Here are just some of the ideas that StudentsFIRST is exploring. We want to know what you think! Please complete our January survey here: https://forms.gle/DZp53dHPvC3Vqct49
Survey Results
Here are the questions and results from our January survey as of Jan 17, 2024. So far we have received 63 responses
I think FIRST needs a Code of Conduct for adults so all teams have more equitable adult involvement.
56.5% Strongly agree
17.7% Agree
8.1% Strongly disagree
To address the problem of some teams getting more mentor support than others, I think we should: Note: respondents were allowed to select all the options they liked.
44.1% Limit adult involvement by saying adults can only build up to 50% of the robot
32.2% Limit adult involvement by saying adults can’t touch the robot or the keyboard
32.2% Create an adults FRC league so very enthusiastic mentors can go compete against eachother
Who is answering the survey?
54% students
38% mentors
Others: FIRST Volunteers, coaches, parents, alums.
Leagues
One option we are talking about is having 2 FRC Leagues.
The “A” League would include students and adults, with a cap on adult involvement of some kind. When students graduate they would have the option to fill out a survey for FIRST to report the amount of mentor involvement on the team. If mentor involvement exceeds the cap according to student reports, adults would need to move to the “B” League that is for adults.
The “B” League would be for adults and would not require any student involvement, although “B” League teams could choose to have students on them if they wanted to.
This solution addresses the problems of adult over-involvement and students not learning. It allows enthusiastic adults an outlet to continue to build robots and be a part of the FIRST community. Also, this option could increase FIRST’s revenue. If FIRST is looking to grow the program, inviting adults to participate in a fair way is a great way to do it!
With a cap on mentor involvement for the “A” Team, you would have competitions that are more fair. The FRC current model breeds cynicism for both adult-led (competitive) teams and student led (learning) teams. Students on competitive, adult-led teams are cynical because they didn’t build the robots. At worlds last year not all of my teammates cheered at our successes or were sad when we were eliminated. My mom overheard one student say, “Why should we care? It’s not like we built it [the robot].” Likewise, student-led learning teams actually care about the outcomes of competitions, they’re learning a lot, and yet they lose competitions, so they become cynical too.
The Leagues solution also addresses the issue of misuse of funds. One school district sometimes pours as much as $75,000 a year into a robotics team which primarily benefits adults. I’m sure the taxpayers would disagree with that use of funding. Adult-led programs also misuse funds from sponsors, since again the funds are supporting adult activities rather than students. So many other programs at schools are 100% student led. It is unfair that adult-focused robotics teams are sucking resources away from other school programs that are actually run by and benefit students.
Cap on Adult Involvement
Another idea is to put a cap on mentor involvement. Of course, this would be difficult if not impossible to police. FIRST could say mentors can only build 50% of the robot, or FIRST could say only student hands can touch the robot or the keyboard. On one team, a coach will disappear with the robot for a couple of days and bring it back mostly completed. The work isn’t even happening on school grounds. With other teams, adults never touch their robot or the keyboard. Learning-focused teams teach the kids how to do things or how to look it up and find the answers, building problem solving skills and self sufficiency.
Code of Conduct for Adults
While most teams have books of guidelines for students, mentors and coaches often are not given parameters for their involvement or behavior. One way to reign in adult over-involvement would be for FIRST, or for individual teams, to create a Code of Conduct for Adults.
Here’s a DRAFT code of conduct for adults based on an anonymous survey of students on Team 2910.
Code of Conduct for Coaches and Mentors on a FIRST Robotics Team
Mentors and coaches play a crucial role in leading and guiding students on a FIRST robotics team. To ensure a positive and respectful learning environment, mentors and coaches should adhere to the following code of conduct:
- Prioritize Student Learning: Coaches and mentors shall prioritize the students’ learning experience in all aspects of the FIRST Robotics program, ensuring that they are actively engaged and encouraged to take an active role in the design, construction, and problem-solving processes.
- Encourage Open Communication: Create an environment where students feel comfortable expressing their ideas, concerns, and questions. Mentors and coaches should actively listen and provide constructive feedback.
- Respect Personal Boundaries: Respect the physical, emotional, and mental boundaries of every student. Do not engage in any form of abusive, insulting or belittling behavior, harassment, or discrimination. Allow students to take time off for physical injuries and mental health issues without punishment or other retaliation. Do not train only one student for a task and then overwork them. Train many students and allow them to share the learning and the workload.
- Manage Conflicts Effectively: If conflicts arise among students, mentors, or coaches, address them promptly and fairly. Encourage peaceful resolutions and model effective conflict resolution strategies. Do not avoid resolving a conflict by violating people’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
- Facilitate Skill Development: Coaches and mentors should facilitate the development of technical and problem-solving skills among the students, empowering them to take ownership of their learning and growth. They should guide, teach, and mentor, rather than engage in student tasks or take over the design/building process.
- Collaborative Decision Making: Coaches and mentors shall foster an environment of open communication and collaborative decision making. Students should be encouraged to express their ideas and opinions, and their contributions should be valued, acknowledged, and seriously considered during any decision-making process.
- Encourage Active Participation: Coaches and mentors should actively involve students in all aspects of the robot design, construction, programming, and strategy. It is crucial to provide opportunities for the students to apply their knowledge and skills independently, with guidance and support when necessary. Encourage equal participation and ensure that every student feels valued and heard.
- Lead by Example: Coaches and mentors shall demonstrate positive attitudes, ethical behavior, and professionalism. Team members should look up to them as role models, observing how they interact, communicate, and problem-solve. Coaches and mentors must emphasize integrity, respect, and cooperation in all team activities.
- Provide Structured Learning Opportunities: Coaches and mentors should organize and provide structured learning opportunities, such as workshops, tutorials, and presentations, to enhance students’ technical and soft skills. These opportunities should focus on enabling students to take on more responsibilities as the season progresses. Offer guidance and resources to help students develop their technical and non-technical skills. Provide opportunities for growth and encourage self-improvement.
- Empower Team Leadership: Coaches and mentors should empower students to take on leadership roles within the team, allowing them to make decisions, delegate tasks, and provide guidance to their peers. This promotes team building skills, boosts self-confidence, and ensures a student-led environment. In order to provide the most access to leadership opportunities, each student should only have one leadership or key position on the team at a time. When multiple leadership positions are held by one student, it may be easier for the adults but it deprives other students of learning opportunities.
- Regularly Assess Student Progress: Coaches and mentors should regularly assess the progress of each student, ensuring they are challenged appropriately and encouraged to reach their full potential. Individual feedback, evaluation, and recognition of accomplishments are key elements in their growth and development.
- Regularly Assess Coach and Mentor Involvement: Students should regularly assess the coaches, mentors and robotics program as a whole to ensure the program is student centered and that coaches and mentors are fulfilling their responsibilities on the team.
- Show Kindness and Respect: Mentors and coaches are expected to demonstrate kindness, respect, and professionalism toward students. Mentors and coaches should show some degree of deference to the students because this is a student-led team, so students and their ideas should be respected. Mentors and coaches should exemplify the behavior they expect from students. Students should be treated with dignity and respect. Adults should create space for student voice and agency.
- Maintain Professional Boundaries: Coaches and mentors must maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students, ensuring a safe and respectful learning environment. They should avoid favoritism, inappropriate personal relationships, and any behavior that may compromise the well-being and trust of the team members.
Every mentor and coach should review, understand, and agree to abide by this code of conduct. It is essential to create an atmosphere of kindness, respect, and learning where students can thrive and develop into their full potential.
This code of conduct is recommended on this day, ________________________. Students should review mentor and coach progress in one year, on _________________________. If students determine that adequate progress has not been made after one year, the Principal should institute an adult ombudsman to facilitate the resolution of student concerns.
FIRST Student Involvement Ombudsman
We are also discussing the possibility of a Student Involvement Ombudsman that students can go to for help if students are deprived of learning due to adult over-involvement and adults will not allow student input on the issue so it can be addressed within the team.
While the YPP is great, adult-overreach isn’t really a safety issue.
Preventing Adult Overreach
Some teams will slide into a symbiotic student-mentor relationship with no conflict or angst. Rather than just hope that you have one of those teams, we recommend that each team has a meeting at the start of the season where students can freely discuss their hopes and expectations for their involvement with the team. Students should be able to say how much they want the mentors to do versus how much they want the mentors to teach. Students should also have a say in:
How many mentors are on the team? It is possible to have too many mentors.
Do mentors need to meet any requirements for knowledge about robotics or for teaching skills?
If mentors overreach over the course of the season, how can they be reigned in?
Do mentors make all the decisions about leadership and drive team positions on the team, or are some students involved in making those decisions as well?
It is also important to have a plan for if a mentor oversteps mid-year. One great suggestion I heard was to have an adult Ombudsman who students can speak to, and then that Ombudsman communicates concerns to the coaches and mentors and facilitates a resolution. A very helpful and kind adult offered to hold this role on our team, but the existing, dominant mentors shut him down.
Be cautious of adults steering the team’s goal setting by asking students to choose a goal for the year among several preset options. For example, if adults ask you if you want to win worlds, be in the top 10 at worlds, or make it to regionals, none of those options prioritize student learning or experience. Later the adults may defend their overreach by saying, “Well, you said your priority is winning!” Meanwhile, students thought their learning and experience were a given but they were not.