Having women in the department is just step one. But then there is the issue of how teaching assignments are distributed. There I was, idly looking over my department’s teaching responsibilities for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, congratulating myself for being so on top of things that I had planned the next two year. But then the little irritating voice in the back of my head began to get louder and louder and ever more clear. I looked closely at the schedule and had a distressing realization. Despite that fact that my department faculty is half women (unfortunately that will drop to one-third in the fall), graduating CS majors are likely to have had only one intermediate or upper level course taught by a woman.
Why is this? you might ask. Well, an interesting situation has evolved. We basically have three groups of courses: Group 1: a large number of introductory courses (six different theme-based CS1 courses); Group 2: a set of intermediate courses that students can take after the intro – a CS major can count only one of these, but non-majors, CS minors, and computational methods minors can count many; Group 3: the intermediate and upper level courses that are taken by majors. Guess what. The majority of Group 1 and Group 2 courses are taught by the women faculty. But the only Group 3 courses taken by majors that are regularly taught by women are the courses that count toward the theory requirement. Everything else in Group 3 that is offered on a regular basis is usually taught by a male faculty member.
So, is this the result of some concerted calculated effort by a group of male computer scientists? No! I’ve been making the schedule every year for the last seven years! But then why did this happen? My guess is that the women in the department have been more enthusiastic about recruiting new students through the cool intro and non-majors intermediate courses, and the men have been more comfortable sticking with the tried and true courses that you usually find in a CS major.
What will we do about it? Fortunately, I have a giant spreadsheet of everyone’s teaching preferences, so I know exactly what courses they are willing to teach, and we can start to mix it up more. And when I stop being department chair and teach more courses I’ll take on more of those upper level courses. That should balance things out a bit.
But I think there’s a lesson here. Be ever vigilant, because there’s always a deeper level of analysis you can do before you decide that you’ve truly addressed the gender issues or the women in computing question. I don’t think that you have to have women faculty in order to recruit women into CS, but if you have women faculty then they really should be well represented at every level of your curricular structure, both in K-12 CS as well as at the college level.
Lesson learned here. I hope I’ll have better news down the road!
Valerie Barr
Chair, CSTA Computational Thinking Task Force

In a previous blog entry, I argued that we should address equity in computer science from a civil rights perspective, considering the importance of computing to all social and academic endeavors in the 21st century. I argued that rather than an economic framing; we need to address equity for what it is: an equal opportunity to fully participate in educational and social systems in our society. This, not future jobs, is the imperative to center equity in discussions around computer science education. In this blog, I will discuss what equity looks like within this social justice framework.
1. Availability of Courses for All Students in All Schools: Until computing courses are universally available in schools, severe equity issues will be pervasive. Bluntly put, without courses in the schools, students cannot easily access this content knowledge. With many schools in the U.S. being highly segregated by race and social class, data has shown that more affluent, White schools are much more likely to offer computing courses to students. A fundamental step towards making computer science more accessible is to build courses at all schools, so any interested student is able to learn about computing. I am not advocating that computing be required of all students, but instead, be available for any student who desires to access this critical 21st century knowledge, regardless of whether the student is college-bound or not.
2. Curriculum and Assessment must be tailored towards students in meaningful ways. The “one size fits all” approach to computing, for generations, has marginalized students of color and females. We cannot simply bring underrepresented students into “traditional” classroom spaces and expect them to engage in a curricular model that has typically captivated the intrests of only a small sample of the population. Instead, curricular resources need to be created to reach the interests and prior knowledge of particular minority communities and girls. This type of resources could include materials such as Ron Eglash’s culturally situated design tools to showcase the cultural dimensions of computing. A second approach would be to include project-based curriculum that encourages students to draw from their own community knowledge to examine social and environmental issues through a computing perspective. Curriculum and assessment must be carefully developed to highlight the multiple ways of knowing , and showing, students bring to classrooms.
3. Teachers must be supported in developing an inclusive pedagogy that is effective for engaging girls and students of color. Moving towards an inquiry-based teaching strategy has been shown to be effective for reaching underrepresented students in computing and in other STEM disciplines. Having pre-service opportunities and professional development workshops that help communities of teachers sharing strategies for teaching underrepresented students, English language learners, etc. is critical in developing these pedagogical skills.
These three elements are part of a cohesive whole, and must be tackled together. If particular organizations, universities, schools, or industries are firmly committed to working towards equity in computer science education, the action plans must address all three of these dimensions in an integrated method to make real change.
Or, perhaps there are more dimensions? What other dimensions might people consider when working on equity issues in K-12 computer science education?
Joanna Goode
CSTA Equity Committee Chair

As computer science educators, we see the need for computer science education. There is an element of self-interest, but we believe computer science knowledge and skills are among the most essential ingredients of a modern education.
It is frustrating, therefore, when legislators, school administrators, and the public do not “see the light” and embrace computer science as a valuable 21st century skill. Curriculum reflects our values and it is obvious that our societal values have not changed to include computer science knowledge as compulsory and not elective (along with other subjects we don’t think are worthy of mandating, such as art and music.)
No matter how one feels about it, the accountability movement controls educational policy in the U.S. And within the system we have, math and English are important, science is less important, and nothing else is important. If we want to be important, we can agitate for a change in priority or we can hitch our star to things that are already considered important.
I have a theory that taught correctly, computer science could improve math scores. Programs such as Bootstrap are already using computer science to improve kids’ math skills.
What do you think?
Can we work within a framework of math (or English or science) to teach fundamental computer science skills?
Would this enhance other disciplines?
Michelle Hutton
CSTA President

There has been an increased emphasis on equity issues in computer science education in recent years, supported largely by NSF programs aimed at broadening participation in computing. Yet, I have found that when folks talk about equity, they often have different viewpoints on why we should be addressing equity, what equity means, and how to achieve equity in the K-12 computer science classroom. Based on my experiences as an AP computer science teacher in a diverse high school, and involvement in the Exploring Computer Science program in Los Angeles schools, I offer my own viewpoints on what equity means to me in computing classrooms. This is the first in a series of blogs tackling these issues around equity in computer science, the most segregated subject offered in K-12 education.
Why should we address equity?
Though many cite economic purposes for working towards equity, I hesitate to use this reasoning as my central purpose for the equity-based work I do. Certainly, we are missing out on the creative potential of over 70% of the population when we continue with a vast under-representations of people of color and females in the computing industry. Also, these underrepresented groups are at a disadvantage personally if they do not have the sufficient preparation to become computer scientists, a growing profession with a higher-than-average salary for graduates with college degrees. But, this is not a particularly compelling argument to lead with around issues of equity except for those who are college CS professors or working in the industry. Then, to those outside of computer science, this economic/industry perspective is seen as a self-serving argument. Certainly, we don’t argue for universal literacy in order to prepare children to be English majors or work as journalists, etc., but we believe everyone should have the opportunity to read and write because it is a fundamental skill needed to maximize opportunities and interests in our society. We need to back away from leading with an economic perspective as the reason to address equity issues for the same reasons.
For me, equity is a social justice issue, a new frontier in civil rights. As a community, we are arguing that computational thinking is an essential 21st century skill. So in this vein, we need to prepare all students to have this fundamental knowledge to be able to fully participate in society, including girls and students of color. As civil rights leader and the Algebra project director Bob Moses cautions, students of color will become “the serfs of the Information Age” unless we work for equal opportunity and access in computing education. If education is a fundamental human right in our country, then access and equity in computer science is certainly a part of the 21st century model of education that should support this purpose of schooling.
What about you? What is your purpose for addressing equity in computer science?
Joanna Goode
CSTA Board of Directors