pic: Districts in Minnesota Flyer

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

In order to create a district, some amount of people in that area have to be sold on the idea of moving to a district.

The people who need to buy into implementing the district system are the people who will be implementing it. Artificially pumping up demand for it will not increase the speed at which it can be adopted.

If you want to make districts happen in an area you aren't actually helping to run, it doesn't seem productive to just start cheerleading without coordinating your message with the existing efforts and without taking into account what is actually possible given current and potential levels of support.

[Sean Schuff]

I've read the vast majority of the posts in this thread and perused the more long-winded ones and they cause some concern. My concern isn't over whether or not Minnesota or it's neighbors should move to a district model, rather it is the approach that is being taken.

Conversations regarding districts in Wisconsin have been going on for years among a variety of key stakeholders from both within and beyond our borders. There are benefits and drawbacks to both regional and district models and anyone can make a compelling argument for which side of the fence they fall on. Which is better will always remain a matter of opinion.

For those who are promoting districts, i ask you these simple questions: Is the approach you are taking the best way to accomplish your objectives? Would you be better served by speaking to FIRST leadership within your state and making your case there first? Are you fully aware of the inner workings of FIRST in your state and, if so, are you aware of conversations going on regarding this topic? Do you understand ALL of the structural and organizational differences between a regional model and a district model?

Yes, after school robotics programs just received a huge financial shot in the arm in Wisconsin but don't assume that all that funding is going solely to FRC teams. The law actually reads that the funds can be used for any type of robotics team. FIRST, VEX, Botball, BEST, and others are all programs schools can engage in and be eligible for matching funds. Even within the realm of FIRST, both FRC and FTC teams are eligible for funding. Please don't assume that $250,000 / $5,000 per team = 50 new teams.

Beyond these details, there is a plan of action being implemented by the Wisconsin FIRST EAB to expand participation in FIRST programs in the state. Lessons have been learned from the rapid expansion in Minnesota and we are working on a system that will mitigate some of the issues associated with those types of growing pains. Districts have been and will continue to be part of the discussion.

Conversations should continue but they must be with the appropriate parties and need to be civil and constructive. There are a lot of moving parts here. Trying to force the issue because someone thinks it's the best thing to do isn't the appropriate way to go about it.

[Monochron]

Maybe I'm taking crazy pills, but the "intent behind the flyer" seems perfectly clear to me and, actually, no one has really stated it yet. It looks like the intent is to

"Educate those familiar with FRC on the benefits to them in the District model in order to drum up grassroots support for a move to Districts."

That last part seems to be what people are overlooking (and perhaps forgetting to say in their anger?). I am guessing that the writers are looking to use an attractive flying to hook more people into the conversation about districts. They won't enter that conversation fully informed because the writers of the flyer know that that is now how people enter into public forums. I would love it if people entered all public forums fully informed of the nuances of issues, but that is unfortunately a very rare thing.
Their intent is to draw more people into the conversation. A flyer that details the arguments and counterarguments of either side isn't going to hold the attention of the masses like the one they created has.

Let's imagine someone reads the full flyer and believes it all as presented, assuming there are no downsides (similar to what people have suggested here). What is the last thing that the flyer asks them to do? To join the discussion! I am unfamiliar with how far "the discussion" has gotten in MN, but contacting the RPC about it seems like a good first step if that discussion hasn't started yet. And if it really hasn't started yet (not agreeing to transition, but earnestly discussing what it would take / pros and cons), then contacting the RPC may be the best way to start it.

No one believes that a bunch of people wanting Districts will just make it happen, but if enough people join the conversation, progress could be made.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Monochron

...
"Educate those familiar with FRC on the benefits to them in the District model in order to drum up grassroots support for a move to Districts."
...

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

If what you read in this thread led you make that assumption, that's understandable, but it shouldn't have. That's a wrong assumption.

Certainly any region's FRC teams will want to be educated consumers of, participants in , and/or contributors to their region's overall FRC program; but from what I hear, neither actual or hydroponic grassroots urging is needed to get this ball rolling. It's already rolling.

Blake

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by gblake

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

If what you read in this thread led you make that assumption, it shouldn't have. It's a wrong assumption.

Certainly any region's FRC teams will want to be educated consumers of, participants in , and/or contributors to their region's overall FRC program; but from what I hear, neither actual or astroturf grassroots urging is needed to get this ball rolling. It's already rolling.

Blake

I promised myself I wouldn't get heated in here again, but I want to be clear: the majority of Minnesota is not aware if the ball is rolling. I would actually hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a ball. We had a lovely chat about related topics privately, but the lack of communication regarding districts is a large part of why people think that flyers like this are necessary. You can claim that the ball is already rolling, but the fact is, as far as most people from MN are concerned, you're just some guy in Virginia making unsubstantiated claims about the state of districts here (which directly conflict with their experience). The people who most need convincing are the people who are least likely to believe you.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I promised myself I wouldn't get heated in here again, but I want to be clear: the majority of Minnesota is not aware if the ball is rolling. I would actually hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a ball. We had a lovely chat about related topics privately, but the lack of communication regarding districts is a large part of why people think that flyers like this are necessary. You can claim that the ball is already rolling, but the fact is, as far as most people from MN are concerned, you're just some guy in Virginia making unsubstantiated claims about the state of districts here (which directly conflict with their experience). The people who most need convincing are the people who are least likely to believe you.

I'm repeating what I have been told, because I believe it is true; and because I hope that anyone in MN who is interested will check to see if I'm right.

Checking to see if I'm right should be an easy thing to do, if people are willing to communicate with each other.

Blake
PS: Any of those folks you are referring to, who wants to ask me any question, is welcome to send me a PM.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Jon,
It is easy to lump teams together into one group but the reasons behind teams that are no longer in FRC is varied. One of the biggest is the reduction of money for anything but essential programs in school districts that are strapped for money. I can point to Chief Delphi and Huskie Brigade as one of those examples. Several Chicago Public School teams have disbanded as staff were reduced and schools closed. In many of these schools/school districts programs like band and orchestra have been eliminated as well. In smaller schools, getting a faculty member to take the team is also an issue as administrators are required to make decisions regarding what programs benefit the greatest number of students. Some schools that had multiple teams went down to just one. Some schools closed.
Money is also a factor, but considering the economic times we have weathered, I am actually surprised at the retention. The downturn in 2009 really hurt but we still kept a surprising number of teams.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by gblake

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

Given my knowledge prior to the regional, based on acquaintances experiences with the MN RPC, and my firsthand experience with the RPC during the event, this was my assessment.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

It is easy to lump teams together into one group but the reasons behind teams that are no longer in FRC is varied.

I agree Al. Slide six of this presentation has a breakdown of major reasons why the 10 teams in Indiana that did not reregister in 2014-2015 left the program: http://indianafirst.rarebirdinc.com/...esentation.pdf

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Given my knowledge prior to the regional, based on acquaintances experiences with the MN RPC, and my firsthand experience with the RPC during the event, this was my assessment.
...

OK - For many reasons that's understandable.

Getting confusion like that sorted out is good for everyone involved.

Blake

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Given my knowledge prior to the regional, based on acquaintances experiences with the MN RPC, and my firsthand experience with the RPC during the event, this was my assessment.



I agree Al. Slide six of this presentation has a breakdown of major reasons why the 10 teams in Indiana that did not reregister in 2014-2015 left the program: http://indianafirst.rarebirdinc.com/...esentation.pdf

Thanks for posting that. I'd like to point out page 8 of that presentation and the costs.

Under the Regional System they spent $245,000 producing 2 Regionals. Presumably all of that money was raised locally and FIRST did not have to step in to cover any short fall, but I do not know that for certain.

Under their first year in the District System they spent $90,000 producing 3 District events and the DCMP. They did also spend $23,000 on capitol expenditures and $40,000 on administrative costs for a grand total of $154,000 but $49,000 of that came from FIRST via their $1000 per team that the district serves.

So for this season it looks as though they only had to raise aprox $100,000 to cover the cost of the events and the administrative costs. Now some of that was likely due to the fact that the great people of AndyMark provided the use of a field perimeter and their facility for the shipping and recieving of the field elements, game pieces, awards, FMS, spare parts ect. I'm guessing that they also acted as the storage point for between events and in the off season, however they typically stored a field or two complete with the FMS so that those that want to have an off season event have a closer place to ship it from and back too.

So to recap even with the capitol expenditures in their first year they reduced their costs to ~43% of what was spent in the Regional system. Most of those capitol items will last for many seasons, some maybe in excess of 10 years. Yes there will be some replacements along the way but however you cut it in the long run it will be much cheaper than all the rental equipment that would have been required and of course were a part of the Regional budget.

Under the District System they spent

[maxnz]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

The majority of Minnesota is not aware if the ball is rolling. I would actually hazard a guess that most people don't even know there is a ball. We had a lovely chat about related topics privately, but the lack of communication regarding districts is a large part of why people think that flyers like this are necessary. You can claim that the ball is already rolling

I 100% agree with this. If we could make the process public, then people would know what to do to help get to the goal. Not trying to say that the RPC and MNFIRST are doing a bad job or anything, but it would be nice if it was more like how Frank has made FIRST.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by gblake

Your assessment seems to include an assumption that "drumming up grassroots support" is needed, and that without it MN folks might not begin carrying out a plan to implement "Districts".

If what you read in this thread led you make that assumption, that's understandable, but it shouldn't have. That's a wrong assumption.

It does not include that assumption. I was trying to describe the intent of the flyer makers. As I am in the NC District, I fully understand that grassroots support is not needed (it was nearly sprung on most of us in the 2015 build season). I do, however, think that it could be useful. Especially if there is a sizable group who oppose Districts in MN, or if no public discussion is happening there. If the state as a whole is already well underway discussing if and how it could be done, the people in this thread have hid that fact pretty well.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Sean Schuff

Conversations regarding districts in Wisconsin have been going on for years among a variety of key stakeholders from both within and beyond our borders. There are benefits and drawbacks to both regional and district models and anyone can make a compelling argument for which side of the fence they fall on. Which is better will always remain a matter of opinion.

Beyond these details, there is a plan of action being implemented by the Wisconsin FIRST EAB to expand participation in FIRST programs in the state. Lessons have been learned from the rapid expansion in Minnesota and we are working on a system that will mitigate some of the issues associated with those types of growing pains. Districts have been and will continue to be part of the discussion.

The key stakeholders are the teams. They are the customer and all decisions affect them. So I would have to argue that Wisconsin has not been in discussions for a number of years with key stakeholders because the teams have not been notified of said discussions.

If any region is seriously considering moving to districts, and I believe all should, the teams need to be notified and kept abreast of the situation. And when those in charge feel road blocks or issues arise the teams need to know about them, especially if it is something as trivial as "need more volunteers". Each team has mentors on it from all different professional backgrounds and have knowledge and experience that needs to be taken advantage of to move FIRST into a better future.

I believe that this flyer is a great resource to do that. Does it have all the information from both sides? Of course not, no one would read it and it would be to jumbled a mess. But it does get the conversation started, and gets the word out about what districts can mean for low income teams. If it motivates people to contact their RPC and get more involved or start volunteering than this flyer and other like it are a huge success.

Semi secret meetings about the future of FIRST in regions benefits no one and especially those that you feel you are helping, the CUSTOMER.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

Semi secret meetings about the future of FIRST in regions benefits no one and especially those that you feel you are helping, the CUSTOMER.

Back in 2012, lead mentors go this email from FIRST CA RD's

Hello FRC Team Leaders,

Welcome back to another school year and another season of FIRST Robotics. Jim Beck and I, along with the rest of the Regional Directors, had a very productive and informative meeting in June back at FIRST headquarters in Manchester. FIRST has completed a very comprehensive strategic plan which provides many new opportunities and challenges for us all. One of these, which has an effect on all of us, is the FRC competition model. As many of you know, Michigan has piloted a district competition model for the last few years as well as the Mid-Atlantic Region last year. This ‘District’ type model has proven effective and is one that FIRST would like to see more regions adopt moving forward, with the hopes that all areas meeting the qualifications will follow this model in the future.

California, which has the largest concentration of FIRST teams in the nation, is being considered by FIRST to adopt this model sooner than later. It is anticipated that we will present a California model to FIRST based closely on the current district model in the near future. That being said, there is no doubt that this is going to take a lot of effort on everyone’s part but it is certainly the hope that once adopted a California model will allow for more robot play ,with less travel and thus lowering the cost and improving the overall experience of FRC for California teams.

We know that there are and will be many questions as we consider this model and this is why we have asked FIRST headquarters to come out and present to all of the California teams. The presentation will be conducted by Roseann Stevens - VP of Field Operations, Steve Chism - SVP/CAO and Andrea Winegar - National Grants Program Manager and will cover what this model looks like, what next steps are and any questions you may have. In an effort to accommodate all the teams, we will be holding the same presentation in four cities throughout the state (San Jose, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego).

We are inviting up to three adult members from each California team to attend one of the four presentations. It will be up to you to determine which of the four locations will work best for you to attend. We would really like to see representation from each team so please make every effort to have at least one representative from your team attend one of the presentations. Below you will find the date, time and location for each presentation. Please click on the link below and fill out the quick form to let us know who will be attending from your team and which location you intend to attend we would greatly appreciate it for planning purposes.

Should you have any question please do not hesitate to contact Jim Beck in Northern California, [snip] or David Berggren in Southern California, [snip]. We are very excited about the future of FRC in California and the California FRC model, and look forward to seeing all of you at the presentations. Thank you.

I attended this meeting near Sacramento in October 2012.

Not a lot has happened since then (that I'm aware of), and even less has been communicated to teams regarding future plans.

No one has told me we need more volunteers, more venues, or more funding for anything on the horizon in CA FIRST's plans.

If CA switches, we'll host an event. I already offered to our RD's to host the Sac Regional in 2017 since we're leaving UC Davis (to expensive!), but haven't heard back. We hosted CCC 2015 at our school fairly easily this past fall. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to host an event.

Personally, I don't want to fight for districts in CA with RD's who might loose their jobs if/when we make the switch. I'll let someone else wade into that mire.

Until CA FIRST says "here's what we are planning, here's what we need, who can help?", I'll continue to put my time and energy towards helping people who are receptive to my input. 1678 and our 24 new FLL teams in Davis (soon to transition to Vex IQ!) is not a bad place to start.

The sad part is, I want districts for every other team in CA, not my own. We have all our competition fee's covered by one sponsor, so three events in NorCal for $13,000 isn't too bad for us. It's the rest of the teams we play with that suffer under this outdated system, where hundreds of thousands of dollars that should go to STEM get burned on Union A/V crews and expensive venues.

Wake up sheeple!

-Mike

[bduddy]

^ Was there no announcement about districts at SVR this year? I left early...

There have been vague announcements a couple times in the past. My joke was that this year was the 5th annual 2nd-to-last SVR ever.