the sake of growth is not progress. It is quantity at the expense of quality. FIRST's #1 goal should be working with new teams to reduce the incredible infant-mortality rate we're seeing among new teams. That doesn't mean handing them money, either, as is so often the "fix" in this day and age.

To me, it means putting certain very strict guidelines in place for starting new teams - guidelines that reinforce and confirm that the team has what it takes - especially in the mentor department - to get it off the ground.

[Mori1578]

So before o judge or say anything i'll tell my story/my team's story -
1578 was one of the first teams in israel, on the first regional in the 2005 season.
The team was active in 2005 and 2006 and then was closed.
All members and the teacher left school.
Last year, me and a couple of friends heard about a "robot competition" called FIRST. We had the WORST mentor and didnt have any adult more than that. During the build season i fell in love with robotics but still didnt have any idea about what FIRST really is.
In the comeptition, I saw all the other teams - helping each other and communication with other teams. Only then i finally realized what FIRST is.
Of course this year we continued for our second year.

So first, i have to say that i don't know how it was 6-7 or even more years ago.
But i think that two years of living FIRST every day and day is enough to know what you are talking about.

By now, i saw two sides of FIRST and you could truly see this in th Israel Regioal a week ago.
There were huge communication problem and almost all robots didnt work for the first two days. The teams were divided into two types:
The first - the teams who got upset. Most of the teams, especially the rookie teams. Many teams started a riot and made chaos everywhere.
But there were also teams who didnt lose hope, and just played the game as it is - like they should.
First is much more than a competition and whose robot is better.

Most teams are not taught by the values of FIRST and thats a shame. But I dont think its a reason that First is dying or something. It can be changed at any time - the teams just need to do that change

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Mori1578

Most teams are not taught by the values of FIRST and thats a shame. But I dont think its a reason that First is dying or something. It can be changed at any time - the teams just need to do that change

There is wisdom here and a lot to think about. Teams learn and develop at their own pace but the communities and regions that have established a strong network among the teams can help make the changes needed at a more efficient rate, helping to strengthen the teams, the region, and the competitions, deepening their understanding and their commitment.

I increased and deepened my understanding of what it means to be involved in FIRST - by traveling as an individual and volunteering at different events. By volunteering at different off season events: Mission Mayhem, IRI, and Brunswick Eruption, I learned a lot about the teams that compete at the events and about the host teams and the communities that they are a part of. I also learned about the importance and value of teams participating in off season events. By volunteering at different regionals: Lone Star, Florida, OKC - I learned about the different venues, the communities, and the teams that participated. By volunteering at the Championship, I learned even more, esp. as an FTC volunteer, gaining a perspective in that. What I try to do with those experiences is share them. I share them with the team I'm a member of and I share them with teams in our community. The goal is to help strengthen the area, making it more robust.

We can all find ways to deepen our experiences and understanding, but we have to make the effort. It takes effort, commitment, accountability, and patience. A great sense of humor comes in handy, too.

Jane

[FRC4ME]

For the record, I didn't understand the values of FIRST until my first regional either. Then, after witnessing one competition, I was absolutely blown away by the level of cooperation and the sense of community. I immediately "got" gracious professionalism without ever being taught the formal definition of that term (in fact, I still couldn't recite the formal definition). The biggest "wow" for me was when I watched a team in the finals use their own timeout to go fix the robot of the opponent they were about to battle for the win. Just watching that was enough; no one needed to explain to me why it was occurring.

What I'm getting at is that it's the community (i.e. us), not the mentors of one specific team, who is responsible for spreading the real meaning of FIRST.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by FRC4ME

For the record, I didn't understand the values of FIRST until my first regional either. Then, after witnessing one competition, I was absolutely blown away by the level of cooperation and the sense of community. I immediately "got" gracious professionalism without ever being taught the formal definition of that term (in fact, I still couldn't recite the formal definition). The biggest "wow" for me was when I watched a team in the finals use their own timeout to go fix the robot of the opponent they were about to battle for the win. Just watching that was enough; no one needed to explain to me why it was occurring.

What I'm getting at is that it's the community (i.e. us), not the mentors of one specific team, who is responsible for spreading the real meaning of FIRST.

This is true but if new teams and even older teams can develop their program and strengthen it before the competition, that strengthens the competition. In some regionals recently, there have been many rookie teams participating. It is wonderful to see the veteran teams help the rookies and others, but it would also be helpful to have support in place during pre-build season and/or build season - not just at the competitions.

If you are at an event and there is a split of understanding, that is difficult to overcome. The division/split/misunderstandings can be eased through earlier training, off seasons, teams having fun together designing and implementing some team building exercises/workshops alongside the workshops in the technical side of things.

Jane

[gvarndell]

I'm not sure yet exactly why, but this thread confuses me and makes me uncomfortable.
As I read and re-read, trying to come to grips with what doesn't feel right about it (the whole thread that is), I noticed Jane Young's sig.
So far, this thread seems a little short on that kind of positive energy.
I suppose it's a requirement that, before we can start fixing things, we need to spend some time lamenting what needs to be fixed -- maybe even allow ourselves to feel melancholy about it for a while.
Increased numbers of new students increases the likelihood that some of them will exercise poor judgment and brashly display it here on these forums.
Uh, so what?
New teams will fail or succeed.
Again, so what?
Celebrate those that succeed.
I guess I'm just not seeing where this is headed.
I should probably just watch and see.

[FRC4ME]

I agree that FIRST should focus on sustainability before growth. It is understandable that Dean and others want to see FIRST grow as quickly as possible - and the speed at which it has done so in recent years is truly remarkable - but we must ensure the core values and spirit of the program are not forgotten in the excitement.

On the bright side, the total number of teams participating continues to increase at a healthy rate. 2008 saw 1,508 teams competing, while 2009 saw 1,677. Given the poor economic conditions of those years, one might expect the number to have decreased this year. In fact, it increased to 1,811. I have posted a graph of total participation in the past fourteen years. The number has never decreased from one year to the next, and the graph is quite linear, implying a stable, steady rate of growth.

What is alarming is how quickly team numbers are increasing with respect to number of teams. A growth rate of 100-200 teams per year is fine. It would be nice if that was composed of 200 teams with a 90% success rate rather than 500 teams with a 40% success rate.

One thing I will say is that the spirit of FIRST, in my opinion, is still thriving. Maybe CD is getting a little too cranky. But at VCU last weekend, I still saw veteran representatives in every rookie pit, I still saw teams helping out their opponents, and I still saw victims of unfortunate circumstances on the field let it go and remember that the robots aren't important. This year, my team was both one of those that needed help, and provided help. We got 3361 up and running. And when we were frantically trying to pass inspection at lunch time on Friday, we must have had representatives from four or five teams surrounding us.

Gracious professionalism is alive and well. Such an amazing value system doesn't need perfect management to stay alive.

[Fe_Will]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I think you'll find that many of the mentors who post here have expressed concerns over the way FIRST is growing. Instead of looking to sustainability, they are looking toward growth.

I can't remember who said it, but they said something like "I'd take 1 good, sustainable new team over 100 new ones any day".

Growth for the sake of growth is not progress. It is quantity at the expense of quality. FIRST's #1 goal should be working with new teams to reduce the incredible infant-mortality rate we're seeing among new teams. That doesn't mean handing them money, either, as is so often the "fix" in this day and age.

To me, it means putting certain very strict guidelines in place for starting new teams - guidelines that reinforce and confirm that the team has what it takes - especially in the mentor department - to get it off the ground.

I think it all goes back to what Dean has been saying, "We get what we celebrate." As long as one of the main rubrics for Chairman's is how many FRC, FTC & FLL programs a team starts this trend will continue. Sometimes I wonder how much mentoring really went into a team started this way and how much of it was, "Hey, here's this thing called FRC and its really cool and here's some money, have fun and we'll see you at the regional." I know that the majority of teams only know why a CA team won by the introduction at the awards ceremony. How can we expect to have teams not go out in droves and start teams without the proper guidance and support when all they hear is starting teams = Chairman's?

I was excited when the kickoff speeches were finally geared towards sustainability. I was less than impressed that the tone didn't seem to make it past Saturday afternoon.

Some thought provoking questions:

1. Do you know the name and contact information for your regional director?
2. Do you know the name and contact information for any team within a hour of your location?
3. Can you point out the adult leader for each team at your local regional?
4. Do you know at least two people on your local regional planning committee that aren't your regional director?

I don't think that FIRST is going to get better with a top down solution alone, it is going to take a grass roots effort to strengthen teams. That starts by teams getting off their "islands", self imposed or otherwise.

[rob_c]

I have to agree with there seeming to be a lack of focus upon the core principles of FIRST, especially with GP. I am currently in my forth year in FIRST, and am a founding member of my team. In our infancy, T.A.T. was a team which tried to promote FIRST as an educational experience where students could come in and learn to appreciate how to use science and technology to solve a problem. In our first two years (somehow) we won first and second place at VCU, respectively. In our third year, we fell apart. There has been much debate amongst our team as to why we were not able to perform at our best for lunacy, and why we did so badly. It has taken me this long to finally realize that its because we, as a team, forgot about the true purpose of FIRST.
Now, in this forth year, we are still struggling with what it means to be a part of FIRST. I was one of the candidates selected by my team for the Dean Kamen Award, and one of the things I was asked by the individuals writing the essay was to "define Gracious Professionalism". I responded:

The entire idea behind the concept of gracious professionalism is to promote the idea that a team doesn’t have to win the competition, and be the number one team to win FIRST. Gracious professionalism is, effectively, the means to prove to everyone that all the participants in FIRST are winners in their own right, and that you don’t need to build the best performing robot to be a winner.

It has taken me 4 years to have it sink in, but FIRST is not about being first at competition, it isn't about winning. FIRST glorifies the fact that by having completed the build season, and by showing up at competition, you have already won. I am currently faced with the task of getting this point across to the rest of my team.
The thing that I find most ironic about this whole thing, though, is that in the opening video to kickoff last year, there was a quote being said, I believe by Dean, that "FIRST is much more than just building robots"... I don't know how many other teams are willing to admit to the fact that they have lost sight of what FIRST is about, but I will firmly state that I prefer FIRST as it is meant to be, focusing on inspiring students to be creative, and to approach a difficult problem using their innovation, as well as the resources technology provides for us today; while at the same time being conscious of everyone else around us, and being willing to help everyone else get to the point of being able to accomplish this difficult task.

I feel that some of this may not come through as I had intended it. If you would like to make comments on this, or if you would like to offer advice, I am open to suggestions and criticism - I would ask that you PM me over posting to this thread, though. I am still learning what FIRST is, but I feel that it is my duty as a highly involved student on my team to try to remind my team what we should be focusing on.

Rob.

[Jay Trzaskos]

*****Another Rant, it's a little harsh*****


Just to bring this topic back to light because of something mentioned during Kickoff, here's a quick pop-quiz for all you FIRST-a-holics.

How many teams are actively participating in LOGOMOTION, 4 years later?

Answer: Just over 2000

In what year did FRC reach it's 2000th team?

Answer: 2007

How many rookies are there for the 2011 season?

Answer: Approximately 400


For those of you stumped on the point of this, 1/5 of all teams competing this season are rookies!!!!! STOP the unchecked growth and look towards sustainability for a change.

If you want to put an FRC team in every American high school, more power to you. If you think that it's going to happen in the next 10 years, you're simply being ignorant. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this program expand. But at what cost are we expanding? Just because school X has FRC team 3### for 1-2 years doesn't count as putting a team in that school.

It seems that by trying to reach Dean's goal as quickly as possible we're really just leaving students behind.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Jay Trzaskos

It seems that by trying to reach Dean's goal as quickly as possible we're really just leaving students behind.

It's my personal opinion that we are not reaching Dean's goal as quickly as we should be. If you look at FIRST as an investible business it actually looks fairly poor. The # of teams added every year is fairly static, and in an organization that should benefit from social growth rates, it doesn't.

I think you feel a close connection to FIRST and I do to, but it was a game of numbers. I think there is a small percentage of people who will be impacted by first, and I don't believe that the # of teams has any impact on that %. I actually love to see FIRST separating itself from an agenda, realizing that the less of an agenda it has, the greater impact it will have. Some schools will embrace FIRST, and some won't, but by getting a team into a school for a year or two, you give them the chance.

If FIRST was to check its growth as you are implying it would fall into the chasm(see moore's book crossing the chasm). Right now you see first trying to expand from the early adopters to the early majority. It knows that it will have to abandon some of the early adopters and innovators in order to achieve the goals it wants.

I believe you feel the way you do about FIRST because it had an impact on you, but again it think it was just a #s game and you were one of the few. Growth will allow for more cases like you. I feel that a lot of people get caught up in the religion of FIRST because of the impact it had on them, and believe that's the right impact. I disagree and argue that we should approach FIRST with open eyes and let it have any impact it can, rather than a strong specific impact on a few. The marketing, business, and legal lessons that can be learned from FIRST can shape individuals just as much as the STEM.

[IKE]

To this day, I have never met a student that felt that FIRST was a complete waste of his/her time. I am not saying they don't exist. I just have never met one. I have met a couple thousand students from a couple hundred teams that got something more out of the program than they would playing a video game at home with their friends. I have met teams that only ran for one year. I have met teams that continue to struggle. I have helped with teams that eventually went under (249 Robodawgs).
If you are truly concerned about things. Find some of those 1 year wonders and talk to them about their experience. Was it leadership, was it money, was it ??? Better yet, do a large sample (100+) that way anecdote may actually be considered data, and see what you can do about fixing the conditions that lead to these teams demise.
Even your worst case hypothetical "win at all cost" team, is still likely better (when measured against FIRST ideals of GP, and Inspiriation towards Science and Technology" than they were the year before they had a team.

It is good to be aware of possible issues in the community, but some of it may also be a change in the way you are seeing things.

When you are little and you go to the carnival, everything is magical. All the games look winnable. And the rides look fun. Get a little bit older, and you start to learn that the relativley simple games are actually much more difficult than they seemed, and the rides just don't have the same thrill. Go to the Carnival after getting your ME degree, and you begin to get scared for the people riding "the bullet" as you know that thing has been taken apart and put back together more times than intended and currently has 50% of its original fasteners. Guess what, the carnival didn't change.

Same is often true of your first "real" job, your FIRST Robotics team, or even relationships. Its difficult to see the faults early on. After a while, it is difficult not to focus on the faults.

[mathking]

For the past couple of years, I have been involved with the Central Ohio Robotics Initiative in an attempt to increase the number of teams in Central Ohio involved in FIRST. I have been a mentor for (here you go Dean FIRST team 1014 since 2003. I also coach cross-country and track & field. All of these experiences have given some insights on why it is hard to grow FIRST (I don't think we have anything like unchecked growth, more like growth just barely larger than required to maintain health) and why it is hard to sustain a team.

#1 - The most obvious: It's expensive to run a FIRST team. It is relatively easy to get funding to start a team, but sustaining one past the first year or two gets harder. In the current economy (the one we had for the past few seasons) it is even harder. Though I will say that my own anecdotal evidence suggest that the record corporate profits for the past year or so is starting to turn that around a little bit. We actually got some sizable money from new corporate donors this year. Thanks largely to a large, motivated group of parents and members of our local business community. If you can get about 5 years (plus or minus) into the program you can develop some more sustainable funding. And hopefully enough cash to bridge the gap in tougher times.

#2 - It is intimidating to start a FIRST team. Even for trained engineers the technical aspects can be intimidating. For a lot of teachers it can be downright scary. For a lot of engineers the thought of working with a couple of dozen teenagers is pretty scary. For the most part, it is VERY hard to start a school based team without a teacher being responsible for it. When you do get a teacher over the initial fear, you have to work to keep that teacher involved, because replacements are hard to find. One of the most important things we have been trying to do with CORI is to help support new mentors. I know that if I resign as the track coach, they will find a replacement for me. If my co-adviser and I both resigned from coaching FIRST in the same year, the program might well die.

#3 - Finding mentors can be difficult. Particularly for a teacher already struggling with the thousand and one things needed to get a new team rolling. Once you find mentors, you have to be able to find people with whom you can work. If the adults don't get along things can go downhill quickly. (See #2: If the adult interactions get too stressful it is really hard to convince a teacher that all of the added work, responsibilities and stress are worth it.)

#4 - When the administration of a school or district changes, you never know how much support you are going to get. These kinds of changes happen every few years in most districts. The average tenure of a high school principal is fairly short and the average tenure of a superintendent is only a few years. When the support level changes it is really easy for a program to die.


I think that "team in every school" goal is the right one. In order to make sure that as many kids as possible have the opportunity to participate if they want to, we need to make FIRST ubiquitous. When we get to the point that starting a new school means "I need to hire a football coach, a track coach, a band director, a theater director, a robotics coach, ..." then we will be in the right position. But getting there is a long, hard road.

[Tom Line]

I think teams have a bit of a different opinion on what exactly defines sustainability.

While I've argued against unchecked growth in the past, I've also questioned my beliefs on the issue and come up with some questions that I can't satisfactorily answer.

I think people need to ask themselves: do I believe it's FIRST's responsibility to partially finance teams? In general I'd argue pretty heavily against it. However, when most people say that FIRST needs to help teams be more sustainable, they mean that FIRST needs to either support the teams financially or to lower the entry costs (which amount to the same thing).

That is the crux of the argument for me right now. FIRST offers enough incentives to join the program. If the learning and real world experience isn't enough, and the excitement and competition isn't enough, the scholarships and friendships certainly should be.

FIRST promotes sustainability by sustaining themselves - the parent organization. If someone can suggest a way to promote sustainability among teams that doesn't require FIRST to hand out more money in some way, then I suspect they'd jump onboard.

When FIRST says they want a team in every school, they mean it. If they had funding to make that happen overnight they would. They don't, so it's up to teams to do it themselves. I can't think of any other sport where the parent organization funds the teams. Even in highschool sports, the schools end up financially supporting the parent body, not the other way around.