standards. Most states do not have a
specific set of computer science standards, but even if they exist, the state’s
focus on the “common core” likely will
not include existing computer science
standards. We need to delve even deeper into the education system to understand this.
Standards, graduation credits, and
No Child Left Behind drive students
and administrators toward emphasizing—both in terms of what students
take and resources dedicated to developing them—the “core” courses of the
curriculum. It is a gross oversimplification of an incredibly complex system
to say that students across the nation
are taking a similar set of core courses.
The key issue for computer science
education is, as a general rule, computing is absent from the “core.” Much of
what is called computing education
by states at the K– 12 level, particularly
high school, is placed within the technology curriculum both in the states
standards and the schools. However,
the curriculum of so-called computing classes within this category largely
focuses on the use of technology (
keyboarding, or learning word processing/
spreadsheets) instead of core computing concepts. Further, technology classes are generally elective credits for students on par with health or shop class.
This categorization puts efforts
to get rigorous computing courses
into the college-bound academic curriculum at a significant disadvantage. What is considered technology
in school is typically not an academic
subject area for the college-bound student; rather classes to help bolster vocational education for those about to
enter the work force. Students pursing
college often do not have the time for
elective credits, particularly those focused on a vocation.
Despite these daunting obstacles,
there are exciting efforts already under
way led by different parts of the community to address this national failing:
Two years ago, ACM created an ˲
Education Policy Committeeg to focus
on public policy issues in science and
math education relevant to computing and computer science. Since its
inception, the committee has identi-
g http://www.acm.org/public-policy/education-policy-committee
Reform of the K– 12
education system at
any level or subject is
notoriously difficult.
fied many of the issues outlined in this
column. Two key parts of its agenda
are: First, educate policymakers and
national groups on the importance
of the field of computing, the value of
teaching computer science, and that
computer science curricula focus is
on conceptual knowledge. Second, ensure that rigorous computer science
classes count toward a student’s core
graduation requirements in math or
science areas.
Realizing that reform begins ˲
with the states, the Computer Science Teachers Association (CS TA) has
formed a cohort of master teachers in
many states to serve as a network for
sharing information and communicating issues to state and local education leaders.
The single point of national lever- ˲
age for computer science reform is the
current Advanced Placement (AP) computer science course. The AP system
is run by the College Board, which is a
national non-profit organization that
helps set the curriculum and writes and
administers the tests. Every student
taking an AP course is, or should be,
exposed to the same curriculum, and
every student takes the same test to assess the knowledge. The National Science Foundation is currently funding a
project to create a new rigorous and engaging Advanced Placement Computer
Science (AP CS) course that will attract
more college-bound students.
Some states are moving toward ˲
allowing the AP CS course to count toward a credit in students’ core courses
requirements. Texas now allows AP CS
to count as a mathematics credit as part
of the student’s four-year mathematics
requirement. North Carolina and Ohio
also are moving toward allowing AP CS
to count as a mathematics credit.
Georgia has launched its Georgia ˲
Computes! program. As part of this effort Georgia overhauled its state standards for computing and now counts
AP CS as a science credit.
The National Center for Women ˲
and Information Technology (NCWIT)
has formed the K– 12 alliance, bringing
together leaders from more than 20
organizations with a potential reach
of approximately half the girls in the
U.S. to provide resources and advocate
for reform.
As noted in a previous issue of ˲
Communications,h recognizing the need
for a rigorous and engaging computing
course taken before AP, Joanna Goode
and Jane Margolis are working with a
team to create an exciting new curriculum based on the ACM and CSTA model curriculum for K– 12 education.i This
course is being scaled up in the Los Angeles school district, and they are working with the state to build it into their
higher-education requirements.
These are all promising signs, but
any education reform, whether it is
STEM broadly or computing specifically, will have to be measured over
years, if not decades. Progress can be
made, but the states will have to lead,
with federal policymakers offering
support with resources and a heightened sense of national urgency. There
is a significant risk that computing
will be left on the outside looking in.
The community needs to come together and use the existing efforts
mentioned in this column as a starting point for reform. We need to work
together to prove why rigorous and engaging computing education should
be included in the K– 12 landscape.
In short, we need to ensure computer
science education is part of the national dialogue of what students need
to learn in the high-technology and
highly competitive global economy.
h Reprogramming college preparatory computer science. Commun. ACM 51, 11 (Nov. 2008),
31–33.
i The model curriculum can be found here:
http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/AC-
MK12CSModel.html
Cameron Wilson ( wilson_c@hq.acm.org) is the director of
the ACM U.s. Public Policy office in Washington, D. C.
Peter harsha ( harsha@cra.org) is the director of
government affairs at the Computing Research
Association (CRA) in Washington, D. C.