A Letter to Seacrest
"Bill Foster"
"Dr. Lynne Powell" ; "Marty Durham" ; "Basye" ; "Sibylle Baumgartner" ; "Bodell" ; "James Borden" ; "Brashares" ; "Brashares" ; "Bill Brock" ; "Brown"
; "Daniel Burzynski" ; "Decker" ; "Kandel" ; "Max" ; "Max2" ; "Miller" ; "Mary Zoe Bowden" ; "Tenreiro" ; "Tenreiro" ; eduffy@seacrest.org; "Nick Bodell" ; "Jeffrey Brashares" ; swan5206@kettering.edu; "Tim Durham" ; mzbowden@seacrest.org; eduffy@seacrest.org; mbowden@seacrest.org; "martyathome" ; "Lisa Brock" ; "Sibylle Baumgartner"
To the Math Teacher of Seacrest High School
You have insulted your students and me beyond belief through your actions this season. I volunteered my services on the understanding that we would work together to mentor the students of this team to build a robot. I assumed that you actually had understood the purpose and goals of FIRST were to inspire and recognize science and technology. I had great hopes when you explained that these were bright, resourceful students that would be able to reach for the stars, and when you quoted the great Woodie Flowers on Gracious Professionalism. I have been astonished on how you have shown even less Gracious Professionalism that I had even thought possible from a teacher of a prestigious school which prides itself on focusing on the students.
You ignored my pleas to gather more help, and instead chose to lead this project alone. You rejected my years of knowledge and experience for your own selfish control. There were offers of help from other FIRST TEAMS, local engineers, and even other teachers at Seacrest, which you rejected because this was "your project" and "your class." Though I acknowledge that there is always some one person in charge of each robotics TEAM, what makes FIRST successful is the combination of engineers and students and teachers working together as a TEAM. This is the first point at which you failed. You chose to split the TEAM into two rival groups so that you would have more control over them. You further instructed them to not listen to my guidance if it went against your wishes. Finally, you threatened them with failure of the class if they refused to go along with your plans. I do not see these actions as gracious, professional, or even worthy of an outstanding teacher such as you. I furthermore don't think that this falls in line with the Seacrest Philosophy, from the little that I know about it.
Secondly, you refused to let the students build the robot that they wanted to build. I had little influence on the design of the robot. The goals that were selected by popular vote of the students were to A) Shoot 3 point balls, B) Pick up balls from the floor, C) Be able to get balls from the Human Player Station. The TEAM picked these goals, not myself. My ideal robot would have been simply to get balls from the HP station and shoot, and skip the 1 point balls altogether. Obviously the final design did not represent my beliefs. The students designed each component of the robot themselves, from the 6 Wheel Drivetrain voted on by all of the students, to the Picking mechanism designed by Peter and Blake, to the Shooting mechanism designed by Tenreiro, Baumgartner, and Brashares.
I did select motors and transmission options for these mechanisms by myself, since you neglected to teach them about these things. I helped guide and encourage the students along their design process to get to the visions that they created for themselves, but I never made them do anything that they didn't want to do themselves. I even took sketches drawn by the students and created a CAD model with them to better visualize what the students wanted.
Your third failure was a failure to communicate with your peer mentor, me. You decided that your word was final and that I had nothing to say about the matters such as TEAM unity, structure, or schedules. I was not informed of this opinion until your idea of the smaller subteams had frustrated the students to the point that I was forced to confront you about it. After this confrontation, I called a meeting of the entire team so that we could clear up the complaints that the students had been imploring me to tell you about, including your dismissal of some students as "slackers" and "looking to get a free pass" which you confided in me. I personally believe that you are wrong about this point, and instead think that the timidness of certain students comes from shyness. You responded to this situation by telling the students that they either come every day or fail the class, or stick with the "Alpha" and "Beta" teams, which incidentally, is quite insulting to the students. Needless to say, the students voted 10-1 to have "Mandatory Every Other Day" vs. "Mandatory Every Day." You further sent an email behind my back misrepresenting the situation as me forcing a design on the students. You further stated that "There should be no doubt in the students’ minds as to who is the adult in charge of this endeavor."
A further email states that "15 people working in such a small space with power tools and a powerful robot quickly became an unsafe situation. This alone would be reason enough to split the class into two smaller teams." I counter this argument by saying that there have been TEAMS of 60 or more students working in the same amount of space that we had, with hardly more than a scratch, cut, or scrape to show for it. The difference is leadership. The students had no leadership except for the meager amounts that you and I provided. They needed more guidance.
Time management is also important. I personally participated in Robotics in High School while also being captain of my Quiz Bowl team, playing in Marching Band, holding a part time job, and still somehow having enough time to get a 3.8 GPA in class. This is no excuse for forcing the students to come only every other day without substitutions to allow for extracurriculars. It should be up to the students (with their parents) to budget their time accordingly, not up to a teacher.
The last straw was the events of this week, the last few days before shipping the robot. I now know that you've been working on your own alternative design to the robot for the past weeks, and I am shocked and horrified to find that you forced the students to ditch their own design for YOUR OWN design at the last second. You waited until I and many of the more involved students were absent to do this, to get as little objection as possible, and at the last possible second. How is this a good example to set for the students? To show them that they shouldn't reach for the stars, and should instead lower their expectations? To avoid confrontation and do things behind people's back to get the results that you personally desire? Even if the robot hadn't worked well at the competition, at least the students could have said, "I made it, and I'm damn well proud of it anyways." This was a cruel trick to play on the students, their parents who watched the test run on Sunday, and to myself, who had faith in you and your TEAM to do the best that they could do.
I promise you this: You will not win any awards with this kind of attitude. You will be embarrassed and embarrass Seacrest School in front of the entire nation. You did not read the rules, so you will either end up with a very weak robot at the competition, or be disqualified for breaking the rules, unless of course you lie about what and how much you shipped in the crate, which is again a GREAT example to set for the students.
I am CCing all of the parents on this note, because you have publicly lied and mislead them about me, so they are now involved parties that should learn the truth of the past few weeks. After I receive my reimbursement for the expensive parts that I bought for the TEAM (or the unused parts themselves), you will never hear from me again.
I hope that you learn the lessons from this year and that maybe next year your team can be a successful one.
Regards,
Daniel R. Swando
"Dr. Lynne Powell" ; "Marty Durham" ; "Basye" ; "Sibylle Baumgartner" ; "Bodell" ; "James Borden" ; "Brashares" ; "Brashares" ; "Bill Brock" ; "Brown"
; "Daniel Burzynski" ; "Decker" ; "Kandel" ; "Max" ; "Max2" ; "Miller" ; "Mary Zoe Bowden" ; "Tenreiro" ; "Tenreiro" ; eduffy@seacrest.org; "Nick Bodell" ; "Jeffrey Brashares" ; swan5206@kettering.edu; "Tim Durham" ; mzbowden@seacrest.org; eduffy@seacrest.org; mbowden@seacrest.org; "martyathome" ; "Lisa Brock" ; "Sibylle Baumgartner"
To the Math Teacher of Seacrest High School
You have insulted your students and me beyond belief through your actions this season. I volunteered my services on the understanding that we would work together to mentor the students of this team to build a robot. I assumed that you actually had understood the purpose and goals of FIRST were to inspire and recognize science and technology. I had great hopes when you explained that these were bright, resourceful students that would be able to reach for the stars, and when you quoted the great Woodie Flowers on Gracious Professionalism. I have been astonished on how you have shown even less Gracious Professionalism that I had even thought possible from a teacher of a prestigious school which prides itself on focusing on the students.
You ignored my pleas to gather more help, and instead chose to lead this project alone. You rejected my years of knowledge and experience for your own selfish control. There were offers of help from other FIRST TEAMS, local engineers, and even other teachers at Seacrest, which you rejected because this was "your project" and "your class." Though I acknowledge that there is always some one person in charge of each robotics TEAM, what makes FIRST successful is the combination of engineers and students and teachers working together as a TEAM. This is the first point at which you failed. You chose to split the TEAM into two rival groups so that you would have more control over them. You further instructed them to not listen to my guidance if it went against your wishes. Finally, you threatened them with failure of the class if they refused to go along with your plans. I do not see these actions as gracious, professional, or even worthy of an outstanding teacher such as you. I furthermore don't think that this falls in line with the Seacrest Philosophy, from the little that I know about it.
Secondly, you refused to let the students build the robot that they wanted to build. I had little influence on the design of the robot. The goals that were selected by popular vote of the students were to A) Shoot 3 point balls, B) Pick up balls from the floor, C) Be able to get balls from the Human Player Station. The TEAM picked these goals, not myself. My ideal robot would have been simply to get balls from the HP station and shoot, and skip the 1 point balls altogether. Obviously the final design did not represent my beliefs. The students designed each component of the robot themselves, from the 6 Wheel Drivetrain voted on by all of the students, to the Picking mechanism designed by Peter and Blake, to the Shooting mechanism designed by Tenreiro, Baumgartner, and Brashares.
I did select motors and transmission options for these mechanisms by myself, since you neglected to teach them about these things. I helped guide and encourage the students along their design process to get to the visions that they created for themselves, but I never made them do anything that they didn't want to do themselves. I even took sketches drawn by the students and created a CAD model with them to better visualize what the students wanted.
Your third failure was a failure to communicate with your peer mentor, me. You decided that your word was final and that I had nothing to say about the matters such as TEAM unity, structure, or schedules. I was not informed of this opinion until your idea of the smaller subteams had frustrated the students to the point that I was forced to confront you about it. After this confrontation, I called a meeting of the entire team so that we could clear up the complaints that the students had been imploring me to tell you about, including your dismissal of some students as "slackers" and "looking to get a free pass" which you confided in me. I personally believe that you are wrong about this point, and instead think that the timidness of certain students comes from shyness. You responded to this situation by telling the students that they either come every day or fail the class, or stick with the "Alpha" and "Beta" teams, which incidentally, is quite insulting to the students. Needless to say, the students voted 10-1 to have "Mandatory Every Other Day" vs. "Mandatory Every Day." You further sent an email behind my back misrepresenting the situation as me forcing a design on the students. You further stated that "There should be no doubt in the students’ minds as to who is the adult in charge of this endeavor."
A further email states that "15 people working in such a small space with power tools and a powerful robot quickly became an unsafe situation. This alone would be reason enough to split the class into two smaller teams." I counter this argument by saying that there have been TEAMS of 60 or more students working in the same amount of space that we had, with hardly more than a scratch, cut, or scrape to show for it. The difference is leadership. The students had no leadership except for the meager amounts that you and I provided. They needed more guidance.
Time management is also important. I personally participated in Robotics in High School while also being captain of my Quiz Bowl team, playing in Marching Band, holding a part time job, and still somehow having enough time to get a 3.8 GPA in class. This is no excuse for forcing the students to come only every other day without substitutions to allow for extracurriculars. It should be up to the students (with their parents) to budget their time accordingly, not up to a teacher.
The last straw was the events of this week, the last few days before shipping the robot. I now know that you've been working on your own alternative design to the robot for the past weeks, and I am shocked and horrified to find that you forced the students to ditch their own design for YOUR OWN design at the last second. You waited until I and many of the more involved students were absent to do this, to get as little objection as possible, and at the last possible second. How is this a good example to set for the students? To show them that they shouldn't reach for the stars, and should instead lower their expectations? To avoid confrontation and do things behind people's back to get the results that you personally desire? Even if the robot hadn't worked well at the competition, at least the students could have said, "I made it, and I'm damn well proud of it anyways." This was a cruel trick to play on the students, their parents who watched the test run on Sunday, and to myself, who had faith in you and your TEAM to do the best that they could do.
I promise you this: You will not win any awards with this kind of attitude. You will be embarrassed and embarrass Seacrest School in front of the entire nation. You did not read the rules, so you will either end up with a very weak robot at the competition, or be disqualified for breaking the rules, unless of course you lie about what and how much you shipped in the crate, which is again a GREAT example to set for the students.
I am CCing all of the parents on this note, because you have publicly lied and mislead them about me, so they are now involved parties that should learn the truth of the past few weeks. After I receive my reimbursement for the expensive parts that I bought for the TEAM (or the unused parts themselves), you will never hear from me again.
I hope that you learn the lessons from this year and that maybe next year your team can be a successful one.
Regards,
Daniel R. Swando