By now, many of you have heard of the College Board’s decision to discontinue the AP Computer Science AB exam after next year (the A exam will not be affected). We are just as surprised as you are by the announcement and know that the news will come as a disappointment to many computer science teachers. We do hope, however, that this decision will provide us with an opportunity to strengthen high school computer science education.
The College Board has said that it will be “focus[ing] their efforts on improving and supporting the AP Computer Science A program, which will be enhanced during the next five years to better represent a full-year, entry-level college computer science sequence.”
To that end, they have formed a “AP Computer Science Course and Exam Review Commission responsible for developing and enacting comprehensive research among colleges, universities, and secondary schools to identify how best to keep the AP course and exam current and reflective of the ever-changing discipline of computer science.”
CSTA is well-represented on this commission and will do its best to meet these goals.
While we don’t know what the future will hold for the AP curriculum, we now have a seat at the table and we’ll keep you posted as we move forward.
In the meantime, given that we are soon only going to have a single AP CS exam, what do you think that exam should cover? In other words, what are the essential concepts that the course must include?
Let us know what you think!
Robb Cutler
CSTA President
I am hopeful that the College Board’s commitment to strengthening the Computer Science A course will lead to a more representative course in computing which goes beyond programming and data structures. Though these concepts are critical foundations for computer science, there are other computing topics that might attract more students (and teachers) to the course: HCI, computer organization, intelligent behavior, discrete mathematics, hierarchy and abstraction, principles of software engineering, robotics, social and ethical issues, and careers in computing – to name a few.
A more comprehensive course will also help counter the misconception that “computer science *is* programming” which many students hold. The scope of computer science has expanded so much in the last few decades, and I am cautiously optimistic that a newly revised A program will reflect these changes. I am very happy that CSTA’s leadership will be part of these new goals.
I have a wait and see attitude toward this decision. On the one hand, I don’t teach AB so my students are not involved and on the other hand I’m anxious to see what kind of support AP CS teachers will be getting. I’m also anxious to see if the existing subset for A will get changed because of this decision.
Time will tell.
I agree with Brian. I do teach AB but to a small group of students. This means that they are in a class with the A students and do not received the attention that they deserve. With the decision, after next year, I should no longer have 4 preps, which is an advantage.
I do have a concern with what will be added, because for most of my A students this is their first computing class. If more advanced material is added then I will need to design a pre-AP class. I will need to do it soon so I can market it and try to get an agreement with the community college for credit otherwise I won’t get the enrollment I need to offer it.
I am optimistic about the decisions that will be made as far as the A curriculum. I am sure that with a CSTA representative on the board, they will be for the benefit of the students.
I am concerned that they say they are going to revise the A exam to be a “full-year entry-level college computer science sequence”. To me this means that the A exam will cover both CS1 and CS2 content which is what the AB exam has covered. If this is true then we may lose many more teachers who currently teach CS A, as they may not decide to learn the additional material.
It is disappointing that they are doing away with CS AB exam now when it finally started recovering this last year from the decline that has been happening since 2001. While this will not affect all that many students it will mean that some students won’t have the option of taking an additional computer science class in high school. It may also mean that some teachers will have to pick up additional classes since they have been teaching a separate AB class.
for the last 3 years I’ve taught the AP A and AB curriculum in the same classroom owing to the realities of enrollment. On one hand, it makes sense to fuse these curricula–or, I should say, that it could make sense. I think a lot depends on the true agenda here, which I certainly don’t know. I can see how this will simplify my life, but it will also eliminate another course offering from my sequence.
On a positive note: here’s an opportunity to revisit the curriculum and the possibilities. Off the top of my head, why not consider a less language-centric approach, open in up to functional languages, for instance. Why not look at mathematical and logical concepts that underpin CS … I’m not necessarily talking about discrete math as much as I am talking about how computing unifies a lot of content areas, in particular algebra and logic. I mention these because I think that they are given short shrift in many public secondary schools—after all, we don’t have an AP exam in Abstract Algebra, but we have 2 in calculus. (Yeah, think about that.) Maybe if we exposed students to authentic applications that exercise these concepts, we’d see a deeper understanding and appreciation of mathematics and science.
Besides mathematical content, we ignore the impact of games and multimedia applications at our peril. Once students discover that CS is actually relevant to something that is emphasizes the future as opposed to dwelling on the past, they’ll talk up these courses.
Of course, we must continue to work to change the prevailing mindset that still sees CS as outsourced and the providence of oddballs. Seriously, someone should make a popular film that casts a Computer Scientist as a well-adjusted and morally motivated protagonist. An ounce of public perception is worth pounds of reasoned argument.
I wonder, where will we be in 2 years?
TomR
Since the College Board is all about the money, I suspect if a major corporation (or two or three), stepped in and financially supported it, the exam would not go away.
That being said, it won’t affect me much either. I’ve never had many students take the second year, there just isn’t enough time in their day. The highest count has been 3, with about 20 A kids that year. However, I will have three taking it next year, according to them.
I would not be surprised if the A course is beefed up even more. I do suggest, and it does work well for me to have a PreAP CS before the AP CS. I’ve finally gotten administration support to insist that happens and it really helps.
This means that my AP kids know what I expect out of them, and there is little that has to be done in the way of classroom management and discipline. That means we can concentrate on the material from day 1.
Like many people, I am of two minds:
1. I’m pissed off because it does seem like the college board is going in the wrong direction in terms of rigor. It continues what I see as a watering down of ALL AP curricula in order for the course to appeal to a wider audience and bring in more $$$ for the college board. If this is *really* the way they’re going, they’ll begin to see the better schools drop all AP courses.
On the other hand, my anger is tempered by the unknown – what will become of the A?
Let’s be honest, the A is not a college-level curriculum – at least not for a year-long course. Part of me hopes that the decision to get rid of the AB was due to the recognition that the bifurcated curriculum just didn’t make sense. If there’s only one course it’s rigor can be ensured….But then why didn’t they say they were getting rid of the A?
As for my course and the test itself, I’m going to continue to teach algorithms and data structures. If the AP test remains at the A level, well then, I guess it just means we’ll have covered all the AP material by Christmas and all my students will get 5s…oh well.
As it is, I have a handful of students who want to do more AFTER the AB curriculum anyway. If the A test remains at its current level in many ways it would free me to teach whatever I want and spend as much time as I need on more advanced material rather than rushing through it. That’s not a bad thing.
I am very interested to see where the A test will go. Will it just go a little more deeply than it does now, but still be a programming course? Or will it go broader to include other CS topics, e.g. networking, systems, architecture, etc.?
Baker Franke
Computer Science Dept.
The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools
Something occurred to me while I was typing a similar response over on Alfred Thompson’s blog…
Why doesn’t the CSTA/ACM jump in here and do their own credentialing of “real” computer science classes.
Let’s get those profs and teachers who design the AP curriculum to jump ship and work with the CSTA/ACM to define it. Why should we be beholden to the college board? With the right campaign we could really distinguish ourselves, and that’s what the community needs. Our efforts have been very focused on acceptance int o the teaching community. Well, what if we go the opposite direction?
Consider the following:
1. Computer science should be attractive to students.
2. Computer science as part of everyone’s education is basically inevitable (in the long run).
3. College admissions offices would welcome a chance to allow them to distinguish applicants in a way other than AP classes.
4. A credentialing from the ACM/CSTA *should* carry more weight than the College Board anyway, since it’s actually the governing body of the REAL computer science community.
5. Students would flock to our courses if they were convinced of 3 and 4.
The message to colleges from the ACM would be: our “ACM/CSTA certified” courses are about the students, not the money. The ACM says that such and such a course matches the rigor of a year-long college course of study, etc. etc.
Any thoughts?
I share Barbara’s concern that a beefed up A course that is more like today’s AB course will lose a lot of teachers. On the other hand I worry that today’s A course is really a watered down CS1 course that doesn’t have the respect of the universities. Does it really meet the stated goals of the AP program? It is open for debate.
I think the first thing that has to be decided for the future (single) AP CS course is what will it be? Will it be a true CS1 course that will be respected by the universities? Or will it be a revamped AB course that trys to be both CS1 and CS2? If the latter should a pre-req be required or do we really think that high school students can do a real CS1/CS2 sequence in one school year? Really those are the decisions that have to be made before we can have a conversation about what to include.
The A curriculum as a full-year course makes sense from the perspective of students who’ve never programmed before. Unfortunately, some schools (mine, for example) have a prerequisite of a single-semester C# programming class. This class is almost the A curriculum (minus the case study), and it allows us to do the AB nicely, as it means we have students who are experienced and enthusiastic.
Eliminating AB will require some substantial reorganization of our entire curriculum. It won’t make sense to have a full year A course after a semester of C#; yet will we be able to do the A curriculum in a single semester?
It’s troubling that no input was (apparently) sought before the decision came down.
When all is said and done with the newly revised A course, the question that still remains is this, will colleges/universities still deny a student who passes the newly created exam with a 3?
If colleges and universities have agreed to the College Board that they will grant high school students credit for the AP course and the College Board has set the standard of passing then all colleges and universities should accept this and grant the three deserved credit by our students.
This topic needs to be addressed!
Though it’s troubling to see AB pulled, I think the emphasis should be kept on the broad implementation of establishing K-12 required CS curricula in the states and provinces. The two most important goals are 1) to create a positive experience of CS on first contact, and 2) from there, to develop the child’s capacity to apply computational thinking toward everyday practical problem-solving.
Like many others, I believe programming should be introduced as a “medium” you naturally work in to automate work. The trick is to create compelling experiences in the classroom where students are given the choice of tedious, manual work vs. learning to delegate the drudgery to their personal computer assistant / robotic device. The mantra of the software-savvy, “I’m basically lazy”, is the epiphany we want to be creating in every youngster.
Under this philosophy, CS is woven into a wide array k-12 experiences, while maintaining its own core offerings. CS classrooms become media-skill hubs in the 21st century school, helping a widely diverse group of students tap the power of the new medium of automation in pursuing non-CS topics.
With the goal of teaching every child to be an effective automator, the A course would become the training grounds for the those wanting to go further to become CS toolmakers. This is where I hope we are headed in the next 10 years.
Tom Reinhardt wrote a lot of good stuff, including:
“On a positive note: here’s an opportunity to revisit the curriculum and the possibilities.”
I entirely agree with this. If nature abhors a vacuum, then what will be interesting is how the community chooses to fill that vacuum with new approaches.
I have long pined for more flexibility. Perhaps I could do a languages survey. I already do Scheme, but now there might be time for Python and C. Perhaps I could do a little bit of AI. Perhaps I could coordinate my kids with the robotics team in a meaningful way. There are the Nifties (nifty.stanford.edu). There is USACO (www.usaco.org). There are lots of possibilities.
So we got thrown a lemon. Let’s make lemonade.
Josh Paley, Teacher
Computer Science and Mathematics
Henry M. Gunn HS (Palo Alto, CA)
President of Silicon Valley CSTA Chapter
If we compare, subjects which have multiple AP tests are subjects which have multiple distinct areas of knowledge. Language vs. Literature. European/US/World History. The exceptions appear to be CS, Physics, and Calculus.
I am hopeful that the decision to move to one exam means that College Board is working to determine what the core requirements of basic computer science knowledge is. Subjects with only one exam appear to have an idea of what an introductory course of study looks like. Some schools offer “pre-AP” courses, others do not, offering the AP as the introductory course for bright students. I hope the same would happen for CS, with each school taking into account the needs of its students.
The sooner we can agree on what basic introductory CS looks like, the easier it will be to get it adopted across all schools. I am encouraged that CSTA, College Board, SIGCSE, and other organizations are working together to promote the best CS education possible at the K-12 level.
After reading all of these posts, I am proud to be among a group of teachers who have a real passion for teaching computer science. I agree 100% with Michelle’s post about coming to a consensus about pre-ap courses. As with other disciplines, there is a clear track to the AP course. Computer Science currently doesn’t have that. I certainly hope that the College Board looks carefully at both A and AB curriculum and come up with a strong single course that will receive buy in from teachers who teach an AB course only (me being one of them.) and teachers who teach an A course, and that the sum total of students taking the combined course doesn’t decrease.
That being said, the College Board stated these changes will happen over the next five years. I am worried about what to teach next year (in my introductory courses) and what type of course to teach in the 09-10 year (only 2 years away.)
I hope that the CSTA, SIGCSE, and College Board look at other computer science topics, besides introduction to programming.
-Josh Block
Computer Science
Horace Greeley High School
Chappaqua, NY 10514
Just my opinion…
I don’t think we are anywhere near agreeing on what introductory CS looks like. The presentation at SIGCSE 2007 by Dan Garcia and Jeffrey Forbes showed that universities are all over the place when it comes to deciding what CS1 and CS2 should contain.
CS isn’t like Euclidean geometry that has been fairly static for a couple thousand years. It’s a fledgling field. It could be a long while before it settles.
Although the youth of our field is a good reason we haven’t identified the core introductory body of knowledge, I don’t think we should let that hold us back from trying. Rather than waiting, let’s try to figure it out now. I’m excited about all the smart minds who are coming together to work on this problem – surely we can make some headway.
I also don’t think that we should wait until the colleges and universities figure it out and let us know. As K-12 educators, we know far more about how to introduce complex topics to younger minds. By participating actively in the discussion, we can bring our experience with the pre-18 year old set to the table.
Introduction to programming should be thaught extensively from now on, along with any other subjects related to it.
Hey admin, good day. Great post. You have gained a new fan. Please continue this awesome work and I look forward to more of your brilliant blog posts.