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 ( [e-mail]) is the director of the ACM U.s. Public Policy office in Washington, D. C.

Peter harsha ( [e-mail]) is the director of government affairs at the Computing Research Association (CRA) in Washington, D. C.