FIRST and Obama's Innovation Strategy

FIRST General Forum
1

Will FIRST be part of the program announced by the White House today?

A Strategy for American Innovation

The proposed program invests $100B in Recovery Act funds in the areas of Research and Development, Education (including STEM), and infrastructure. The white paper specifically calls out improvements in STEM education. It’s not clear whether Innovation Strategy includes or augments the budget for the Race to the Top Fund.

Imagine how many more students could participate in FIRST if $20M were made available for grants. That’s only 0.5% of the $4B proposed budget augmentation for education, the same percentage NASA obtains from the Federal budget.

Is it time to start a letter writing campaign to our representatives?

2

Race to the Top is mentioned in this document on the Innovation Strategy web page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/sept_20__innovation_whitepaper_final.pdf

An interesting read. These are the kind of promises the President made during campaigning that I’m expecting him to fulfill.

3

I don’t know if the White House has specifically focused on FIRST, but … I want to state what I know.

Our team has been building a relationship with our Congressional Representative for quite a while and recently during the Congressional break we had an extremely excellent and productive meeting with him. One of the things that makes this very important is that this Congressman is the co-chair of the bi-partisan Congressional Robotics Caucus.

He asked for and we provided him with suggestions for things Congress could do to promote FIRST. He also asked us to consider presenting to the Caucus and we are working on putting that together.

In the meantime, Dean Kamen is scheduled to present to the same committee on October 15th. There may be members from few teams in attendance for support but I do not know this for fact.

We have been considering asking teams around the country to give a presentation similar to the one we gave to committee co-chair. Events are pushing things along so here goes.

If your or someone you know would like to present to a caucus member please email me for more information. The list of caucus members are below. You can present what ever you want but I would ask to do a presentation very similar to what we did. It is an executive level presentation that moves quickly and takes only about 15 minutes after introductions are done.

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
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

4

:slight_smile:

My man, Tim Ryan. We don’t need to convince him to promote FIRST. Having been hooked by 48 and other local teams, he already secured $150k plus in grant funding for local FIRST expansion, which, in conjunction with immediate startup support from 48 and other NEOFRA teams, has led to 3 new FRC teams, a new FTC team, 7+ new FLL teams, and has provided supplemental funding to existing teams, with extra to spare.

In our case, the grant funding is being administered by the Trumbull County Educational Service Center, and as a byproduct, they are learning more about FIRST and developing ways to foster connections, collaboration, and resource sharing among local teams. NEOFRA’s will be done. :slight_smile:

5

Team 1987 sent around 400 letters to all of our reps and all the way to the top and the Ed. Department and Science and Technology organizations in the new cabinet stressing FIRST and the need for it and why it fits in the STEM program. Got a few notes back even!

6

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.

7

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?

8

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

.

9

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?

10

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.

11

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.

12

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

13

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

14

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.

15

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.

16

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.

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

.

17

If your or someone you know would like to present to a caucus member please email me for more information. The list of caucus members are below. You can present what ever you want but I would ask to do a presentation very similar to what we did. It is an executive level presentation that moves quickly and takes only about 15 minutes after introductions are done.

ebarker, do you have links to your executive level presentation? Would love to adapt it for our use if that is OK with you.

Thanks

18

extremely ok. give me a couple of days to post it.

we have been in a mad scramble for months. we were going to do a video version but the day our shoot was going to happen got rescheduled 3 times for different things we had to do. After GRITS it looked like we would get a breather but right now Atlanta is really wet, schools are closed, people are spread around. it is a mess.

19

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.

20

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.