2021 State of Computer Science Education: Accelerating Action Through Advocacy
In this episode I unpack the report titled “2021 state of computer science education: accelerating action through advocacy,” which is an annual report on the state of K-12 CS in the United States that was authored by The Code.org Advocacy Coalition, Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), and the Expanding Computing Education Pathways Alliance (ECEP).
-
Welcome back to another episode of the CSK8 podcast.
My name is Jarod O'Leary.
Each week of this podcast
is either an episode with one or more guests or a sole episode
where it unpacks some scholarship in relation to computer science education.
In this week's episode, I'm unpacking the paper titled 2021
State of Computer Science Education Accelerating Action Through Advocacy.
This particular paper was developed in collaboration between Code.org,
specifically the Advocacy Coalition with the Computer Science
Teachers Association's
USDA and ESP, which is the expanding computing education pathways.
I'll include links to each
of those organizations in the show notes, which you can find at Jared Telecom,
or by clicking the link in the app that you're listening to this on.
So normally I read off an abstract, but what I'm going to do
is actually read off the first paragraph of the executive summary,
and this is on page one, which is PDF page five.
Quote Just 51% of high schools offer computer science up from 35% in 2018.
This represents tremendous progress by teachers, school leaders, policymakers
and other advocates.
But given the significance of computing in today's society, it is inadequate
that half of the schools lack even a single course.
And new data reveals that disparities exist
for who has access to and who participates in computer science.
Education policy clearly matters
as states with more computer science policies in place have more schools
offering computer science and more students taking it.
It is important for policymakers, industry leaders and advocates
to accelerate action by advocating for policies that make computer
science a fundamental part of the education system, end quote.
To summarize this into a single sentence, I'd say that this paper is
an annual report on the state of K-12 sex in the United States.
It was authored by Code.org, K and E.
So now in the executive summary, which again starts on page one.
They've got some like highlights of some of the data.
So there's some really interesting findings.
If you just take a look at it.
Like, for example, of the 37 states that have this kind of data, only 4.7%
of high school students are enrolled in foundational computer science courses.
There's also other data, such
as female students make up 49% of the elementary school
students, 44% of middle school, and 31%
of high school students who are enrolled in a foundational computer science course.
So it's data like that that's really interesting to look at.
I highly recommend checking out this report,
which I do include a direct link to in the show notes.
Now, on page
four, there's an interesting quote in here that says, quote, In spring 2020,
computer science teachers reported
temporary suspension of computer science instruction, disproportionately affecting
higher poverty schools, rural schools and schools serving large populations
of black, African-American, Hispanic, Latino, Latina,
Latin and Native American students. End quote.
Now, this is interesting.
So this is actually citing a Kapor Center and seeks to report on Covid's
impact on education.
And amongst this prize, it's not a higher number, as I know.
Even now, there are some schools where they have
like 20 plus teachers out every day.
So because of that, some of the computer science educators that I know are
having to cover other like, quote, core content areas.
So instead of teaching this, these classes like they're still having to do
like English classes because on the priority scale,
this is still a lower priority compared to reading, writing and arithmetic.
But we can problematize that all you want. But it's just interesting.
Like I honestly would have thought
it would have been higher, especially in the spring of 2020,
when remote learning was like a new thing for a lot of people.
But maybe I'm just like bringing in my experiences with music education
and thinking of like my music educator friends
who literally were not allowed to teach their classes
because like with vocal projection and whatnot and playing an instrument,
you're using a lot of air.
And because we didn't really understand COVID,
a lot of music classes were canceled because there weren't adequate ways
to have face coverings and whatnot or to social distance.
When you have like 100 kids in a class
who are all singing standing right next to each other.
Okay, on the next page, which is page five, but PDF page nine.
So this kind of highlights the nine policies to make
computer science fundamental within a particular state.
So the nine policies are as follows and this is going to be direct
quotes of what it's stated.
So for number one, it's create a state plan for K-12 computer science.
Number two is define computer science and establish rigorous K-12
computer science standards.
Number three is to allocate funding
for computer science teacher professional learning.
Number four is to implement clear certification
pathways for computer science teachers.
Number five is to create pre-service programs
in computer science at higher education institutions.
Number six is to establish
computer science supervisor positions in education agencies.
Number seven is to require that all high schools offer computer science.
Number eight
is to allow a computer science credit to satisfy a core graduation requirement.
Number nine is to allow computer science to satisfy a higher education
and mission requirement.
Now, while I really agree with and understand these, a critique
that I have is that it focuses primarily on high schools.
So, for example, number seven,
requiring all high schools offer computer science is a very different requirement.
And then saying requiring all schools K-through-12
or even pre-K through 12th offer computer science, computational thinking,
whatever, however you want to phrase it.
But the point is like expanding beyond just the high school offerings.
Now, another thing that I'll point out is like number three.
So allocate funding for computer science professional learning.
While that's a great goal, and if we go all the way down to page 43
and we look at my home state, Arizona,
for this particular one, it says, Yeah, there's funding.
And it says that this $4.7 million for us.
And since 2016, however, if you actually go and look at the grants
that have been offered, at least in Arizona,
all of the ones that I've seen have been specifically for high school
professional development
and are not applicable through the K eight classes and K eight educators.
So while I think it's like awesome
for states to follow these policies, I think it'd be nice to also encourage
that these nine different policies are not just targeted towards
high school, however say implemented, but that's a good starting place.
I guess. So it's better than nothing.
Now interestingly, if we scroll a little bit further down to page seven,
so it says it says that at this point, all 50 states in Washington, D.C.
now have computer science as counting towards
a graduation requirement, and that three states in particular,
Arkansas, South Carolina and Nevada, require that all students
take at least one computer science course before graduation.
Now, that's really interesting,
and I'm going to get into a little bit
of a rant towards
the end of this episode that kind of talks about some of my thoughts on that.
So a little teaser for you.
So the next several pages of this particular document
kind of talk about like some of the statewide things going on.
So, for example, some governors are partnering
to promote computer science education, but interestingly,
that number is only eight Republicans, seven Democrats
who are currently holding office and then five Republicans
and three Democrats who formerly held office.
So it's not like a ton.
And this commitment, again, focuses on high school.
These three policies are ensuring that all high schools offer computer science,
providing funding for teacher
professional development, and developing a set of K-12 standards.
Although in other episodes I have problematize standards.
I think this is a good sign for promoting computer science in the classroom.
So having K-12 computer science standards is great that it's K-12,
not just high school,
but the first key policy of ensuring all high schools offer computer science.
I wish that was expanded to all pre-K through 12 offered computer science,
but I know that's obviously harder to do, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
And the reason why I again think it's important to expand
that is because that second policy of providing
funding could make a governor go, well, why would we provide
funding for K through eight when really we're
all about high school right now, so let's just focus on that.
And so they might do what Arizona did
where they just provide funding for high school.
So the next section in here is talking about like federal policies and whatnot.
So has mentioned that there's been over $190 billion for K-12 education,
and computer science
is one of the subject areas that we'll be able to spend
some of these funds over the next few years.
So if you are a researcher or organization who is interested in
doing federally funded grants,
then it looks like you might have the opportunity to get some funds,
which is awesome.
And by the way,
if you are the kind of person who's interested in doing grants so am I.
Although I try to not mention it.
I do have a Ph.D. happy to do some research.
So if you listen to some of these interviews
and solo episodes
and you feel like we kind of resonate are on the same wavelength,
feel free to contact me using the button on my website.
Happy to chat about what grants you're interested in.
All right.
And then the final subsection of this particular section of the paper
is titled Looking Back and Looking Forward.
So in this section they give a few different recommendations for the field.
And so I'm going to kind of read each one of these.
So one recommendation is, quote,
As computer science access and participation increases
work to ensure that it reaches students from the populations
that are currently underrepresented, end quote.
Turn page ten.
Now, interestingly,
one of the things that I like that they point out is that the impact
of the switch to remote learning has really kind of helped some schools
actually get some devices and Internet or at least improved devices
and improved Internet in their schools and able for kids to take home.
So this is actually helped out
computer science education where previously some districts might not
have had the ability to actually have 1 to 1 devices.
However, there's still an underrepresentation
of people who are tending to participate in computer science,
at least according to some of the data that is in this particular study.
So here's a quote that's also from page ten.
Quote, Compared to pre-pandemic states,
the percentage of district leaders reporting 1 to 1 devices, i.e.
one device per student in middle and high school increased from 66% to 90%.
And at the elementary level, it increased from 42% to 84%.
Education superhighway
has now achieved its goal of broadband access in every school
and has shifted its focus to the homework gap or student access at home.
And so that's actually like a really great sign.
I mean, for the elementary level, it's like doubled the number of devices
or at least the percentage.
And then we had a 24% increase for middle and high school.
So even though obviously COVID has had a huge negative impact on many people,
it has also had some positive impacts in areas like this, which is great.
All right.
So the second recommendation that they provide is to, quote, leverage
student devices, school broadband access and educator experience,
teaching with technology to expand access to and participation in computer science.
In quotes from page 11.
Now, for people who are interested in grants, one of the things that they do
say on page ten is, quote, In the future, virtual offerings
could provide a possible solution to some of the challenges with computer
science access, particularly for rural or small schools that do not
yet have the capacity to offer computer science courses in person, end quote.
So if you are somebody who is working on
grants, this is an important thing to consider.
You're trying to do some broadening participation.
Maybe you should consider
writing participation in rural or small schools that don't have ask right now
because of devices. Internet or whatever.
All right.
So the next section of here is talking about K-8 computer science.
So interestingly, it said that 40% of all the costs for all grants from NSF
that were awarded in 2020
and 2021 were specifically focused on pre-K eight computer science education.
Now, one things that I mention in here is that there's this
tendency to misunderstand some prior
education or science experience with like some kind of a natural aptitude.
And so they point out that, quote, Boys are more likely to come
to school with prior computer science experiences from outside of school
and are more likely
to be encouraged by a teacher or parent to take computer science, end quote.
So this is really important to consider when trying to recruit kids to join
your CS program is thinking through some of the biases you might have
that you might miss attribute to, Oh, well, this particular kind of person
has a natural aptitude for engaging in see us, when really it might just be
they have more access at home or more experience or exposure to it,
which is why they have recommendation number three, which is quote,
great for K-12 pathways for computer science to lay a foundation
for more diverse enrollment
and retention in high school courses, end quote from page 12.
Now, again, a critique is that they have a heavy emphasis on high school courses
and increasing enrollment there.
However, they do have some state level policies
that are increasingly focused on the K eight space.
And so these policies this is from page
funding to K eight, requiring all K-8 schools to teach computer science,
creating K a course codes in computer science, hiring a state
employee to focus solely on K eight computer science implementation,
requiring all pre-service elementary teacher preparation programs to include
computer science and computational thinking content, and replacing K-12
teacher certifications with grade band specific certifications, end quote.
Again, from page 12.
I'm definitely biased,
but I definitely agree with a lot of these that we need to focus on this more.
And then the last recommendation that they provide that's also on page 12
is quote, Prioritize teaching foundational computer science to ensure
all students are prepared for various advanced pathways, end quote.
So you might be wondering, well, what exactly does that mean?
So they clarify that there's like a bunch of new pathways
that people can take that are related to AI or cybersecurity or data science, etc.
So it would be helpful to have a foundation in computer science, broadly
speaking, before diving into those areas.
I would, however, argue that even though it's easier to teach a class
when you can assume prerequisites, I think it could create a barrier to entry
that would be unnecessary to learn cybersecurity, AI and data science, etc.
Yes, it would be helpful.
But if we run into pre rex,
kind of like what we have with some of the AP computer science
courses with like pre rex of Hey,
you have to have passed a certain math class
that can prevent some people from actually being able to participate.
So just have to be very intentional and think through whether or not we want
pre rex in any of the courses that we're working with.
All right.
So the next section that starts on page
of talking about nationwide what's been going on in this last year.
How have things changed?
I'm going to kind of read off some of the stats that are on here.
So what's interesting is for the first main sections is from page 16.
This is on the percentage
of public high schools offering foundational computer science.
So in 2018 it was 35%.
But in 2021 it's 51%.
However, when we go to geographic percentage in urban schools, it's 48%.
In suburban schools is 61%.
In a town, it's 46 and in rural populations is 49%.
And then when we look at free
and reduced lunch for schools with less than 24%, it's 57% of schools.
And if we look at the other end
of the continuum, schools with greater than 75%, it's only in 41%.
So there's a very clear difference
depending on if you're in a suburban or urban school versus rural,
as well as if you are for your in reduced lunch or not.
Now, at the bottom of that page on page
And what they do is they relate it to between like the student population
demographics versus enrolled in. Yes.
So, for example, English language learners,
like the student population is 10%, but only 6% of them are enrolled in US
students with a504 plans.
The student population is 2.7%, but in six classes it's actually 3.5%.
So it's higher then which is a really interesting finding.
And I honestly like to learn more about that.
Like why are students under edema?
It's 14% who are the student population, but only 9% are enrolled.
And then if we look at what they call economically disadvantaged students, it's
but only 38% are enrolled.
And that's for the K-12.
Now, if you look at grades nine through
so this is looking at race or ethnicity.
So for a student population, it's 15% black or African-American
and 16% are enrolled in see us, it means it's higher.
Look at Hispanic, Latino, Latina and Latin X 26%,
compared to 19% enrolled are Native American or Alaskan.
It's 1% compared to 1.2% enrolled for Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders.
It's matched at point
to more than double the percent.
If we look at white, it's both at 48% of the population and enrolled.
And then if you look at two or more races, it's 4% versus 3% enrolled.
It's interesting to see where
there's like some where it's like very similar or same percentages
and then others where there's like either significantly more or significantly less.
Let's talk about this more a little bit later on about, well,
why is that and what can we do about that or should we do something about that?
Again, a teaser
now on the next page, the authors mentioned
that they're different organizations or even like funded
grants will try and improve or broaden participation in different ways.
So this could include like policy advocacy.
It could be providing for teachers in high need areas or even developing
culturally relevant curriculum. All right.
So in the next section, there is a little discussion on Native
American reservations and schools that have CSS education
offerings on there at the high school level and foundational computer science
courses, 20% of the 175 schools are Native American reservations at CSS courses.
And then there are specific organizations and even projects
that are mentioned on there and interestingly enough,
the NSF Project on the Wind River Elementary Computer Science Collaborative,
actually one that I'm working on
some developing the curriculum for it,
include a link to some of the resources that we've created,
some of the like promotional videos that kind of demonstrate what we're doing.
So check that out in the show notes.
It's pretty cool project,
and I'll also include a link to some scratch projects
so you can see some of these student artwork
which was created by these students on the Wind River
Reservation, which has both Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone people.
There's some amazing artwork
and student creations that we have permission to share publicly.
So then they have a little section on students with disabilities,
and they again mention that the Final Four students
have a higher overrepresentation in the high school courses,
which is interesting, but the IEPs are slightly underrepresented.
All right, so that was mostly at the high school level.
So the next section is on K eight participation and they actually do
mention that the nonprofit that I work for.
But up next, you want to read more about that.
You can see some of our impact.
It's interesting looking at those numbers, because I know we're higher than that
now in terms of the impact that we've had and the reach.
However, what's really interesting on Pages 21 and 22
is that the spread between some different demographics, specifically
by race and ethnicity, is very different than in the high school level.
We actually see that it's kind of flattens things out.
So for example, the spread is smaller for some of the different demographics.
So for example, for Hispanic, Latino, Latina, and that next
we have a 20% and 17% spread for population and enrolled.
But then if you look at the K through five population, it's a 22 to a 21% spread.
Now, again, compare that with high school.
And in that same demographic, it was 26 to 19.
It's a 7% spread at the high school level,
at the middle school, and then a 1% spread at the elementary level.
And my guess is the reason why is because they are not elective classes.
Instead, these offerings are for everybody at the elementary level,
at least from what we've seen nationwide.
That tends to be what districts are doing.
You're less likely to see a gifted or talented program
or the honors program only doing coding and nobody else doing it.
Instead, you're seeing entire districts or schools
having all kids actually participate, which is awesome.
Now the spread is also found in like the economically disadvantaged students.
So for example, the student population is 52%,
but then 50% are enrolled at the elementary level at the middle
school levels, 52 to 46, and then again at the high school level, it's 52 to 38%.
Again, we're seeing that in these district wide elementary
see programs, assuming here that that's what the majority of these are,
then you're getting a much lower spread between the percent of student population
and those who are actually participating in computer science education courses,
which is why I put up we are really focused on district wide implementation.
We are not just doing the honors and gifted.
We are not just doing an after school.
We want all students to participate.
So on page 23 they focus on gender and then they also
focus on a breakdown of race or ethnicity.
So for the gender side of things, they point out that in 2014
that only 20% were female.
However, in 2020, 31% of AP computer science exam takers were female.
And they also actually mentioned that 2.02% were, quote, another gender.
Like I say, I would fall under that .02 percent.
As a non-binary person, it's nice to actually see that the starting
to include gender representation outside of male and female.
So also on page 23, they have a breakdown between percent of student population
and percent of exam takers based on race and ethnicity.
So for black or African-American is 15% for student population and 6% who enrolls.
Yes, specifically for the AP, for Hispanic, Latino, Latina and Latin X,
it's 26 to 16% for Native American and Alaskan is 1%.
Hawaiian and Pacific Islander.
It's 0.4%, 2.15% for white, it's
It's five and 5%.
And then for Asian, it's 5% student population and 27% enrollments. Yes.
So more than five times the percentage.
Now, on page 24, they actually break down the different race categories
as well as gender categories.
So they have the expected population.
And then the six exams for male and six exams for female.
So if you're interested in that, I highly recommend
checking out that particular page, giving you a teaser
on some of these because I want you to actually read it.
It's a good, good report to look at and to consider.
On page 26, they do mention that there is a correlation.
A strong correlation does not mean that it's causation, but
it's the correlation between policy and implementation.
So if you have a state that adopts one of those nine standards
or nine policies that I mentioned earlier, and you're more likely
to have higher access to computer science in schools.
All right.
So the next section, I'm going to go through many pages really fast
and just kind of give you some highlights
on the overall state across all of the United States.
So for example, in 2017, there were two states that adopted
a state plan over time.
But in 2021, there's now 22 year standards.
In 2017, there were only six states that had it, but in 2021, they're now 39
for allocation of funding.
There were nine states in 2017, but they're now 31 in 2021
where teacher certificates in 2017.
Interestingly, there are 27 states that had teacher certificates.
I imagine it was mainly in high school.
But in 2021 they're now 41 for teacher preparation.
There were 12 schools in 2017 that had some teacher
preparation and higher education to help prepare CSO educators.
But in 2021, there's now 21 of them.
Only eight states in 2017 had a computer science supervisor.
But in 2021 there's now 34. In 2017, only
four states had a requirement for all high schools to offer six.
But in 2021, there's now 23 states.
There were 28 states that had six satisfy a core high school
graduation requirement.
But in 2017, there's now 51 that includes D.C., as in Washington, D.C.
in higher education.
In 2017, there are 13 states that's allowed six to satisfy
a core admission requirement for getting into a higher ed program.
But in 2021, there's now 21.
And so those are kind of a very quick overview of all of the data
that is kind of presented from pages
So if you want more information on any one of those,
I definitely recommend checking out each one of those pages Following.
This is the summary of each state.
So they have one page per state and then they have like appendices
and like things like that.
At the end, what I'm going to do is just kind of
give you a preview of what it looks like in my state.
So in Arizona,
so on the top left, they have a quick summary of the different policies.
So the nine policies on there.
So they'll tell you like for the state plan, Arizona, No,
they don't have a state plan,
but they do have standards. They do have funding,
they have certification, they don't have pre-service.
They're in progress for a supervisor.
They do not require all high schools to offer it.
It is a district decision, whether it's a graduation requirement, and then there's
no for admissions to get into a higher education institution.
Now, for these,
they also have like a breakdown of some clarifications on some stuff.
So like the supervisor says is in progress.
But then in the actual report, it says, quote, The U.S.
Department of Education is currently in the process of hiring a seasoned
educational technology specialist, end quote, from page 43.
So for each one of these, you can kind of get a little quick highlight of those
nine different policies if it feels like it needs some kind of a clarification
or an update since this report previously came out.
And they also have interesting data specific to the states.
For example, in access by geography, in Arizona,
at least 46% of urban schools had access
had access to computer science and 29% in rural schools had access.
And these are at high school offerings.
If you look at the free and reduced lunch for schools with less than 24%, only
and 49, 64% have access, 50 and 74%.
We have 52% With access.
And then for schools with greater than
So it's a pretty interesting little bell curve they have there.
We also have some more information at the bottom of each one of these pages.
So, for example, the enrollment by subgroup
as comparison between student population and enrollments. Yes.
For English language learners, we have 7% population, but only 1% are enrolled.
In course, for students with disabilities, we have 13% population and 10% enrolled.
When we look at economic disadvantage students, we have 44%
in student population and 48% enrolled.
These are at high school levels, by the way.
And then it also has a breakdown similarly between race and ethnicity.
Now, I'm not going to read all of these, but what I do recommend is you actually go
and find the name of your state or the District of Columbia,
and specifically take a look at the data that's presented here and see
how is your state doing as a whole and then potentially engaging
in a conversation with your local like siesta chapter.
Try and figure out what can we do
to improve A, B or C findings from this particular study.
So again, I'll include a link to this in the shownotes.
But at the end of each one of these unpacking scholarship episodes,
I like to do my lingering thoughts or some questions that I'd like to share.
So one question that I have is what data aren't being explored
and what questions aren't being asked for this kind of report.
If you have an idea of some things that you think would be beneficial
for the field to know about or that you'd like to know about,
I do actually recommend reaching out to Code.org, CTA and etc.
because I know they are willing to engage in these discussions.
We've had multiple conversations
about this particular report while they were preparing it.
So if you think of something that would be useful, share it with them.
Now, the next comment that I have and like series of questions is around
how each of the 37 states that have the enrollment data,
it appears that 4.7% are enrolled in a CC foundational course
at the high school level, which is interesting.
So one question that I have about that is what percentage
would you personally be happy with for students
taking at least one CSS course and why that percentage?
So for some background, for some context, my background is in music education
and there is often discussion about reaching the other 80% within the field.
So that is referencing an earlier study that showed that 20% of high school
students were participating in some kind of a music class
or program at their school.
So music educators are constantly trying to figure out how do we get the other 80%?
Now, in a more recent publication that I'll include a link to, it's around 25%
that are actually enrolled in high school at the time in that publication.
So for you, with 25% of kids taking six courses,
choosing to elect to do that, is that okay with you or would you like
a higher or lower number?
And why is that?
Now, if you are somebody who thinks that it should be a higher number
than either the 4.7% or even higher than the 25%,
then I guess a question that you might consider
is what might see US educators learn from other subject areas about how
and why they have higher enrollment numbers.
So, for example, with the music programs, they often have multiple pathways
to participate by either performing in a variety of different ensembles, maybe
engaging in some recording and producing classes, maybe a class on composing,
maybe a class on analyzing and studying theory or music appreciation, etc.
in different genres and styles.
So what could something like that look like for us?
Education?
Would it be, Hey, we have a class in app development, but
we also have a class in game development, maybe a class on cybersecurity, AI, etc.
Maybe that's something that could help
increase enrollment and broaden participation.
I don't know.
But what I do recommend is actually looking
at those subject areas, specifically the ones where people elect to be there.
They are choosing to be there
and try and figure out
why is it that they have such a higher percentage then see US education.
Now another more critical question to consider is how do you as an individual
or even the field, respond when some demographics disproportionally
outweigh others either in your program or in the field?
So, for example,
when it appears that
Asian high school students attend these classes at more than double
the percentage rate of students in a school or more than five times
the rates for AP courses.
Now, the field has clearly responded
by trying to increase the number of other races or ethnicities.
But what about in scenarios where there aren't enough devices,
teachers or openings in a class and you have to make some kind of decision
about who to let into your class?
So, for example, the Media arts and Makerspace
elective class that I ran for, the middle school had a waiting list.
I was not in charge of that waiting list
since the principal was and so they had to figure out
who they're going to let into the class for the elective.
Now, some of the kids, when they were writing down their electives,
they would write down my class only and not do any other rank ordering.
They'd specifically write down comments like,
I will not participate in any other class.
Do not sign me up for anything other than this one,
which is great that students really wanted to be there.
But what if we had 40 kids who all said the same thing
and there was only 35 openings in that class?
What kind of decisions would the assistant
principal have had to make to let on who to let in and why?
So, for example, one thing that we need to consider
when looking at these numbers is if you're in this scenario,
best case scenario, you have way too many kids
who want to participate in computer science education.
Then you have time in the day to actually teach
and maybe your school can't afford to hire more science educators.
So would you turn students away from a demographic that is over
representative in favor of students from a demographic
that is underrepresented within your program?
So, for example, going off of the data that's on here, might you turn away
some Asian students in favor of Hispanic or Latino, Latina or Latin students?
So in that particular demographic scenario, if you're okay
with turning away some students in favor of another,
are you okay with turning away students on five or four plans in favor of students
who aren't on a504 plan and why their percentage was also higher,
but they're also simultaneously within an underrepresented group
depending on what's on their 504.
And then what about the intersections of those different demographics?
So what about an Asian student
who's not in a504 with a Hispanic student who is in a504?
What do you do then? I obviously don't have answers to this.
I can't make those decisions for you, but it's something to consider
because it might end up happening to you.
I know it's happened to other educators that I've spoken with
who do have a waiting list to get into their classes.
However, I want to ask some questions
now that it's more of a critique of the discourse around CSS for all.
So in particular,
my question that I've brought up before in this podcast is at what point
would you be willing to admit
that not every subject area is going to be of interest to everyone?
And if we problematize that kind of discourse a little bit more,
where's the line for when pushing for participation over
access becomes a form of colonization, like theological colonization,
colonizing the values of another group or another identity.
So, for example, what if there was a particular community
or a minority identity or group or culture, etc., that
just fundamentally doesn't have interest in computer science education?
Quick on that comes to mind
is maybe the Amish community is not interested in cybersecurity.
That's just a guess. I don't actually know.
This is just hypothetical.
So if we were broke down demographics and found a low percentage of AMA students
taking or electing to take AP classes in high school, would we
then as a field say, No, you must do this, Or
we ask the question of, well, why is it that they're not interested in it?
Maybe it's just fundamentally a disagreement
about the value of computer science for that particular identity.
Another question related to this is okay, so if everyone is required to take see us
in elementary and middle school,
but they're still choosing to not participate in high school,
maybe they just don't like the field quite like you or I do.
I love it, but I don't expect everyone else to.
One of the things that I brought up as in this podcast is that
when I first started teaching Drumline, I was like,
Oh, everyone's going to love this the way that I do.
This is the greatest thing ever and I want everyone to know that.
And then I started working with students and some of them agreed,
while others were like, Yeah, I like this, but like my real passion is hockey,
so I'd rather do that or my real passion is drawing.
I'd rather do that. This I just kind of do for the fun.
So maybe it's the same thing for science education.
Not everyone's going to want to go into this field, and that's okay.
I do think it's an important field of study that has a huge impact on society.
However, I think it's also equally important for people to study
nutrition or psychology or communication, culinary arts and esthetics, etc.
If each one of those domains had a for all movement like nutrition for all,
wouldn't that inevitably dilute everything that we are doing in the other
subject areas because there's not enough time in the day to learn everything.
So if instead of
having arbitrarily throwing out numbers here like ten required subject areas,
we have 15 that takes away time from those other subject areas
that are required or even the elective courses.
What if we eventually, a few decades from now, have 20 subject areas
instead of ten and we're just kind of skimming on the surface of things
rather than actually being able to dive deep
and actually develop some expertise in something,
which is why I'm much more in favor of, Hey, we should focus on access
and find out reasons for barriers to entry and participation.
But I don't necessarily think we should force everybody
to take something that we are interested in, as maybe fundamentally,
they're just not interested in it
and they have really good reasons why we just don't know them yet.
That was a long rant.
It was informed by many other articles and discussions that I've had,
including the one that I just had with JT and John.
So thank you, both of you, for helping me think through that.
Hopefully it makes sense If it doesn't feel free to just reach out to me.
I'm more than happy to chat through this, just kind of sharing some ramblings
or considerations rather as a Contact Me button on my website.
So feel free to reach out. Happy to chat.
Speaking of, you can find the show notes on my website at Jared O'Leary dot
com where there's hundreds if not thousands of free resources.
If even after this rant
you still would like to potentially partner on a grant and collaborate,
Let me know. Reach out to me.
Stay tuned next week for another episode.
And until then, I hope you're all staying safe and are having a wonderful week.
Article
Code.org (2021). 2021 State of Computer Science Education: Accelerating Action Through Advocacy.
Website description
“This annual report on K-12 computer science in the United States provides an update on national and state-level computer science education policy, including policy trends, maps, state summaries, and implementation data.”
My One Sentence Summary
This paper is an annual report on the state of K-12 CS in the United States that was authored by The Code.org Advocacy Coalition, Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), and the Expanding Computing Education Pathways Alliance (ECEP).
Some Of My Lingering Questions/Thoughts
What data aren’t being explored and what questions aren’t being asked?
Of 37 states with enrollment data, 4.7% are enrolled in a CS foundational course. What percentage would you be happy with for students taking at least one CS course? Why?
What might CS educators learn from other subject areas about how they have higher enrollment numbers?
How do you as an individual (or even the field) respond when some demographics disproportionality outweigh others?
At what point would we be willing to admit that not every subject area is going to be of interest to everyone?
Where’s the line for when pushing for participation over access becomes a form of colonization?
Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode
Other podcast episodes that were mentioned or are relevant to this episode
In this episode I unpack Goode’s (2010) publication titled “Connecting K-16 curriculum & policy: Making computer science engaging, accessible, and hospitable for underrepresented students” which discusses the development process behind the Exploring Computer Science curriculum, as well as the policy work that occurred in parallel with the the curriculum development.
Connecting with and Listening to Students with Dominick Sanders
In this interview with Dominick Sanders, we discuss the importance of connecting with and listening to students, the impact of being a positive role model for kids, considering equity for individuals and across the entire state of South Carolina, what Dominick learned through their experience with Xposure STEM, Dominick’s plan for improving CS in South Carolina, Dominick’s experience with CSTA’s Equity Fellowship, how Dominick continues to learn and grow as a CS educator, thinking through intersectionality in relation to representation, and so much more.
Diversity Barriers in K-12 Computer Science Education: Structural and Social
In this episode I unpack Wang and Moghadam’s (2017) publication titled “Diversity barriers in K-12 computer science education: Structural and social,” which describes potential structural and social barriers for Black, Hispanic, and female students in K-12 contexts.
How to Get Started with Computer Science Education
In this episode I provide a framework for how districts and educators can get started with computer science education for free.
Preparing School Leaders to Advance Equity in Computer Science Education
In this episode I unpack Flapan et al.’s (2021) publication titled “Preparing school leaders to advance equity in computer science education,” which provides some suggestions and resources for preparing administrators for advancing equity work in K-12 CS education.
Learn more about the Wind River Reservation project I mentioned
Find other CS educators and resources by using the #CSK8 hashtag on Twitter
Free CS Resources I Have Created
More Content
