I spend much of my time thinking about reforming computer science education in Los Angeles. My goal is to make computer science courses accessible and engaging for students who have not traditionally participated in computing. To this end, I have been part of a dynamic team (the Computer Science Equity Alliance) that has developed a new course which introduces students to the foundational knowledge of computer science. In the professional development which is coupled with this course, a dynamic community of teachers, expert practitioners, and university faculty come together to build individual and collective knowledge about computing topics and the instructional strategies needed to engage diverse students in computer science. We piloted this course the first year in seven schools and enrolled 300 students. This fall, the course will be offered in 20 schools in the Los Angeles Unified school district.
However, measuring the impact of this effort has different meanings for different national and local stakeholders. Thought the mere existence of this course when there were no courses before is a measure of success itself, the computer science education community wants to know more about the impact of this course on high school students.
When informed about this effort or other K-12 initiatives in computing, many leaders of computer science education often seek measures of longitudinal effectiveness:
* Do these students take other computing courses?
* Do the students pursue a major in computing?
* Pursue advanced degrees?
* Work in the computing industry?
Other STEM educators believe the way to measure the impact of a foundational computing course is to measure mathematics and science achievement skills of students participating in the course, and compare these scores to non-computer science takers. They want to know, does learning about foundational knowledge in computing raise test scores in related subjects?
While these questions are important, I resist the urge to rely on this type of data to measure the success of our mission to broaden participation in high school computing. Our goal is for all students to develop an understanding of the computing discipline, not to train them to enter the pipeline and become computer scientists. Just as reforming algebra education does not set its goal as more math majors, computing education at K-12 should not be judged on higher education enrollment patterns. There are just too many confounding variables in play in decision-making at the college level. And while we anticipate that developed computational thinking skills might transfer to tackling problems in other STEM subjects, focusing on test scores in math and science reflects an unfortunate belief that computing is only important for its positive impact on achievement disciplines, rather than a discipline itself.
Instead, I believe the best data will come from looking at enrollment patterns over time (increases by gender, race, English language learner status); how many students continue to more advanced courses when offered at their school, interviewing teachers about their experiences teaching computing to Los Angeles students, and collecting pre- and post-class survey data from computing students about their perception of the importance of computer science, their interest in the subject, and their motivation to pursue further study. For us, this triangulation of data will most truly assess the effectiveness of a foundational course for broadening participation in high school computer science.
A student response elucidates this perspective: “I’m still paving my path to become a professional musician, but now I can use what I’ve learned from this computer science class to further that career, using codes for websites, banners, playlists, etc.” Though not pursuing computer science as a profession, the knowledge of computing will influence this young person’s life goals. For me, a course that offers such opportunities is the goal in itself.
Joanna Goode
CSTA Board of Directors

I got a panicked e-mail from a local school in August that they didn’t have an Advanced Placement Computer Science A teacher for fall. They were planning to use the retired teacher who had taught it the year before, but he had an injury right before school and so wouldn’t be able to teach it. They had a teacher who has taught Beginning Programming in Java, and he had signed up for College Board AP Summer Institute in Texas, but that was cancelled. They had the common misconception that a College Board Summer Institute somehow certifies a teacher to teach AP CS, so they were worried that they wouldn’t be able to offer the course at all.
All you must do in order to teach an AP CS A course is pass the audit. Of course, to effectively teach an AP course you should have a good understanding of the material and the topics to be covered. A College Board AP Summer Institute is one way that you can learn the material, but you can also take classes at local institutions, or learn from on-line resources.
I am helping the person who has taught only Beginning Programming in Java teach the course. It meets Monday – Friday for 50 minutes each day, but I am only coming Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On Tuesday and Thursday the students work on the computer to complete assignments. I am posting my materials at:
http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/ice-gt/1043.
Georgia Tech just received a NSF grant to retrain unemployed IT workers to be high school computing teachers and pair them up with existing computing teachers during the first year of teaching. So, my co-teaching this course helps me see how this will work.
There are 28 students in the class. As we often see in an AP CS A course the majority are white and male. There are nine females and three African Americans in the course. This course is in marked contrast to the Business Essentials course just before it that is 75% African American. The school is actually very diverse with 41.2% White, 35.3% Black, 12.3% Hispanic, 8.2% Asian and 3.3% other racial groups.
One of the things I would like to do this year is recruit a more diverse class for next year. I also would like the school to offer at least two sections for AP CS A next year. I expect demand for AP CS A to increase greatly in Georgia in the next few years since it counts as one of the four years of science starting with students who were freshman in 2008-2009.
Barb Ericson
CSTA Director

Monday August 17th was *our* first day officially back with classes starting Thursday and, as usual, the new school year is raising many issues, some new and some not so new.
Like many CS educators, I am trying to learn how to do a number of new things at once. I will be teaching a course in C++ this fall, so I have been spending a lot of time in that world. But I am also trying to learn how to program the Google Android mobile phone, and that’s done in Java (with a lot of XML files to specify colors, formats, and display). It’s not easy switching back and forth from one to the other.
I am also working with an industry consortium here and with some of the local school districts in defining and advertising their IT and CS curricula. It’s an old story, and a hard sell. As a discipline we suffer from the riches of too many job opportunities. The school administrators seem to want to go for the numbers count rather than quality, and thus emphasize all the things you can do with as little educational effort needed as is possible. As one of the corporate collaborators points out, though, upper management won’t be coming from the group that didn’t go to college or university.
A recent study of “persistence” puts university computer science students at the absolute bottom for retention from the first to the eighth semester at university. The 38% persistence for CS is worse than engineering, business, social science, and other science majors. What are we doing wrong? Are we getting the wrong set of students coming into our programs? Are they coming in not properly informed? Are we at the universities doing a bad job? Probably some of all of the above. This was a study over 17 years, so it’s not *just* the dot com boom or the dot com bust. There is something clearly different about computing.
The more I see and think of these issues, the more I realize how important it is that we are clear in our message, and how the Level I, II, and III courses present that message. Computing technology is everywhere (the word I picked up from the CS & IT symposium this summer was “everyware”). But how do you distinguish those who are simply users of the technology from those who might know how to construct the next version of the software? In becoming universal, the IT business has become extremely broad, and it’s hard to convey the breadth to prospective students. I keep going back to the nature of the Level II course, which would cover some of the major applications to which computing is put, and then look a little deeper into the technology necessary to make those applications actually work.
And this takes me back to programming the Android phone. A phone, with a complete browser capability built in, and that can also be programmed for games. It’s very slick, and to make this work there must be a great deal under the hood that the better students, who might become computer science majors, need to be aware of even if they never actually program an Android. It is enough that they know of and understand the existence of these layers of software that distinguish a modern mobile device from a paperweight.
Duncan Buell
CSTA Board of Directors

Hardly a day goes by without one of my e-newsletters posting a feature about special programs designed to interest students (particularly young students) in pursuing a career in Computer Science and/or the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields. As a lifelong educator with a love of the STEM disciplines as well as of computer science, this is so gratifying to me! We certainly need to interest students in all of these career fields..all students, but particularly female and minority students.
One such summer opportunity for young people is a camp in South Florida that teaches elementary school children the basics of robotics and computer programming (two of my most favorite subjects). The camp is taught by a former high school physics teacher who hopes to better prepare the students for high school science. What a great way to interest these young people in science and computer science! And elementary school children are certainly not too young to develop such an interest.
A similar opportunity took place at McKinley Technical High School in Washington, D.C. This summer enrichment program involved middle and high school students who developed programming and modeling for a prototype of an educational computer game called Immune Attack 3.0. The group of students had used the video game to learn last summer. This summer the students were using their programming and modeling skills to help update the game. Again, what a great way to interest young people in Computer Science by making science and computer science more fun and engaging through the use of video games! More information can be found by following this link:
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=60054
The University of Washington had an innovative summer enrichment academy. This academy introduces deaf and hard-of-hearing students to careers in computer science. The academy is a nine-week intensive program for outstanding math and science students in the 16- to 22-years old age group. The students who participated were from Arizona, Indiana, Maine, New York, Texas, and Virginia, as well as from Washington. The students lived on campus and took a college-level computer programming course. They earned a certificate in computer animation. The students communicated innovative ideas with American Sign Language during class. This program not only interests more young people in computer science, but it strives to diversify the computer science field. Further information about this academy can be found by following this link:
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=59995
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, IN, also conducted a summer education program called Operation Catapult. Thirteen rising high school seniors participated in a variety of hands-on projects and attended lectures on a variety of topics. Students completed projects in such areas as entrepreneurship, Python computer programming, and embedded microcontrollers. The program is in its 43rd year of enticing young people to enter STEM (and computer science) career fields. More information can be found by following this link:
http://www.tribstar.com/schools/local_story_223221103.html
Educators and computer science professionals alike understand the importance of capturing students’ interest in computer science at a young age. IBM conducted a STEM Camp for Girls in Burlington, Vermont this summer. During the camp, 40 young women learned to build robots with Legos as well as to design Web pages. While having fun in engaging activities, the seventh-grade students were honing their math, science, and technology skills. The girls will return to the IBM facility in February for Job Shadowing Day. What a great idea! Not only are the students engaged in activities that will attract them to computer science, they will also learn more about the profession when they return during the work-based learning activity in February. Again, the enrichment program will interest a diverse group in pursuing a career in computer science. You may find further information about this program by following this link:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090812/NEWS02/90812018
All computer science educators and computer science professionals should take note of these programs. The United States has a critical shortage of professionals in all STEM and computer science professions. Students who are engaged in authentic projects and applications of science, math, and computer science are far more likely to follow a career path into one of these fields. Women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities are underrepresented in the STEM and computer science fields. Summer enrichment programs, job-shadowing programs, mentoring programs, and partnerships between education and business and industry are all investments in young people that will produce a great return (more young people and especially those from underrepresented groups) seeking career paths in computer science.
Deborah Seehorn
CSTA Board Member

This blog is like the blogs I have seen people writing in real time during conference presentations. I am writing this in the middle of our Advanced Placement Summer Institute for Computer Science. Our consultant, Richard de Paulo, is leading this institute for fifteen teachers, all but one from South Carolina. (He is at present talking about ArrayLists.) We haven’t had a summer institute in the state for at least ten years, which may explain why our enrollments in AP computer science are not very high. Time to move things forward.
I have been working in the last few years to understand the decline in university enrollments in computer science, and I have come to the conclusion that to increase the number of university students we must improve what we do for computer science in the K-12 schools. Increasing the AP enrollments will not by any means be sufficient for declaring success in the world of computer science education, but it certainly seems to be necessary, and with fifteen more teachers in the classroom here in South Carolina, we can’t help but see better times in the future.
(I have other irons in the fire, to be sure. But this is a blog, and thus is supposed to be timely and “current”, and right now what is most current is watching de Paulo teach about teaching Java. I happen to have spent my last two years in teaching our first two semesters’ courses, so this is very familiar material for me.)
Putting on this institute took some doing. Normally in South Carolina, the AP summer institutes are funded by the state. This year, there was no such money available, and at one point I decided we weren’t going to be able to run the event. We were, however, able to get a new organization, the Consortium for Enterprise Systems Management, to replace the state funding and keep costs low for teachers and school districts. Finding the approved consultant was not exactly easy. There is only one consultant for computer science in the entire southeast region. After that, it was mostly a matter of getting out enough propaganda to be able to get an enrollment large enough to justify the class. Even in a bad economic year, we got a class of 15 teachers (plus one who had a family emergency this past weekend and couldn’t make it).
I am hoping for good results in the long term. Tom Rogers, from Southside High School in Greenville, joined the CSTA Leadership Cohort this summer as a teacher leader for South Carolina, participating in the Leadership workshop. Together with the other teachers I have been working with, Tom will now have a sizable base from which to build a larger statewide network.
We have a good mix of teachers here this week. There are a few ringers, people relatively new to teaching who have run IT businesses or done computing in past lifetimes. And there are a few who have taught applications courses, but not programming, in the past. We won’t get a uniform distribution of results from this summer, but we will have started to rebuild the interest in AP CS.
Duncan Buell
CSTA Board of Directors

First, I would like to encourage all of you to read the CSTA publication: Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification
http://www.csta.acm.org/ComputerScienceTeacherCertification/sub/TeacherCertificationRequi.html
As we know, there is a crisis in computer science teacher certification. This crisis can be attributed to two key factors:
* a lack of clarity, understanding, and consistency with regard to current certification requirements
* where certification or endorsement requirements do exist, they often have no connection to computer science content.
What follows is, in my opinion, a ridiculous situation being experienced by a person who is currently in search of a high school computer science teaching position in New Jersey. Unfortunately, this situation and similar situations are not uncommon.
Background and Experience:
Mathematics and Computer Science, Explorer Scouts, Summers 1976 and 1977.
Independent Computer Programmer and Consultant, 1984-1997.
B.S. Computer Science, Marquette University, 1991.
High School Certification in Computer Science, Mathematics, and History,
Cardinal Stritch University, 1997.
Wisconsin Licenses 1997-2002, 2002-2007, 2007-2012.
M.S. Computer Science Education, Cardinal Stritch University, 2004.
AP Computer Science Reader, 2006-2009.
Notes on certification
Wisconsin created certification in Computer Science in 1983. While relatively few Schools of Education offer CS certification, it is a recognized field.
This person’s other certifications are as “add-on minors”; that is, he took enough courses to have had an undergraduate minor in mathematics and in history, but did not take them at the right time to add them to my undergraduate degree.
Moving
For personal reasons, this person is moving to New Jersey.
Attempts to certify in New Jersey
Wisconsin offers reciprocity with very few other states. New Jersey is not on that short list.
New Jersey does not offer High School certification in Computer Science. The closest thing is Vocation School certification in Computer Technology.
Based on numerous discussions with people at the New Jersey Department of Education, those who teach computer science in New Jersey usually have certifications in either Mathematics or Business. They have suggested that he return to school to earn a second Bachelor’s degree in a certifiable subject area.
More attempts
Not getting any answers by telephone this summer (the number for the New Jersey Department of Education is only open from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and is almost always busy), he has spoken with two people at the Morris County New Jersey Office of the Department of Education. They have suggested that the Department of Education is extremely busy with renewals and initial certifications right now. No one in Trenton will see people. If you want to find out how to certify, you need to fill out the online application, pay the $190 fee, and then they will consider answering your questions. (If you cannot be certified, then they will refund $120 of the fee.)
Temporary solution
For now, it appears that his best options are to either teach at a private high school or teach as an adjunct at a college or university.
He has accepted a position in a private high school in New York to teach one section of AP CS and also an adjunct position at a 4-year university in New Jersey teaching a CS 0 course. He will be spending more time commuting than teaching!
Because they cannot be certified as computer science teachers, new teachers and those teachers like the person described above, find that they must first meet the certification requirements in some other discipline, requiring them to develop and prove teaching proficiency in a field in which they may not actually wish to teach.
It is absolutely essential that all computer science teachers, new and veteran, have adequate
preparation to teach computer science successfully. The background information described above clearly indicates adequate preparation to teach computer science. But because there is a significant lack of consistency in computer science teacher certification standards in the United States, he is unable to hold a NJ teaching certificate.
Our ultimate goal is to ensure that the standards for computer science teachers are clear, consistent, and are uniformly implemented in the United States as well as in other countries. It is critical that the standards described in the CSTA publication mentioned above be universally accepted and applied to the licensing of high school computer science teachers.
I thank Lon Levy for sharing his story.
Fran Trees
CSTA Chapter Liaison

In the midst of budget cuts (which the politicians claim won’t harm education), a colleague of mine reported that a local school system had declared that it would cut costs by dismissing all alternate entry teachers. After the initial shock, and the inevitable question, “Can they do that?” my colleague told me about research she had been doing on her doctoral thesis—concerning the value of in-depth induction programs for alternate entry teachers. She had come across a research study published by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
The study, An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification was published in February of 2009. The study reported several interesting findings. Before I continue with my post, I must state that the study involved 187 elementary school teachers (kindergarten through 5th grade) in 20 districts in seven different states (not middle school or high school Computer Science teachers). However, the study findings certainly give one cause to pause and think.
The study reported that students of alternative certification (AC) teachers did not perform statistically differently from students of traditional certification (TC) teachers. There were some “average differences in reading and math, but the differences were not statistically significant.” The study explained that there were many differences in the preparation and background of AC and TC teachers, including, required coursework, whether or not the teacher was currently taking courses, the teacher’s undergraduate major, and the teacher’s SAT scores, differences that exist among any group of teachers (or other professionals for that matter). The study reported that such “differences in AC teachers’ characteristics and training experiences explained about 5 percent of the variation in effects on math test scores and less than 1 percent of the variation in effects on reading test scores.” In other words, the teachers’ characteristics and required coursework “were not related to the effects of teachers on student achievement.” The study concludes that there was “no benefit, on average, to student achievement from placing an AC teacher in the classroom when the alternative was a TC teacher, but there was no evidence of harm, either.” The authors note that, of course, individual teachers have an effect on student achievement. The authors were NOT able to identify what specific characteristics of individual teachers have an effect on student achievement.
Interestingly enough, the study also concluded that “There is no evidence from this study that greater levels of teacher training coursework were associated with the effectiveness of AC teachers in the classroom.” The statistical analysis showed that there was no evidence that the amount of coursework required of AC teachers produced more effective teachers. As a life-long educator, this surprised me; however, after reflecting on my recent experiences with so many alternative entry teachers and the current state alternative licensing requirements, I thought perhaps educators aren’t really approaching the AC teacher with an open mind. There are many truly outstanding AC educators in many different content areas.
The study further concluded that “There is no evidence that the content of coursework is correlated with teacher effectiveness.” The study found no statistical correlation between student test scores and the content that the AC teacher had completed—including pedagogy and fieldwork. The authors state “there was no evidence of a statistically positive relationship between majoring in education and student achievement.” That will certainly shake up conventional wisdom in the world of education. I’m not sure that I can even grasp the implications since one of the responsibilities of my current position is to plan the preparation needed for these alternative licensure teachers. At least I do have the educational foundation that many teacher education institutes are now embracing (in part due to NCLB). I have a bachelor’s degree in my content area. I took education courses in addition to the BS degree requirements to obtain a teaching license. My master’s degree is also in the content area rather than in education, and I had to jump through many hoops to add that content area to my teaching license (it’s not quite as strenuous now!).
So, why would a school system want to dismiss all their alternative certification teachers? That’s a very good question. I don’t think that action would be prudent at all. I have come to the conclusion that we need to encourage and embrace alternative certification in all areas of education, but particularly in the areas of Computer Science (CS) and Information Technology (IT). What better preparation can a CS or IT teacher have than to have a degree in the content area and related work experience? What a wealth of knowledge and experience these AC teachers bring to the classroom! Who better than an AC teacher to help our students with authentic, rigorous and relevant learning in the 21st Century? What better time than a financial downturn than to encourage these well-qualified individuals to seek a second career in education? We need these well-qualified alternative certification teachers in Computer Science and Information Technology education—and we need them now. (CSTA has included alternative entry teachers in the recently published white paper, Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification, available at http://csta.acm.org/Communications/sub/Documents.html.)
The research study, An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification, was conducted by Jill Constantine, Daniel Player, Tim Silva, Kristin Hallgren, Mary Grider, John Deke of the Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; and Elizabeth Warner, Project Officer, Institute of Education Sciences. A pdf file of the research study can be found at the ISE, US Department of Education, website: http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20094043.
Work Cited:
Constantine, J., Player D., Silva, T., Hallgren, K., Grider, M., and Deke, J. (2009). An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification, Final Report (NCEE 2009-4043). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Deborah Seehorn
CSTA Board Member

There is no doubt that High School Computer Science Teachers need a professional organization. We are often the lone voice in the wilderness, under appreciated by our departments, administrations, and districts. Yet, what have we done to improve our lot?
Typical high school computer science teachers are usually the only person at their schools who teach computer science. They may be in the Business Department, Math Department, or part of the Career and Technical Education department; but wherever they are, CS teachers are often alone. They may teach only one class of computer science and often have two or three other courses to prepare to teach. Their time is at a premium. Where do they turn if they have questions, experience difficulty with a topic, or need a new idea or activity to help their students better understand the material? There are resources, including the AP Computer Science Electronic Discussion Group, AP Central, International Baccalaureate Online Curriculum Centre, and our textbook web sites. However, these sources may not be time sensitive, or may require multiple attempts to find someone knowledgeable who can answer the question. High School Computer Science Teachers need answers now, not in two weeks, because in two weeks that topic has been left in the dust.
How can a professional organization help? Local chapters can provide personal contacts in the local area who can readily respond to questions. Periodic meetings can provide a forum to air difficulties or concerns, offer solutions, or find others who are experiencing the same problems. Chapters can also provide professional development on a topic if there is widespread need and an “expert” exists in the community.
What makes me think we do not want a local chapter? Let me give two examples to illustrate my point. Over the last six months, a two high school teachers and five college professors have worked together to create a local chapter in my area. We spent many hours planning for our first meeting, which was held at a local research center. We felt this would provide some professional development for Computer Science Teachers in current applications of computing and computer systems as well as providing the opportunity for local teachers to meet. We contacted over 50 high schools by email, often directly to the teacher listed as the computer science teacher. We emailed invitations 45 days in advance and again 10 days in advance. No one responded to either of the emails, and no new teacher attended. Our initial meeting consisted of the seven original members. My second example is from a different area. Again, a dedicated group met and laid plans to form a chapter. One of these members was transferred out of state. All efforts after this to hold a meeting to finalize the chapter plans and hold the first meeting have been unsuccessful. So I ask, are we really willing to do the work necessary to support a professional organization that will address our needs?
What can we do about this? Well, if you are reading this post, you already understand the benefits of CSTA and what it can offer. You want a local organization to provide support and professional development. Do your colleagues? What is the interest in your area? Start small. We have been holding a district wide forum for several years. Of the 10 teachers, four or five attend regularly; several others occasionally, and one or two never attend. We continue to meet to serve the needs of those who attend.
CSTA is an organization that exists to serve High School Computer Science Teachers. We can make CSTA the organization that will provide the service we need and want if we are willing to step up and shoulder some responsibility. Yes, High School Computer Science Teachers want a more localized service, but maybe more of us need to come forward to make this a reality.
John Harrison
CSTA Board Member

The CSTA publication is called “Voice” and it has really come home to me the importance of having a Voice.
Our Ministry of Education (In New Zealand we have centralized education policy) has had three attempts in three years at “solving” the problem of Computing in High Schools. None of them, in my view, made or are making progress. But what is finally starting to happen is, informally computer science teachers themselves are “coming out” on a listserv (actually now a Google group) and uniting. They are giving voice to what is required. The listserv has to date been dominated by technical issues or “how do you assess this unit of work.” Now the hot topics are what do we want for CS, how do we achieve it, lets unite and make our collective voice heard.
It is heartening to see teachers gaining a voice and advocating. Several of us have chipped away for a few months and it is gathering momentum. Without those “starter” voices nothing would change.
So I encourage anyone, anywhere in the world, to use their voice. This blog may be a way of making that first contact with others in your own country! Or CSTA can put you in touch with others in the same geographical region.
Joining CSTA will open up that potential.
Margot Phillipps
International Director

As far as obscure government acronyms go, NITRD is a pretty good one. It stands for the National Information Technology Research and Development program. This program cuts across numerous federal agencies to carry out and coordinate investments in IT R&D. In 2007, the President’s Council of Advisory on Science and Technology (PCAST… another doozy of an acronym) issued a report making recommendations for some reforms of the NITRD program. One interesting issue it touched on is the need to improve computing education and strengthen the IT workforce pipeline. With Congress now using this report as basis to look at what changes it would make to the program, ACM joined with the Computing Research Association and National Center for Women and Information Technology in a letter outlining ideas of how NITRD could be improved to address computer science education issues, particularly at the K-12 level.
While R&D is clearly the focus of the NITRD program, it has an education component. The overall program is broken into several (acronym alert) Program Component Areas (PCAs). Each one deals with a field of research but its Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT PCA is charged with addressing workforce and education issues. In truth, this part of the program is small and the Nation Science Foundation dominates the contributions to it. Further, it really does not have a K-12 focus and the Department of Education dropped out of the overall program some time ago. It is time to revitalize and expand this area.
The community letter to Congress seeks to strengthen the pipeline by expanding, better leveraging, and coordinating existing education efforts within the NITRD program. We outline four recommendations (and specific legislative language for the wonks out there):
* Promote computing education, particularly at the K-12 level, and increased exposure to computing education and research opportunities for women and minorities as core elements of the NITRD program;
* Require the NITRD program to address education and diversity programs in its strategic planning and road-mapping process;
* Expand efforts at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to focus on computer science education, particularly at the K-12 level through broadening the Math Science Partnership program; and,
* Enlist the Department of Education and its resources and reach in addressing computer science education issues.
Each of these recommendations would bring a much-needed federal focus to issues in computer science education at the K-12 level. More and more conversations are occurring within the community about what needs to be done to improve computing education, and the discussion often turns back to the K-12 level. Computing and the innovations it yields are critical to the domestic economy. The ubiquitous nature of computing has spread its reach into everyone’s daily lives. Securing our cyber-infrastructure, protecting national security, and making our energy infrastructure more efficient are among numerous issues all depending on computing. However, the current pipeline will not satisfy the demands of an industry that includes some of the country’s most innovative and successful companies. Nor will the existing education system give students the kind of background knowledge in computing and skills they need for the 21st Century.
We must do more to expose kids to a quality computer science education program at the K-12 level, support teachers and bring innovative new curricula into the schools. Opening a serious education front in the NITRD program would be a good start to this ambitious goal.
Cameron Wilson
ACM Director or Public Policy