While riding across the California desert on my way to California CUE (Computer Using Educators), reading several RSS feed captures, and trying to decide upon a topic for my blog contribution from the many CS related events in the news lately, I recalled a fitting quote, “When you don’t know what to do, do many things.”
I think that’s the approach we as technology educators need to embrace, and quickly! There are serious problems in technology/CS education that need solutions. We scratch our collective heads because we are not sure what to do to solve the problems of falling enrollments, to reverse popular CS misperceptions, and to motivate students to look at opportunities in technology.
A few recent reports in the news offer motivation and a source of ideas for some of the “many things” we can do.
The $787 billion stimulus bill, signed into law last week includes $650 million for existing educational technology programs and opportunities for additional funds for improved broadband access for rural schools as well as other dollars identified for educational technology. In a recent article in Education Week magazine, Keith R Krueger, the chief executive officer of the Washington-based Consortium for School Networking, said “If you think this is the time to get ahead of the curve and show that educational technology can be creative, then there are opportunities. If we don’t do this, than shame on us, and we’re going to get rolled over.”
So what can be done “ahead of the curve” in your classroom, school, or district to show CS as a creative solutions for improving graduation rates, re-engaging disengaged students, building relevance into other core subjects, creating effect higher-education articulation agreements?
The second item in my “do many things” list is to vow to meet our clients where they live. The problem we face is the equivalent of what is currently happening to newspapers. The newspaper tossed on the driveway is facing serious circulation problems. Many of their customers are living on the net and that is where they want to get their news. We need to seriously think about where our clients “live.”
Our students call the Internet and other media rich environments home. How are we meeting them there in both our delivery of learning materials and the projects they learn from? Ideas for taking our product to the customer include providing a rich online presence for classes with engaging interactive elements as well as a repository of their learning resources. We need to explore how programming for the Web can enliven a CS course while teaching all of the basic concepts plus many more that have real meaning for our “clients.” Dan Lewis, Santa Clara University, has suggestions on how to do this in the upcoming May issue of the Voice.
Teaching game development is gaining popularity and seems to motivate at least some of our students. The impact of playing video/computer games is hotly debated. Solid research into both the effects of playing games on learning and into the effectiveness of teaching game design on engaging students in STEM careers would be valuable. The good news is that the Games for Learning Institute, a joint venture between New York University, Microsoft, and other colleges has begun research to discover whether video games (and not just those designed to be educational) can draw students into math, science, and technology-based programs.
Opportunities to teach “real” CS using media including games abound. Scratch, Alice, and Media computation are just a couple. New to the field is XNA programming, a natural advanced step in a comprehensive CS curriculum. Many of the opportunities to include game and media development are free and worthy of exploring.
So if you don’t know what to do, do many things!
Pat Phillips
Editor, CSTA Voice

More than likely you wouldn’t be reading this blog if you didn’t feel passionately that computer science is an essential discipline in our high schools. Certainly, every article I read about the importance of teaching our students 21st Century Skills reminds me how critical computer science is in our educational system. Quite simply stated, computer science exemplifies 21st Century skills. Students today are inherently interested in computers and computer science because they are digital natives.
With these digital natives populating our classrooms, the increasing globalization of our economy, and the focus on 21st Century skills, the stage is set for a resurgence of computer science in our schools. Who will teach these digital natives computer science? Unfortunately, many of our states lack teacher certification in computer science. Where computer science teacher certification exists, the certification standards are not consistent among the states. And, the certification standards are certainly not consistent throughout the world. It is critical that the individuals teaching computer science in our schools be exemplary in the field. And, it is critical that a certification structure be put into place to address that critical need.
CSTA has recently published a white paper titled Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification . The white paper addresses the critical need for computer science teacher certification by detailing the importance of computer science education, examining relevant research about computer science teacher preparation, highlighting models of computer science teacher certification, and concludes by recommending models for teacher preparation and certification in computer science. The recommended models for teacher preparation and certification address professionals who are new teachers, veteran teachers who have NO computer science teaching experience, veteran teachers WITH computer science teaching experience, and individuals coming from business with a computer science background. The professionals in each of these four groups bring a wealth of experiences and skills to computer science teaching. These are the professionals who are or will become the teachers who will teach computer science to our digital natives.
The CSTA white paper provides a welcome and necessary model for state teacher certification specialists to follow to establish computer science certification standards in each state thus providing critical uniformity across states. The white paper also assists current and prospective computer science teachers by providing a model for honing their skills and for keeping current in the field. Certainly if we have more professionals earning computer science certification, we will see an increase in computer science education in our schools. This will lead us to exemplary teaching in computer science and prepare our students for success in the 21st Century.
The Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification document can be downloaded by following this link:
http://www.csta.acm.org/Communications/sub/Documents.html
I urge you to take a few minutes to read the document, if you have not already done so.
Deborah Seehorn
CSTA Board Member

Ohio is on the move, or at least we would like to think so.
During the eTech State Technology Conference in February we were able to present four sessions on topics in computer science education. The eTech coordinators worked with us to schedule all four sessions on the same day in the same room. We had approximately 250 people over the four sessions. Topics included teaching with Scratch, programming with phidgets (small electronic devices), CS Unplugged, and teaching graphics and web design.
There were many teachers who stayed to ask questions and gather resources. Many also took CSTA membership forms. One particular teacher confided that the only reason her district allowed her to come was because there were sessions directly relating to her job. Her school district paid for her to attend on the one day that we were presenting. We feel that is a huge success. As we talked to other teachers and as we continue to make new contacts we find that most computer science teachers are isolated. Our hope through things like the day at eTech and through working to develop a chapter that we are able to provide contacts and resources for CS teachers.
We have also begun the conversation about forming a CSTA chapter in Ohio. This conversation will continue on March 10th at our next informal meeting. We hope to use Skype (or something similar) and have a pod of cs teachers meet in the Cleveland and a second group in the Columbus area. The primary goals of this meeting is to determine the structure of our proposed chapter. We also plan to talk more about the lines of communication that have been opened with the Ohio Department of Education concerning awarding a math credit for APCS when 4 credits of math are required with the new Ohio CORE initiatives. We will also discuss upcoming events for CS students and teachers.
The Cincinnati area will also have a meeting on March 17th as scheduling issues prohibit running it in conjunction with Columbus.
As you can see things are happening in Ohio. If you are interested in being a part of any of our activities visit:
http://sites.google.com/site/compsciohio/
to see what is coming up.
Angie Thorne & Stephanie Hoeppner
CSTA Leadership Cohort

In the last year, CSTA has put s great deal of effort into developing a strong advocacy arm for CSTA and there are times when I wonder if this is a good use of our precious and limited resources when there is so much that needs to be done for computer science teachers. A blog comment by our member Tom Reinhardt (which I am including in its entirety below) however, helped me see once again why advocacy is not just important, but critical to our survival as a disciple.
With the launching of the CSTA Leadership Cohort we are now building an advocacy network in every state. And through our work on the ACM Education Policy Committee, we are getting our message to the key policy makers. In fact, several of our powerful CSTA members are on the Hill right now, lobbying for K-12 computer science education.
And these efforts are starting to show signs of success. More states are considering allowing computer science courses to count as math or science credits for mandatory graduation requirements. The National Science Foundation has opened up the Math and Science Partnership grants to include funding for computer science. And we are hearing rumors of a potential large-scale professional development plan for computer science teachers.
In the last year CSTA has also supported two germinal publications. The first is a CSTA publication called Ensuring Exemplary teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification. This publication has now been sent to over 500 educational policy makers.
The second book is by Jane Margolis. It is called Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race and Computing and we are doing everything we can to convince policy makers that they must read this book.
In his comments below, Tom talks about the seemingly overwhelming challenges that teachers are facing and the critical importance of changing the minds of the policy makers. His comments have convinced me that these advocacy efforts are, after all, something our members both want and need.
Chris Stephenson
CSTA Executive Director
Here is Tom’s Comment
What’s missing is “relevance.” Unless or until someone who is in a position of authority deems Computer Science “relevant” we shall be relegated elective status. Pure and simple. That no one from ACM or any other organization was able to get CS into the “core” curriculum when they crafted that terrible piece of legislation called No Child Left Alive, sealed our fate—pure and simple.
Sure, we can argue the point, but, trust me (at least from what I’ve seen over the last six plus years) no one is listening. Unless your content impacts your Principal’s career, you’re irrelevant. In the best case, you’re tolerated. In the worst case, you’re marginalized to the point of collapse.
It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I’m growing weary of hand-wringing and the polly-annish attitude that if we could only make our case known, things would be different. Policy makers only convene meetings to hear opinions that confirm their decisions. Unless they have already decided that you are important, you are a not on the agenda.
This is the view from the trenches, at least in Montgomery County, Maryland. I live from enrollment period to enrollment period. I teach 5 preps, 5 courses, run a department (whithering yearly) and participate in more meetings that I’d care to recount at this moment. I have more education and more experience than 90% of my co-workers. I teach a content area that our Science department treats as “what’s the name of that course?” and our mathematics department sees as not-calculus: No one teaches properties and structures any more; we have calculators, we don’t need abstract mathematics.
All the while, I have excellent relationships with my students who take my courses when they can free up the elective credits. And this is the only reason that I soldier on. Their parents make it a point to visit me on Back to School night; they really don’t have to do that. (Their students could fail my course tomorrow and the Administration would likely expunge it from their records.)
If we really wanted to do something to promote CS, we’d be figuring out how to change the minds of policy makers, not educators because they are cows. We’d be actively engaged in political action, not intellectual hand-wringing. We’d be writing articles and books, exposing the shameful state of a youth abused and deprived of a truly relevant and world-class education.
Peace out.
Tom Reinhardt

I recently had a discussion with a professor from Virginia Tech on why can’t we recruit more students for Computer Science majors at the university level, why can’t we get women or minority students, and what can be done to turn this around? There is obviously a great deal of interest in recruiting students to our discipline, so why are we unsuccessful?
Why don’t high school students take Advanced Placement Computer Science? There are a variety of “excuses”: it is too hard, it is boring, I don’t want to spend my life in a cubical writing code by myself or I don’t want to be a computer scientist, there are no jobs, etc. Let’s examine these rationalizations.
1. It is too hard. Certainly, Computer Science is a challenging discipline and is different in content and concept from any other high school course. But, is it too hard? AP Calculus is hard. AP Physics is hard. AP Spanish is hard. AP Government is hard. In fact, all AP courses are hard. They are college level courses high school students take. By their very nature, AP courses require extra work, cover advanced material, and proceed at a more rapid pace than their non-AP counterparts. AP Exam results support my contention that AP Computer Science is no harder than any other AP subject.
2. It is boring. Again, if all we do is write boring programs, AP Computer Science is boring. However, there are many interesting labs that AP students can do involving graphical applications and real life simulations. As teachers, if we were still teaching using the techniques we learned to teach Pascal, our course would be dull; but most of use are using modern tools and techniques. Even so, is computer science more boring than memorizing derivative forms or learning physical laws?
3. The last series boil down to the perception that there are no jobs or that the jobs are boring. Various agencies (Census Bureau, Labor Department) indicate that there is a growing demand for people with computer science degrees and that the jobs are good jobs that are unlikely to be off-shored. So why can’t we get this message out?
Why do high school students take Advanced Placement (AP) courses? While there are many answers to this question, certainly the ability to achieve college credit or placement is a key factor. Can a student who takes AP Computer Science benefit directly in their college career? For most students, the benefit is indirect and intangible. Few colleges award general education credit for AP Computer Science. The typical student can satisfy those GenEd requirements with most AP courses (math, science, history, foreign language) but AP Computer Science does not fit in this mold. AP Computer Science students learn how to solve problems, how to think outside the box, and how to tackle a large project. These are all skills that lead to success in future academic courses. However, AP Computer Science does not lead to college credit for most students.
So, what can we do? We (High School Teachers) can’t fix the college credit issue. However, we can tout the virtues of our course in developing 21st century skills and creating a more technologically savvy student. How many majors require either a formal programming class, expect the student to be able to write Excel spreadsheet macros, or create Visual Basic applications? As a student, do you want to do this as a college freshman when you are making the adjustment to college life or as a high school student when you are still in your comfort zone? As educators, we need to sell our course, not as making students computer scientists, but rather, exposing students to skills and knowledge they will need for the rest of their lives. How many other high school courses can make that statement?
John Harrison
CSTA Board Member

I’m sitting in my office printing out cards to send to students to invite them to enroll in a computer course. I am using the AP Potential list from the College Board provides. It includes the students that the College Board believes should be successful in an AP Computer Science class. Fortunately, one of the school’s secretaries was kind enough to look up some additional information about the students to help me deliver the cards.
While waiting for the printer to chug out the cards, I was thinking about a strategy that I recently used in my computer class. As a mentor for two beginning teachers (PT), I am invited to attend the workshops that my PTs are required to attend. The PTs are required to implement a strategy and then collect evidence to show its effectiveness. I decided that since they had to do it, I should at least implement something that was suggested during the “Teaching Academic Language to English Learners” workshop. I decided to implement the “same and different” strategy.
During the workshop, the speaker walked us through “same and different.” She had us divide ourselves into pairs. In our pairs we selected who was A and who was B. The As received one picture and the Bs another. We were told to discuss the picture with our partner in terms of how the pictures were the same or different, but were could not show the picture to our partner. For instance, in my picture there was a couple, a man and a woman. In my partner’s picture there was also a man and a woman. In my picture both were standing, but in my partner’s picture the man was leaning and the woman was standing. We continued our comparison for 5 to 10 minutes.
I decided I could also use this strategy in my AP Computer Science class. I gave my As a method that returned a value without parameters and the Bs were given a similar method except that it did not return a value and had parameters. The students discussed the methods for 5 to 10 minutes then we had a whole class discussion about return types, parameters and method calls. The students felt that this help solidify return types and parameters. I am looking for an opportunity to use this again.
Give it a try with your students and let us know how it works.
Myra Deister
CSTA Board Member

I used to say that high school students should take computer science because it helps them be better problem solvers and critical thinkers. I’d go on to say that what they learn in computer science will serve them well no matter what they choose to study or what career path they take in the future.
I don’t say that anymore.
Not that I don’t believe it. Of course I do. But how does this argument differentiate computer science from any other academic high school class or discipline? The fact is that *every* high school teacher can claim (and rightly so) that taking classes in their discipline will help students be better problem solvers and critical thinkers.
So what then is the compelling reason to take computer science in high school?
I think we can only answer this question by looking at what it means to be a well-educated citizen in today’s world. Most would agree that, at the minimum, we need to be able to read and write with understanding, have a knowledge of mathematics that includes algebra and geometry, understand the basics of science including the fundamentals of biology, chemistry, and physics, and have a historical perspective on our own culture and the culture of others.
I’d argue that we must have computing literacy as well.
Now, by computing literacy I don’t mean knowing how to keyboard, word process, or use software. These are all important skills but fall into the realm of either basic foundational skills taught in elementary school (such as handwriting typically is) or extracurricular education (such as driver’s ed).
Computing literacy is also not information literacy. While essential, information literacy is about critical reading and analysis rather than computer science.
Finally, computing literacy is not just about knowing how to program any more than mathematical literacy is just about knowing how to use a calculator or chemistry literacy is just knowing how to do a titration or history literacy is just about memorizing a bunch of dates and events.
Computing literacy *is* about knowing and understanding the fundamentals — the big ideas, if you will — of computer science. It is about understanding how computing simulates the real world by modeling real world processes. It is about understanding basic algorithms and algorithmic techniques and how we can solve complex problems using simple concepts. It is about understanding abstraction and how it helps us manage complexity. It is about understanding the theoretical and practical limitations of computing, knowing that they affect what types of problems we can solve and how quickly we can solve them.
When we talk about computing literacy in these terms, it gives us a compelling case for making computer science a required part of the high school curriculum so that our students are well-educated citizens and productive members of society. Given the ubiquity of computers and computing and how they are both integrated with and integral to every other discipline, it’s hard to argue otherwise.
Robb Cutler
CSTA Past President

I hope that you have had as restful and relaxing a holiday break as I have. After what felt like non-stop activity during the first semester, with lessons to plans, assignments to grade, and students to help, it’s nice to have some time away from school. As the break winds down, I find my thoughts turning back to school.
As a teacher, I always think of the new year as beginning in September. New pencils and pens, bright classrooms, excited students…the short days of January have nothing on the fall. That said, the new calendar year can provide an opportunity to start fresh.
I used to think it was important to maintain absolute consistency. Even when systems didn’t work, I kept going with them. I’d been told it was important to keep things the same, lest we confuse students. Fortunately, I’ve long since realized what a bad idea that is! Consistency is only a good idea if it works. Now I use the holiday break to reflect on what systems are not working well and how I can improve them in the upcoming semester.
This year, I will offer weekly lunch tutorials, so students will have a dedicated time they can get help. I’m always available by request, but having to set a time is a barrier for some of them. Hopefully, knowing they can come in every Wednesday will encourage some students who need extra support.
What changes are you thinking of? What ideas do you have that someone else might use in their class?
Michelle Hutton
CSTA President

I recently heard a statistic that 30% of the students who take AP Computer Science go on to major in computer science in college. While this may sound like an impressive statistic, it only serves to highlight one of the systemic problems in high school computer science education — namely, that we don’t serve a broad base of students.
Consider the evidence. Only 20,000 or so students currently write the APCS (both A and AB combined) exam, and this number is likely to decrease next year when the AB exam is retired. Contrast this with the 100,000 students who take the AP Chemistry exam, the 145,000 students who take the AP Biology exam, the 275,000 students who take the AP Calculus exam, and the almost 600,000 students who take the AP English Language or Literature exams. In fact, more students take an AP exam in French than in Java!
Why is there such a wide variance in the numbers? I think you have to examine the motivations of students who take AP courses. While some students take AP courses because they like the subject matter or because they want college placement and/or credit, my experience has been that the vast majority of students take AP courses for two reasons:
First and foremost, students take AP courses because of the GPA boost they get. Many high schools have a higher GPA scale for AP and honors courses, but even if they don’t, admissions departments at the college level will often recalculate a student’s reported GPA to weight AP courses more heavily. The end result is that many students will only take a non-AP course as a last resort because it will often *lower* their GPA — even if they get an A+.
Second, students take AP courses because it improves their chances for admission at most selective colleges and universities. Admissions officers want to see students take the most challenging coursework available to them. When there’s a choice, it is better to take an AP class (even if your grade is slightly lower) than to take a non-AP course and get an A+.
The main problem is that the APCS course (either A or AB) is perceived as difficult and time-consuming — not rigorous and challenging. With all that students are doing these days, being able to sink two or three or four hours a night into a lab is just not possible. Even if they have the time to put into APCS, they have the very real concern that their other grades will suffer as a result.
It comes down to the fact that when students have a choice between APCS and another AP course that they perceive as “challenging but doable,” students will usually pick the latter — sometimes even if they would prefer to take computer science.
Don’t get me wrong. I love computer science and I advocate strongly that *every* student should have a basic understanding of the field. But unless we do something soon to change how computer science is being taught at the AP level, I fear that APCS A will soon go the way of AB.
As far as that 30% statistic I mentioned earlier, I’d much rather see it drop to 2% — as long as we could develop a broadly appealing yet rigorous computer science course. If AP Computer Science could draw a similar number of students as AP English, we would increase the number of students who go on to major in computer science by more than 50%. Now *that* would be impressive.
Robb Cutler
CSTA Past President

You might remember Jane Margolis’ and Allan Fisher’s book from a few years ago called “Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing”. That book was a germinal work about computer science education and it fundamentally changed how many of us look at issues of gender and computing.
Well, Jane has done it again, and if you can find time to read nothing else this year, read “Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing”.
This book is essential reading for anyone who cares about the critical intersections of education, race, and computing. It is shocking and sad and uplifting and it is essential reading for educators, administrators, parents, community leaders, policy makers, and anyone who cares about the future.
Margolis and her team show that when it comes to education and computing, the emperor has no clothes. Schools may be filled with shiny new machines but this is no guarantee that students are learning the high level critical thinking skills they require. The writers also lay bare a pervasive and systemic racism that virtually guarantees that even the best and brightest minority students receive nothing more than rudimentary point and click computing education, severely diminishing their abilities to succeed at the post secondary level and to thrive in the increasingly technological world in which we live.
Set all of this in a bureaucratic quagmire where actually educating the students (rather than just managing them) is a near impossibility and one begins to feel as though this is a hopeless situation. But this is where “Stuck in the Shallow End” actually triumphs. In the midst of grim reality it offers hope (grounded in solid research), showing how researchers, teachers, and administrators can work together to acknowledge and overcome the ingrained inequalities that keep so many of our students from achieving their full potential.
And it should also be mentioned that this is not just a thoughtful book, it is also extremely well-written and accessible, even to the most dedicated non-techie.
If you are an educator, if you care about educating all students, if you care about understanding what is going on and doing what is right, get this book. I know your time is precious, but it will be worth every minute you spend reading it. I promise.
Chris Stephenson
CSTA Executive Director