Great job to everyone who was involved in pushing this legislation through.
I see 148 in the background, I’m not sure about the team on the left.
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/13937/
Does anyone have the specific details about the $1 million state donation ?
Andrew, I would say it’s 3005.
One, the school name on the whiteboard, and two, from taking a quick look at their website, I found this: http://www.robochargers.net/IMG_1468.jpg , which I’m pretty sure is the robot on the desk.
Great job to everyone who was involved in this! 
From what I understand it will be used two ways:
This was just what I heard while we were there. I haven’t seen any details of the roll-out.
Basically – $1 million will go straight to FIRST as registration fees. We will have 100+ new “one kit wonder” FRC teams. Hopefully someone has a plan to help them find corporate sponsors and engineers so they can build a sustainable program to survive the rigorous FRC. 148 will of course, do what we can; but I can’t help wishing that money was spent in other ways.
-John
Yes, it was 3005 who graciously welcomed everyone into their brand new STEM academy HS for this press conference. They had a great group of people there and the Robowranglers really enjoyed spending more time with them.
-John
Just a cautionary note as we discuss this -
while this is a welcome opportunity and initiative, nothing has been said as to addressing any of the actual mechanics of it that I’m aware of. We should be careful of unfounded speculation when discussing it.
As John says, the FRC program is rigorous and the teams that form must be able to be self-sustaining with the support of mentors, sponsorships, facilities, and interest.
I’d like to thank the members of FRC 3005 for hosting this press conference at their new STEM academy high school and also, FRC 148 for being there. You guys always put the p in professional and represent the robotics community and specifically, FRC, well.
Jane
I’m really surprised that the state of Texas (apparently) is choosing to send that money to an out-of-state organization when there’s the comparable VRC program that is run by a local Texas business which has all of the same goals as FRC/FTC and as a bonus supports jobs in Texas and tourism by holding their World Championship in Dallas. Seems like the VRC choice would have been a much better PR choice for local politicians.
I too would like to see more of this get applied to sustaining teams. While growth is good (and Texas has shown it has been leading in this for the past few years), being able to maintain a stable and sustaining team would be more beneficial to the FIRST community.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dave Flowerday again.
Also considering how much easier it is to have a sustainable VRC program than it is to have a sustainable FRC program. Teams with few mentors or teachers and only hand tools can be successful in VRC with only the $5000 the state is currently using to pay FRC reg fees, while those same teams would be competing hard against each other for limited sponsors, mentors, machining, and generally be of a less “competitive” quality than they would in FRC.
New teams are great, but sustaining old teams is greater…
Would it have anything to do with the difference between an organization and a business?
It is obvious that people have very strong opinions about the robotic competitions that are available. Here in Texas, there is another strong competition that is deserving of attention and monetary support - BEST. For that matter, there are several robotic programs in Texas and all have value and are capable of making inroads into the deficit that we face nationally regarding math, engineering, problem solving, science, and technology and people moving into those fields.
I’d hate to see this thread turn into another discussion arguing and/or promoting one competition over the other. It’s very clear on where several people stand - consistently so.
.02
Jane
I think Jane has hit the nail on the head – there is no one solution to this problem. The NASA Robotics Alliance is the model I would like to see adopted by more governmental agencies. They have been big supporters of FIRST, but they also support BEST, Botball, Robocup, the Trinity Fire-Fighting contest, VRC, and a bunch of others. STEM education/exposure is not a single problem with one solution, and I don’t understand why Texas, for example, doesn’t have a more sophisticated program for supporting the goal of STEM involvement for youth.
If spreading STEM was really the goal, shouldn’t Texas should be supporting all STEM programs and not just FIRST? This sort of narrowly-focused grant program is more disquieting than exciting.
I certainly hope not. The primary consideration should be finding the most efficient use of the tax dollars - most bang for the buck. If a business is providing a cheaper alternative than an organization, I see no reason why it should not be considered. Also, while FIRST itself may be non-profit, it is certainly tied closely to many for-profit businesses, and indeed many of FIRST’s decisions lately seem to be driven by the interests of those companies rather than what is best for the teams.
Anyway, to be more on-topic, I’ll go to this: the Chicago area tried a very similar experiment over the last few years, with After School Matters funding the registration fees for a bunch of new teams. The result has basically been what John is worried about - many (most?) of these teams show up at the regional not ready to compete, not very interested, and definitely not sustainable. They mostly disappear after a year or two. As I understand it, they’ve basically given up on this program because of these problems and will be using the funding in different ways this year, focusing on more fully funding a smaller number of teams that are more sustainable.
I don’t think that is just in Texas, Rick. Have any other states come forward with this type of money in support of strengthening and supporting the goal of STEM involvement for youth? Do any other states have this many options available to them? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m asking sincerely.
From a Texas starting point, I can look on a map and see the surrounding states and some of their surrounding states and I know that many of these states are struggling to establish support and working goals in these areas. I know states that are in early developmental stages in expanding these programs in their educational systems and on into their colleges. We see growth each year with the scholarships being made available for college applicants. In my opinion, that awareness is slow but is steadily making an impact.
I know this is exciting news and I am looking forward to learning more about it. I’m not going to point fingers or use should and shouldn’ts when we can look at this situation across the nation and across the globe and see that there is a tremendous need for this type of support everywhere in order to build a better, stronger, and healthier future for all of us.
Dave - I understand the concerns voiced and share many them. It is important that the leaders that can make a difference and create these incredible opportunities understand these concerns and be made aware of the risks that are involved when these concerns are not addressed. You’ll get no argument from me on that. There is a current thread here in CD regarding mentoring a team long distance. Yes, that is an option and can be very helpful, but the bottom line is that the team has to become self-sustaining and strengthen its ties to the community that it is a part of, using and sharing resources.
I am nowhere close to the decision makers on this deal but I have spoken with a few staff at the Texas Workforce Commission over the last four years at robotics related events. It is my belief that they indeed are aware of all of the following educational robotics programs: BEST, Botball, VEX, FIRST, MATE-ROV as well as related competitions associated with the Technology Student Association and the Texas Computer Educators Association. This was an informed decision and the case for funding could have been and likely was made by more than just representatives of FIRST. We can all speculate and justify choices for one or all of the above but a decision was made so let’s help develop a plan to make it a positive experience for all.
I can say that the Texas Institute for Educational Robotics here at Northwest Vista College will continue to seek funding to train teachers and provide summer camp experiences for students. We will also continue to develop opportunities for teams to attend local FIRST conferences to grow their team knowlege and skill set.
We need all veteran Texas teams to join 148 and others who have not yet posted on this thread to help mentor the new teams by providing workshops, shadowing sessions, …
Washington has a grant program for public high schools which was previously restricted to FIRST teams and is now part of a larger pool of funds for general STEM projects, which can include other robotics programs. This funding combined with corporate sponsorships – notably from Boeing – and a deeply committed volunteer base has grown high school youth robotics in the state from a dozen FRC teams in 2005 to more than 100 FRC, FTC and VRC teams today. As the state feels budget pressure, no one is sure how much of this funding the legislature is going to be able to preserve, so sustainability is becoming a bigger topic. Quite a number of schools are adding VEX to their tech education programs in the classroom, and are starting to add after-school VRC programs to go with it. Several FRC programs also field FTC and VRC teams.
The support is awesome. I’m hoping that the money spent will lead to sustained STEM programs. Like John, I’d like to see at least a portion of the funds targeted at embedding robotics in curriculum in a way that could lead to teams, but doesn’t necessarily HAVE to become an FRC registration. I can’t imagine the burden this may create for TX veteran teams, but I look forward to seeing the growth and how it all plays out.
Texas does have a more sophisticated program for supporting STEM education of it’s youth. Governor Perry mentions it in this statement which can also be viewed on the YouTube video. The Texas High School Project which is supported by the Gates Foundation as well as the Dell Foundation. A month ago, they announced a doubling of the T-STEM high school funding from 46 schools currently to fundinig to support 92 campuses. The creating of T-STEM support centers in Lubbock, Austin-San Antonio and elsewhere across the state, Texas Education Agency support of Project Lead the Way which has a training center at the University of Texas at Tyler. The PLTW courses are fully articulated into Texas Education Curriculum and many of the T-STEM campuses implement. Programs such as the Alamo Area Academies, listed on the Governor’s website, in which high school junior and seniors spend a half-day on a community college campus learning trades with the potential for paid summer internships leading to potential contiued employment, support of the National Manufacturers Association - Dream It! Do It! campaign to put mentors in schools working with students to pursue STEM careers in manufacturinig, TWC sponsorship of the Summer Merit Grantprogram which provides tuition assistance to students to attend summer STEM enrichment programs, …
So looking at this one instance of funding and support and not seeing support for another program of preference does not equate to a simplistic and narrow focus by the State government on the STEM education program.
Thank you for the clarification, Andrew.
Didn’t Texas have something like 30+ teams drop out of FIRST that participated in 2009?
Seems like if you know that there’s that much attrition it’s a really bad idea to just hand a bunch of new schools $6,000 and say “Here, have it at. Go start a FIRST team”.
Not quite 30,
1326 -
1867-
2157 -
2287-
2597 -
2664 -
2938 -
2991 -
3071 -
660 -
2721 -
2743 –
2948 –
2953 -
2981 –
3106 -
3035 –
3037 –
3043 –
Still a lot of teams that won’t be back for 2010. This goes along with JVN’s thinking.
