San Francisco Public Schools To Require Computer Science For Preschoolers

theodp writes: Never underestimate the ability of tech and its leaders to create a crisis. The S.F. Chronicle's Jill Tucker reports that the San Francisco School Board unanimously voted Tuesday to ensure every student in the district gets a computer science education, with coursework offered in every grade from preschool through high school, a first for a public school district. Tech companies, including Salesforce.com, as well as foundations and community groups, are expected to pitch in funding and other technical support to create the new coursework, equip schools and train staff to teach it. From Resolution No. 155-26A2 (PDF), In Support of Expanding Computer Science and Digital Learning to All Students at All Schools from Pre-K to 12th Grade: 1. "All students are capable of making sense of computer science in ways that are creative, interactive, and relevant." 2. "All students, from pre-K to 12, deserve access to rigorous and culturally meaningful computer science education and should be held to high expectations for interacting with the curriculum." 3. "Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs." MissionLocal has a two-page SFUSD flyer on the project, which aims to illustrate the "importance of computer science" with the same Code.org jobs infographic that Microsoft used to help achieve its stated goal of creating a national K-12 CS crisis, and demonstrate "disparities in accessing CS education" for SFUSD's 57,000 students with a small-sample-size-be-damned bar chart of the racial demographics of the school district's 209 AP Computer Science participants (181 Asian, 0 African American, 6 Latino, 1 Native American, 14 White, 7 Other).

Comments

Good For Future Training

[CycleFreak]

It's obviously very important to come out of high school with the skills required to train your H1-B replacement.

Re:Good For Future Training

[Talderas]

These kids will be the new H-1B replacements. They're making the skill ubiquitous and thus increasing the amount of supply side talent which will help depress wages.

Re:Good For Future Training

[Penguinisto]

Please... the vast majority of these kids will only retain enough information to be moderately proficient users.

More likely though, the SanFran school system instituted this for the express purpose of flashing a buzzword to the parents, and pretend that they're 'doing something' to improve education.

Re:Good For Future Training

[Anonymous Coward]

no i think the goal is to create better tech consumers. the profits must flow in the consumptive economy and that can only be achieved by projecting growth in use.

Re:Good For Future Training

[mysidia]

They're making the skill ubiquitous and thus increasing the amount of supply side talent which will help depress wages.

I'm not personally worried..... my retirement plan is called COBOL, FORTRAN, and the Year 2038 bug.

In the mean time.... I might go back to school and pursue a EECE graduate degree, with a concentration in Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation, throw in some data science.

I don't think 90% of their "H-1B replacements" will be able to handle it.

And Coding is already cheap.... the people with CS degrees from University should be doing more sophisticated things such as building a startup, or doing scientific computing work that requires much higher discrete Math that has to be done accurately that they don't even teach in High School.

Re:Good For Future Training

[mysidia]

Still... if you're just getting started in CS and want to make a livelihood; it might be a bonafide reason to have second thoughts.

Look for a budding industry that is niche and is or will be in high demand, that companies can't even think of commoditizing, and which has a high barrier to entry or cannot be automated or have workforce requirements for skilled workers significantly reduced by using technology.

I am thinking the ideal gig would involve working for the federal or state government in a department that neither democrats nor republicans would ever in a million years dare kill off funding to.... that would be something like the CDC,FDA/ Public Health, Federal Reserve, FEMA, Consumer Safety, Sanitation, Department of Labor, ...

Re:Good For Future Training

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on how important ability is. Anecdotally, ability matters a lot in software and related fields. IMHO, this will be like having a music program. There will be lots of kids who can sort of play scales on one instrument. There will be an upper echelon of people who can actually make a living at it, and a hand-full of virtuosos who change the way we think.

I think software itself is a bigger threat than these kids. Right now we still argue about things like programming languages and operating systems. At some point that stuff could be settled, the way we settled on the best circuits for building FM transistor radios, the common notation for music, and basic English for communication with air-traffic control. For a few decades, OS, language, database query, etc. could become "settled questions" until another revolution occurs. A smaller scale example of this is the way web-page design is all push-button now. Far fewer people code HTML than in the 90s.

Re:Good For Future Training

[Penguinisto]

Still... if you're just getting started in CS and want to make a livelihood; it might be a bonafide reason to have second thoughts.

Dude... these are preschoolers. They barely know how to count to 10 in Dec, and if they think of their "grown up" career at all, it's likely to be as an astronaut, cowboy, soldier, princess...

Re:Good For Future Training

[rtb61]

Just think of the confusion as they learns their ABCs not wait QWEs not wait it is ABCs but QWEs make more sense but ABCs are required for alphabetical order so you can look stuff no QWEs make more sense but ABCs no QWEs. What fun and maths, just wait until the confusion of 1+1=2 no that doesn't work, it just gets rejected it's more like var a = 1 and var b = 2 and sum ab= var c and print c (a non language politic version), no but wait 1+1=2 but it isn't but it is. Preschoolers are just going to love it.

Until computer programming is properly rewritten to align with language use both English and maths it has not place at all in primary school and will cause huge problems or end up being so dumbed down as to be totally worthless, in fact so bad it will teach bad and contradictory coding practices.

Re: Good For Future Training

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely agree I have been saying this for ages the new developments with this push as well as with the outsourcing and hiring H1B workers in my opinion means us techies need to unionize before it is too late.

Re:Good For Future Training

[tehcyder]

If you want to build a start up you're better off leaving school at the earliest possible age, not going to college, and trying out your business skills by failing a few times on a small scale in the real world.

Having a Computer Science degree and a good idea does not make you an entrepreneur.

Re:Good For Future Training

[mysidia]

you're better off leaving school at the earliest possible age, not going to college, and trying out your business skills by failing a few times on a small scale in the real world.

I think that's just an opinion; it's not demonstrable that you're best off that way. Going to college may help round out your education, provide you useful knowledge and skills. It's debatable whether or not it is important to get a STEM degree for a technical field, or whether it's good to just get a degree and take whatever classes you feel will be the most helpful while still meeting the requirements for whatever degree you picked.

There are business degree options also; and you may do better to have business skills gained before you can try them out....

the plumbing of the 21st century

[alen]

this is why i'm going to make sure my kids know to use computers and possibly program as tools and background knowledge but go to school for something really valuable like advanced math

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny you say plumbing -- plumbing is probably a lot wiser and stabler profession to get in to! It isn't getting outsourced until roto-rooter starts sending robots.

Electricians, Plumbers, etc all have their place and have a relatively stable field.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[alen]

yeah, 10 years ago i had an electrician tell me how he spent $68,000 renovating his living room right before he gave me a quote for $3000 for some new outlets in the kitchen

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

the plumbing of the 21st century

By which you mean, a relatively well-paid job (median salary of ~54k / year, topping out around 85k/yr, bottoming out around 30k/yr) that requires almost no formal education, and simply requires an apprenticeship and licensure?

Wow, yeah, those poor kids of tomorrow, how ever will they survive?

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

yes and you paid him :) because his work demands it, or you hacked it yourself and when you go to resell your home you will lie about the work and say it was done professionally.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

Because installing outlets is such a tricky operation, right?

Do you even know how simple electrical wiring is? Black white ground. You really have to try hard to screw it up, unless you are a moron.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple wiring - just like simple networks - is simple. Complex wiring - just like complex networks - is complex. Get networking wrong, and data doesn't get where it needs to go. Get wiring wrong, and kill someone or burn down a house.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

As any IT person knows, pulling cable through walls is time consuming.

If he has to deal with something like a tile backslash there may be extra costs in terms of repairing the wall.

Kitchen outlets tend to each be on their own circuit due to the high amp use of motorized kitchen appliances like mixers, so even more cable to pull -- all the way back to the breaker.

Anything near water needs to be GFCI.

Not surprised it's expensive (tho $3k does seem kind of excessive)

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[mysidia]

Do you even know how simple electrical wiring is? [...]

I think it is more nuanced than you suggest. If the electrical professional does everything else for you, then yeah, twisting the right properly marked wires together is simple. Assuming they are properly labelled.

Sometimes Hot and Common might be erroneously swapped on an existing install, and you are responsible for that if you add to the circuit without fixing it. Also, ground might not exist, or might be improperly setup at the time you are adding, at the box you want to tap off of.

In some odd cases..... some idiot used the bare ground wire as a Neutral on a switch leg, instead of using the correct 12/3 or 10/3 cabling.

Again: if you add to the circuit, and don't fix such errors before turning it back on, then you might incur liability or loss of insurance protection.

The wiring procedure for a single 220/240/120v circuit is simple, But are you 100% used the right kind of wire and materials according to the requirements for the run, And installed them correctly according to the code manual and manufacturer directions, including all the safety rules? The other real PITA is getting the wiring from Point A to Point B in a finished structure that already has the sheetrock installed.

How are you going to get that wiring to Point B, and be sure the route is a safe one with no dangerous obstacles or LV cabling in the path? Not that simple.

Getting a new circuit to a flush-mounted breaker panel is even harder: if the nearest circuit already at its highest load would be exceeded and trip the breaker if you plugged another outlet in, Especially if you've run out of breakers in the panel.

Gonna just rip out that drywall so you can run what you want? Great.... now how are you gonna put things back together?

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know how simple electrical wiring is? Black white ground. You really have to try hard to screw it up, unless you are a moron.

That part is simple. However, there's lots of codes to know about and they change.

For example, what circuits require an ACFI? IIRC, national level code has changed three times on this in the past ten years (and, local codes in your area may have changed even more often if your local building department got a bug up its butt because the mayor's house burnt down and killed her kid).

What falls under rework vs. new wiring requirements?

Or, some areas (not sure if it's in the national code) now require running neutral to a light switch (I believe the intent is to help support home automation). If you don't know that and you fail inspection, you've got a bunch of rework to do.

Sure, you can do this stuff yourself, but if you only do it once every fifteen years, you're probably going to spend more time with CodeCheck and figuring out what (if anything) your local municipality demands than it's worth unless you consider that phase enjoyable.

And, even knowing the quirks of your local inspectors is helpful and the pros will generally know that (and, if they don't, rework is on their dime). If you have the misfortune of having ignorant assholes for inspectors, things can get nasty as they have power and can find something to fail most jobs on if you object to their demand for something that is technically unnecessary.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[spauldo]

Plus running the wires, patching and painting any holes in the drywall (or plaster, for older homes), figuring out what the idiot that wired the place was thinking when he ran the wires the way he did, crawling around in the attic or crawlspace (been in a poorly ventilated attic in the dead of summer?) and trying to fish a cable through (possibly through insulation), understanding the applicable codes (federal, state, and local) and making sure your work meets them, liaising with the local power authority if you need to move the outside wire (a herculean effort in some places), oh, and making absolutely sure that your work isn't going to burn the house down and kill people. I can't imagine the insurance is very cheap.

And that's just for residential. Commercial is a completely different world. Go into a factory and start following the conduit sometime.

There's a world of difference between what an electrician has to do and just putting an extra plug over the workbench in the garage.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[vux984]

Because installing outlets is such a tricky operation, right?

Electrical code has a lot of details. And the gotchas tend to come from not knowing that you don't know something. (Yes, one can know that they don't know something. If you know you don't know something, you can look it up.)

What if you don't use a GFCI outlet where one was needed - do you know where GFCI outlets are needed and where they aren't? What if you decide to split an outlet so the top half can be operated by a switch; did you know code requires the two circuits to be on a two pole breaker?

Maybe you do know these things.

But if you don't know then you'll do it wrong, it will still work, and then it will fail an inspection when you sell your home; or your insurance will be void when a fire breaks out and they trace it to your modifications not being up to code.

And if you are in an older building; the electrical may be grandfathered as-is to the code at the time it was built, but as soon as you start making modifications it has to be brought up to modern day code so things can get hairy and expensive fast.

But the point is there is a LOT more to know than black/white/ground and one does not have to be a "moron" not to know.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Gonna just rip out that drywall so you can run what you want? Great.... now how are you gonna put things back together?

Well that is my plan. There is too much wire in my house and I don't know what it all is controlling. I have a 36 bay breaker box and all 36 bays have a breaker in them yet I only have a 1900 sq. ft. house and there are 4 rooms that are all on the same breaker. Add in that there aren't enough outlets, or they aren't in the right spot, as well as wanting to run coax and network lines into each room and pulling down the sheet rock to put in conduit is looking like the cheapest and quickest solution. What makes it even more worthwhile is that the previous owner should have never been allowed to own tools so there is a lot of stuff than needs to be taken care of anyway that will get solved by this as well. For me at least this won't be the first time I have gutted and redid a house so I have that going for me.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[mysidia]

Well that is my plan. There is too much wire in my house and I don't know what it all is controlling.

Well..... you could trace things out with a tone and probe. Or $800 worth of equipment that can do Open/Closed circuit tracing to ID every wire is still a lot cheaper than the materials; if you're contemplating redoing the drywall on the entire house... it sounds like a heck of a lot of work, or tens of thousands of $$ in labor....

I only have a 1900 sq. ft. house and there are 4 rooms that are all on the same breaker.

I would first wonder if the 36 bay breaker box is already filled up with tandem/cheater breakers to max. capacity on all the slots that allow them. If not, then there might still be room for a few more, provided the requirements for Arc Fault Circuit Interruptors on Bedroom/Kitchen/Laundry and GFCI on the Bath/Garage/Kitchen/wet area circuits that now require them can still be met.

as well as wanting to run coax and network lines into each room and pulling down the sheet rock to put in conduit is looking like the cheapest and quickest solution.

The quickest/cheapest solution for networking is probably 802.11n wireless, and minimize the amount of cabling.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The labor isn't a problem as I have done similar things before. Basically I want to take a house with early 70s wiring and make it future proof. The breaker mess is only part of the problem. The 4 rooms on the same circuit are both bathrooms and an upstairs and downstairs bedroom. Yes going wireless for networking would be the cheapest and easiest, but if I have to take the walls down (they were wallpapered when we bought the house and I know why now) anyway why not upgrade the wiring and other cables in conduit and sort out the mess. I plan on running 10 AWG throughout the house and doing it in a logical fashion as well as adding in additional outlets. As far a coax goes there is only one room that has it now and it is not where I would want it as that is where the sun shines in most of the day and evening.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Roger W Moore]

It isn't getting outsourced until roto-rooter starts sending robots.

Ah but when they do you will be glad you took that pre-school computing science class won't you!

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Darinbob]

However when people try to teach plumbing to preschoolers then you know something is broken in their heads. Worse if they get their words wrong and think they're teaching Hydrolic Engineering to preschoolers when all they're teaching is how to turn on and off the faucet.

None of this proposal is even remotely "Computer Science". When kids are still learning to count to ten then it is too early to teach even the simplest of Computer Science concepts. Boolean logic? Abstract mathematics? Even simplistic binary number base? Nonsense. There is not even one single Computer Science topic that could remotely be taught to someone at that age, unless the kid is a genius wunderkind. I think this is just a bunch of adult morons trying to pass on their idiocy to another generation. They probably think that using an a computing device counts as "computer science" ("Computers are hard! Teach kids early!")

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

The labor isn't a problem as I have done similar things before. Basically I want to take a house with early 70s wiring and make it future proof. The breaker mess is only part of the problem. The 4 rooms on the same circuit are both bathrooms and an upstairs and downstairs bedroom. Yes going wireless for networking would be the cheapest and easiest, but if I have to take the walls down (they were wallpapered when we bought the house and I know why now) anyway why not upgrade the wiring and other cables in conduit and sort out the mess. I plan on running 10 AWG throughout the house and doing it in a logical fashion as well as adding in additional outlets. As far a coax goes there is only one room that has it now and it is not where I would want it as that is where the sun shines in most of the day and evening.

If you are opening walls anyway, add new plumbing lines too:
http://www.amazon.com/Viega-36243-PureFlow-Manabloc-Compression/dp/B008J3TRN6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1433968853&sr=8-1&keywords=plumbing+manifold
Even if you don't connect them to the main water supply, you can have access for later remodels for a grand or so total up front now.

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[Bing Tsher E]

GFCIs are needed everywhere in our house. I've replaced every outlet box with them. Because the wiring is ancient and scary. There were only two prong non-grounded outlets when we moved in. The only 'code approved' way to upgrade a two prong outlet and stop using 'three way adapters' is to replace the outlets with GFCIs. There's no ground connected to any of the GFCIs, either, because there's no third wire or ground anywhere. The oldest parts of the house are from before electricity, and are tube-and-post wiring. A GFCI will protect even in an ungrounded circuit. The principle is that if the current through the hot wire isn't equal to the current through the neutral wire the breaker trips. Ultimately the whole house needs to be completely rewired, the fusebox is outdoors under the overhang roof on the back porch. There are four glass fuses.

I hate real estate people and never plan to move out of this ancient house out in the country (with only county laws because we are not in any city boundaries). If there was a way to have 'negative curb appeal' to the degree that real estate operators were stricken dead if they looked at our house I'd incorporate it into our landscaping. The fact that our wiring is a horror is protection in a way. A poison pill for the bankers if they ever tried to forclose (we are not behind on payments.)

Re:the plumbing of the 21st century

[tehcyder]

Because installing outlets is such a tricky operation, right?

Do you even know how simple electrical wiring is? Black white ground. You really have to try hard to screw it up, unless you are a moron.

Yes, everybody pays trained and highly skilled trades people just because they're lazyt, the same way they stupidly pay lawyers and accountants when anyone can do a tax return and whaddya mean I'm being audited

Computer science and the lowest common denominator

[TWX]

I'm saddened by the misapplication of "computer science" as a term. When I took computer classes, they were not called "computer science" until one was actually supposed to program the computer. Like, open an IDE, write code, and compile it. Classes on computer usage before that were called "technology", "desktop publishing", "computers", and other names that did not include "science".

I don't think that it's appropriate to use computers to teach basic skills to children, but regardless of that perspective, it is wholly inappropriate to call an introduction to computers "computer science".

Culturally meaningful?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is culturally meaningful computer science? Fluency in at least three Indian languages? Beginning, intermediate, and advanced meme generation?

Re:Culturally meaningful?

[vlpronj]

As a former K-8 tech instructor, who had to setup "Computer Classes" for the PreK section, I also question what truly culturally meaningful computer science lessons can be taught to PreK classes effectively. Trying to keep them all on track in Millie's Math House was hard enough. My experience has been that if the teachers can use tech effectively, the students don't need "computer science" for a while. You want to do something? Teach LOGO, or an analogue thereof; or just simple circuits. Circuits should fit into a science curriculum well. But OSs, dominant programming languages, input devices, even office suite layouts will likely all be different by the time they're out of 3rd grade.

Re:Culturally meaningful?

[sjames]

The best I can think of is a game where they must tell someone EXACTLY how to do something with any ambiguity done comically wrong. Naturally, the latter part gets more strictly interpreted over time. Later, perhaps mention that computers are like that. I have no idea how to make that "culturally relevant".

I smell a rat ...

[ColdWetDog]

"Tech companies, including Salesforce.com, as well as foundations and community groups, are expected to pitch in funding and other technical support to create the new coursework, equip schools and train staff to teach it."

At least they're pretty transparent about it.

Now, one question for you Bay Area folks - Is there any linkage between the folks on the school board and the nice people on whatever city commission that decided that cell phones cause cancer? I'd love to see a meeting with both groups.

Two groups of crazies enter, six leave (this is San Francisco, after all).

Re:I smell a rat ...

[Darinbob]

Well when someone describes Salesforce.com as a "tech company" then it's easy to discount anything further that they say.

My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

I would propose a class in middle school dealing with technology. 45 hours. 45 minutes per hour.. at least. Dealing with keyboarding, networking, hardware, operating systems, office software, and other topics that may be interest (a free topic section). Yes, with maybe one week spent on programming.

However, I don't think we need much more than that. Maybe a push to have electives for students who are interested in computer-type classes, but certainly not any sort of core class aside from what I mentioned in the first paragraph (yes, 45 hours total, just once, probably in sixth grade).

There would be subjects better suited to be core classes. Perhaps a logic class, and by logic, I mean the same kind of logic classes taught in college.

Oh well. Maybe San Francisco can prove this doesn't help education so that we don't need to push this nationwide any longer.

You mean those millions of iPads didn't work?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

What, do you seriously mean those millions of iPads we bought for our schools DIDN'T make students any smarter?

Re:You mean those millions of iPads didn't work?

[XxtraLarGe]

What, do you seriously mean those millions of iPads we bought for our schools DIDN'T make students any smarter?

The problem with that little experiment was that they treated the iPads as an end in themselves, instead of a means to an end, and had no plan on how to implement the means. Basically it was:

Phase 1. Give Kids iPads
Phase 2. ?
Phase 3. Profit!

Re:You mean those millions of iPads didn't work?

[CanadianMacFan]

The problem a few years ago with giving every child an iPad, and now teaching everyone computer science, is that people are thinking it's a silver bullet and that it's going to solve the problem. The issue is that they are going to throw a bunch of money at this (and the next silver bullet idea, and the next) and it won't solve the problem.

Children, and adults too, are all unique and require different ways to motivate them. So if you give everyone an iPad there will be a certain percentage that will thrive but they will probably be the ones that will have thrived if you gave them a bunch of books and let them learn on their own. No matter what silver bullet you implement you are most likely going to catch some people and help them out (unless it's really bad).

What's really needed is more of those special individuals who seem to be able to motivate their students and engage them. We need to find out what style of learning best suits each student and provide that environment for them. Students need to learn at their own pace so that they aren't bored or struggling to keep up. Technology can be used to implement this but it's a huge change in how we view education so it probably won't get done. Silver bullets are easy to implement and look like you are doing something even if they don't address the core problem.

Re:You mean those millions of iPads didn't work?

[Darinbob]

The products given to schools, or given at a discount, were done in order to create future customers. The intent was never to provide any other sort of education.

the flat curve

[fche]

"Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs."

How does anyone imagine that is achievable, except by not marking ... performance?

Re:the flat curve

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> How does anyone imagine that is achievable

"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal..."
http://archive.org/stream/Harr...

Re:the flat curve

[spauldo]

That doesn't mean that all the kids need to get the same grade. And I'm sure "special needs" doesn't mean the developmentally challenged kids (who generally get their own curriculum), but kids with handicaps or IEPs. In other words, screenreaders or braille pads have to be available, and the IEP program has to adapt to the requirements for students with particular learning disabilities.

"Access" means all schools in the area get the same equipment and programs (and theoretically, all teachers receive appropriate training), even if it's in the middle of the ghetto and surrounded by barbed wire and metal detectors. "Achievement" means it's a required course for everyone, since CS traditionally attracts white or asian males.

Re:the flat curve

[fche]

"(in-effect-)equal achievement" means "equal compulsion" only in some language that is not English.

(If it were simply about "equal access", most of the quoted paragraph - listing identity group after identity group - wouldn't have to be there.)

Re:the flat curve

[spauldo]

Equal compulsion is the only real method to actually accomplish "equal achievement." Otherwise, it'll only be the white and asian boys signing up for it.

Listing the various identity groups is standard fare for government programs. There's still a lot of people around who remember segregation.

Re:the flat curve

[fche]

"signing up" may be a prerequisite, but definitely not the same thing as "achievement". ... unless they give marks for mere attendance

Re:the flat curve

[spauldo]

There's no evidence that certain demographics are actually better at computer science. The general barrier is desire; people who aren't white/asian males generally don't sign up for it. Those who do often complain that they're left out or ostracized.

When I was taking CS at college, there was one female CS major out of about fifteen. I don't actually know if she lacked opportunities - I was a returning student and didn't live on the campus, and when I talked to her I was usually talking about calculus rather than CS - but one of the complaints women have had was that they weren't welcome in the "boy's club."

By requiring all students to study CS, that problem is mostly eliminated (except in cases where there's only one black kid in the class, for instance - not much you can do about that).

"Equal achievement" doesn't mean every kid gets the same grade. It means the curriculum is designed to make the grade any particular child will receive independent of their race, social status, etc. In other words, they want to avoid a situation where all the black kids are flunking, for instance. I doubt it's actually achievable - culture does have some effect on the willingness of a student to learn - but they want to eliminate race/class/etc. from the equation as much as possible.

Re:the flat curve

[fche]

"I doubt it's actually achievable"

Exactly. They're requiring the _results_ to have certain statistical properties. That means that if the provisional results were to have politically-incorrect correlations, they would have to be suppressed (e.g., by grading on different curves per identity-group demographic, or by offering different courses/evaluation). The "intersectionalism" of it all will make the post-facto compensation even trickier - good luck!) So long to a standard course, with standardized testing.

I'm curious whether this "equal achievement" verbiage has ever been applied to other fields of study under that system, and how (if!) they managed to satisfy it.

Re:the flat curve

[spauldo]

That's a problem you have with any organization, really. It's all down to accountability.

Target metrics are pretty much a standard thing. You can argue their usefulness all day (educational experts do), but what it boils down to is that you have to have some way of making sure the schools are teaching the students properly.

The ideal is that students who were struggling would get help, regardless of any other factors. Bad instructors would be replaced. By looking at the metrics, principals, superintendents, and school board members could spot trouble spots. The reality, well, we'll see. It's all down to how well the supervisors supervise.

And as far as if that verbiage has been applied: very similar verbiage is applied all over the place, both in the government and out. Statisticians work with that kind of language all day. Look into, for instance, equal opportunity laws and wage inequality, or quality control.

Re:the flat curve

[fche]

"The ideal is that students who were struggling would get help, regardless of any other factors."

So the implication here is that the only reason achievement would be different is because struggling students were denied help based on their demographics?

"very similar verbiage is applied all over the place"

To require "equal achievement"? Really? (And I was asking about the school system.)

Re:the flat curve

[spauldo]

So the implication here is that the only reason achievement would be different is because struggling students were denied help based on their demographics?

In the 1980s and earlier, it would have been a valid assumption. But no, the implication is that not all students receive equal assistance and help from their peers or from home. That's certainly valid. The assumption, which I'll agree is unrealistic, is that the desire to learn is not reflective of any of those classifications. A good teacher can only do so much to interest a disinterested student, but there is correlation between demographics and the desire to learn.

To require "equal achievement"? Really? (And I was asking about the school system.)

I don't claim to be an expert on school-specific laws. I do, however, have quite a bit of experience with laws and rules for large organizations.

Achievement in this case is more or less the same as "performance." A company with two factories - one of which produces more product than the other - will want to know why, and take steps to bring both factories up to par. The military expects to be able to take any group of people of the same rank and job description (MOS, AFSC, etc.) to be able to accomplish the same tasks with the same speed and proficiency.

I think you're looking at things here from too low a level. You're looking at individual students and classrooms. These sorts of regulations are there to identify problem schools or school systems.

Re:the flat curve

[tehcyder]

"(in-effect-)equal achievement" means "equal compulsion" only in some language that is not English.

(If it were simply about "equal access", most of the quoted paragraph - listing identity group after identity group - wouldn't have to be there.)

There is nothing wrong with making subjects mandatory. Compulsory English and Maths (as a minimum) seems eminently sensible to me. You seem to be using the phrase "equal compulsion" to give it a sinister sound.

Stupidity of Leadership

[Archangel Michael]

Obviously, learning to read, write and do basic math will be set aside for learning how to program.

Here is the problem, these people don't have a clue what is learned at what levels. And while I am all for teaching Computer science and such where it is profitable to do so, starting before kids can even write and do math is not "computer science" at all, it is just dick waving "hey look what I did for the kids!" political crap.

Here's an idea. Why not focus on reading, writing, math and building upon those at the appropriate times? And what about all those kids who don't want to be computer geeks, but rather artists, business people, biologists, doctors, lawyers etc? Are we going to build all those careers into our children's curriculum as well?

The fact is, factory learning is dead, we just don't know it yet. We have spent the last 250 years in factory schools, built using factory ideas to populate our factories with workers. Today, we need a change in how we educate people, so that they are ready for information jobs. This requires scrapping the "one size fits all" education model that is clearly dying (NCLB, Common Core etc), and replacing it with student paced education system where each student has a customized curriculum, based on ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to learn.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[tomhath]

I completely agree with you. A big part of the problem is that the best and brightest students in any particular subject area aren't allowed to advance faster than students with "special needs", because that means someone's little snowflake was left behind.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[kamapuaa]

> Here is the problem, these people don't have a clue what is learned at what levels.

Looking at the backgrounds of the board members, they seem to be a very good mix of teachers, people educated in teaching, a therapist, a pediatrician, PTA members...

> Why not focus on reading, writing, math and building upon those at the appropriate times?

Kids are using iPads at this age. Why not introduce them to the idea of how the devices they use actually work, from the very beginning? Especially when they live in a city where the tech industry is a major employer? It's not like they're coding, they're just learning basic concepts.

> We have spent the last 250 years in factory schools

Have the last 250 years really been that bad? I'd rather live in 2015 than 1765 any day.

> student paced education system where each student has a customized curriculum,

This is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Classroom teaching works, and is actually affordable. "Common Core" is just a series of education standards that proscribes a minimal level of education that children should achieve, before they (inevitably, nowadays) go on to college. I'm glad we have a system where educators aren't encouraged to give up on lower-achieving students, just because they seem to lack the "ABILITY and WILLINGNESS" to learn.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Archangel Michael]

We have to get past "hurt feelings" when people are better than others. Unless you're the best ( which is temporary / fleeting), there is always someone better than you. Customized education allows each person to be exactly what they can and try to be. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the fairest of all approaches.

And given this approach, you might find we are selling a large number of our kids short.

Excellence knows no bounds. Mediocrity is bounded by failure.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Archangel Michael]

Kids are using iPads at this age.

Kids also use TVs at that age. We didn't say that kids should be Broadcast Engineering specialists.

This is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Classroom teaching works, and is actually affordable.

Classroom teaching doesn't work. It holds people back to the slowest kid in the class. And we should be replacing Teachers with Learning systems, that adapt to the talents and needs of the kids using them, augmented by proctors who specialize in helping kids when they do struggle.

"Common Core" is just a series of education standards that proscribes a minimal level of education that children should achieve, before they (inevitably, nowadays) go on to college.

You are exactly right, and also oblivious to why that is inherently unworkable. The prescription given is "one size fits all" and that is completely inappropriate at its core. As someone who is physically in the 95% size (6'5", 270 lbs) I can tell you, that I fail most standard size measurements. I rarely can buy "off the rack" anything. Finding shoes that fit my feet right is impossible, both due to the size and shape of my feet.

The fact that average people think about being average and that it is okay is not surprising. I want excellence, and the only way to get there is to allow for it, and not hold people back to the lowest common denominator.

I'm glad we have a system where educators aren't encouraged to give up on lower-achieving students

You've obviously never been in a classroom full of kids lost because the teacher had to spend too much time on the one kid who didn't want to be there. Not only is it not fair to the rest of the class, it isn't fair to the kid getting all the attention (what they want), as it only reinforces bad behavior. It happens more often than it should.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[AmiMoJo]

I thought that the "No Child Left Behind" thing meant keeping children who didn't achieve the required standard back a year, to repeat the same grade again while the other kids moved ahead. Has it changed?

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[turbidostato]

"Kids are using iPads at this age. Why not introduce them to the idea of how the devices they use actually work, from the very beginning?"

What for? Kids are using electrical ilumination at this age. Why not introduce them to the idea of how the devices they use actually work -high to low voltage, power thyristors and all that stuff, from the very beginning?

Hey, todlers are heavy users of the sewage system. Let's teach them that first too. They'll have the time to learn how to properly read, write and basic calculations sometime later (or not -after all, they already are worthy consumers through their ipads).

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[AmiMoJo]

Obviously, learning to read, write and do basic math will be set aside for learning how to program.

It seems like you can't really learn to program without know basic reading, writing and maths skills. I think you have the wrong idea about what they will be teaching. It won't be coding, it will be simple logic and sequencing.

When I was about 3 years old I went to pre-school. It was mostly just playing, but one of the toys we had was a programmable vehicle called a Big Trak. You could give it simple commands like "go forward 1m" or "turn left" and it would execute them in sequence. I was the first kid to program it, and I loved making it go forwards 1 metre.

I can't say it set up my career in programming, but it demonstrates that children certainly can learn about programming in a useful way that doesn't detract from their also learning about other important things such as language and maths.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[EvilSS]

Obviously, learning to read, write and do basic math will be set aside for learning how to program.

Actually math and programming go together very well. It's a good way for young students to get introduced to ideas that they will encounter later in algebra. I got lucky and was able to learn Basic in 3rd grade back in the 1980's. I loved it and talked my parents into getting me a TSR-80 COCO II that summer. When I started algebra in school later on I quickly realized I already understood the basics of it because of the programming I had started doing years earlier. Concepts like variables, equations, and order of operations all came very easy because I already knew them, and had for years. I also found it a much more interesting way to learn them than I would have in some boring ass middle school algebra class.

Now, I doubt they are going to be teaching assembler in preschools, but I don't see an issue with getting them acquainted with computers and programming at a young age and making it a core part of the curriculum*. I think exposing kids to a broad range of subjects early is important. However I would agree with you to an extent. I say that by the time they reach 8th or 9th grade they should be allowed to start to focus their education more than they currently can on their areas of interest instead of cycling through a plethora of required "breadth" classes that will add nothing to their futures.

*not to be confused with the mess that is "common core".

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Archangel Michael]

You are making my point, but using your life experiences. You learned, TRS-80 probably on your own, at your own pace, and what was beyond what was taught in school. What if, schools had access to all toys and such needed to have those experiences instead of being exclusive to home.

What if instead of paying teachers administrators etc, to the tune of $5000 per kid per year, we build learning systems that allowed kids to learn naturally at their own pace (as you did) doing things that interested them.

A real life case study can be found here: http://www.hole-in-the-wall.co...

That is just the surface of what I am promoting (concept) Imagine a system of learning where the kids learn, without realizing they are in school, because it isn't school, it is just "learning".

Kids are amazing mental sponges, and yet, we've built a system that restricts so many of them from reaching potential, simply because we're afraid of "leaving kids behind". The result, is that we're dragging kids down so that we don't feel like we've left someone behind.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with you. A big part of the problem is that the best and brightest students in any particular subject area aren't allowed to advance faster than students with "special needs", because that means someone's little snowflake was left behind.

That's not even remotely a problem in any urban school district. They all have programs for advanced children; many even have entire schools for them. It's part of the way they have been trying to keep parents from fleeing to the suburbs. It's the suburbs and the private schools that are increasingly falling farther and farther behind and have the special snowflake problems.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[ripvlan]

Yeah! Will they be learning Data Structure, Interrupts vs Polling, Analysis of Algorithms?

Or just how to write code in [Java/C#/Ruby/Swift/Go/Python/Perl/...F#] ?

For me - learning how to type was helpful (no, really). Plus learning how to Execute a program with pencil and paper was useful in understanding how a computer Accomplishes Work. It made me comfortable with computers. Granted I had an IBM PC at home with BASICA on it and a print out of the BIOS. But learning in HS how to write a real program and seeing that it was something to be studied set me up for College.

But - the real skills I've used in my life.... Geometry and Algebra, some Calculus, English Sentence structure, and to otherwise be curious. All of which are considered Electives in a CS degree ;-)

A computer is to me what a hammer & saw are to a carpenter. Understanding Fractions/angles etc are the foundation.

Oh - and one more math skill. Learning how to compute Logarithms by hand. Turns out - the basic algorithm is how a lot of software/CPUs get the job done.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I was placed in my school district's gifted program in second grade and also had the privilege of attending an invite-only school for gifted students during high school. Throughout my schooling there were instances where some parents were upset that resources were going to the gifted kids. According to their logic, the gifted kids were already doing well in school so why should they get extra resources when there are kids that are struggling. These parents were okay with the gifted kids being stuck in non-challenging classes instead of being allowed to reach their potential.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Bob the Super Hamste]

With my two kids what they get in school is pretty wasteful of the time they spend there. they learn the basics of things but don't explore them and as has been pointed out elsewhere they move at a glacial pace to ensure that the slowest kid keeps up all while ensuring that everything on the standardized test is covered. My oldest had a bit on geology where they talked about the different types of rocks. Him and his classmates got the basic definition of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks and where they come from but no real hands on experience. The 5 other boys in he grade that he is in cub scouts with got a very different experience as we went and made some igneous rocks and cooled them at different rates to see what would happen one Sunday afternoon. While they were cooling we examined other types of rocks and pointed out the different minerals in them, cut open a geode (took 2 tries to get one that was a geode), and examined some fossil sea creatures in some limestone. The kids he is in scouts with get lots of this sort of thing which they love because it is something they would never get to see otherwise plus it takes the abstract concept that gets glossed over to meet some standard and brings it to them in a very real way.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I thought that the "No Child Left Behind" thing meant keeping children who didn't achieve the required standard back a year, to repeat the same grade again while the other kids moved ahead. Has it changed?

I thought it meant lowering standards so that everyone can pass?

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/06/10/412240568/raising-graduation-rates-with-questionable-quick-fixes
http://www.joannejacobs.com/2014/05/illinois-sets-lower-standards-for-blacks-latinos

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[spauldo]

Obviously, learning to read, write and do basic math will be set aside for learning how to program.

Funny, I didn't read anything about that, and I can't imagine anyone seriously suggesting it.

Here is the problem, these people don't have a clue what is learned at what levels. And while I am all for teaching Computer science and such where it is profitable to do so, starting before kids can even write and do math is not "computer science" at all, it is just dick waving "hey look what I did for the kids!" political crap.

Depends on the curriculum. There are "computer science" concepts that can be taught at an early age, if your definition of the term is broad enough. My kid can't read yet, but can get around on the computer all right.

Here's an idea. Why not focus on reading, writing, math and building upon those at the appropriate times? And what about all those kids who don't want to be computer geeks, but rather artists, business people, biologists, doctors, lawyers etc? Are we going to build all those careers into our children's curriculum as well?

No one is suggesting throwing reading, writing, or math out the window. And as far as kids who don't want to be computer geeks - so what? I didn't want to be an athlete, but I still took gym. I didn't want to be a classical musician, but I still had to learn the recorder in third grade. I didn't want to be an artist, but I still had to take art class all through elementary school. If you actually paid some attention, you'd notice that art (art class), business (keyboarding, english, junior-high math), biology (biology, life science), medicine (see biology, health class), and law (social studies, government, history) are pretty much already covered. If anything, it's the trades that are underrepresented; most schools no longer have shop class.

The fact is, factory learning is dead, we just don't know it yet. We have spent the last 250 years in factory schools, built using factory ideas to populate our factories with workers.

Your knowledge of history is quite lacking. "Factory" education was only important outside of the northeast starting about a hundred and fifty years ago.

Today, we need a change in how we educate people, so that they are ready for information jobs.

What do you think this is?

This requires scrapping the "one size fits all" education model that is clearly dying (NCLB, Common Core etc), and replacing it with student paced education system where each student has a customized curriculum, based on ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to learn.

Your knowledge of human growth, psychology, and public funding is also lacking.

Interests change. Just because a third grader isn't interested in science class doesn't mean they won't be interested in or required to know that information as adults. Kids change as they grow up. Younger kids are interested in playing. Older kids are interested in getting laid or hanging out with their friends. They attend school and learn the things they do because they're forced to.

The federal standards exist because there are some states or cities that consistently produce undereducated graduates. Some of it is cultural; kids in the 'hood don't see the need for education as much as kids in a white, upper-class neighborhood. Some is based on demographics or economics; Mississippi doesn't have access to the public funds that Alaska does. The standards suck, and pretty much no one likes them, but no one seems to be able to come up with a plan that's both better and - this is important - affordable, while providing equal access to education.

Equal access to education is important. This is America, where the circumstances of your birth and upbringing are (theoretically, anyway) not a limiting factor on what you can accomplish. Someone growing up in inner Detroit should ha

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Gryle]

The Boston Globe ran an article about this last year: https://www.bostonglobe.com/id...

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Archangel Michael]

To be honest, that kind of education is something schools cannot teach, at least not in the setup they currently have. Which is why schools are failing our kids.

And guess what else they learn when the play with rocks? Geology, Chemistry, Mathematics and probably start picking up bits of Latin. The best kind of learning is exploring.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to get past "hurt feelings" when people are better than others.

OK, so let's suppose that one person is born with a genius IQ and another person is born with a severe intellectual disability that prevents them from even learning how to walk or talk. Who is "better"? Does one "deserve" wealth and happiness while the other "deserves" poverty and misery?

The reason people care about who is "better" is because most places in the world have immense inequality - and there's this idea that the "better" people are the only ones who "deserve" to live secure comfortable lives - everyone else "deserves" miserable dangerous lives. Of course, increasingly the main way to be "better" is to be born into a rich family - inherited wealth.

Now, I'm not opposed to a somewhat free labor market. Wages are, after all, a powerful incentive to work - and there is a lot of work that does need doing. But let's not pretend that the only reason to care about school rankings is hurt feelings.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[dcollins]

"The fact is, factory learning is dead, we just don't know it yet. We have spent the last 250 years in factory schools, built using factory ideas to populate our factories with workers. Today, we need a change in how we educate people, so that they are ready for information jobs. This requires scrapping the 'one size fits all' education model that is clearly dying (NCLB, Common Core etc), and replacing it with student paced education system where each student has a customized curriculum, based on ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to learn."

This argument has been around for what, a century or more now? And individuated software learning systems have been in use for over a half-century. See: the PLATO computer instruction system, starting in 1960. The truth is, the research on how well these systems work in practice has been consistently pretty dismal (I don't have time to get links at the moment, feel free to research). Last week a fellow at MIT and former MS researcher released a book basically saying that after a career of attempts, he's now convinced that technology cannot solve this problem. The most basic beginning instruction requires human guidance, and unfortunately that creates some bandwidth limitation in how many students a given teacher can attend to.

"But no matter how good the design, and despite rigorous tests of impact, I have never seen technology systematically overcome the socio-economic divides that exist in education. Children who are behind need high-quality adult guidance more than anything else. Many people believe that technology “levels the playing field” of learning, but what I’ve discovered is that it does no such thing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/04/technology-wont-fix-americas-neediest-schools-it-makes-bad-education-worse/

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Which is why every opportunity is a chance for them to learn. With the other adults in his den there are very few questions a 6 year old can ask that we can't provide a good answer to as we all have very different careers and knowledge. Add in that the kids are good friends and always want to hang out there are often group trips outside of planned scouting events to go see and do things. Next week a bunch are going on a river tour of one a bridge construction near by. They have also been through a lock and dam, local dual fuel power plant, up to the iron range to see and learn about that, been to a number of the museums, been to a dairy farm and then off to the creamery. The big goal all the parents have it to try to not squash the love in learning and get them exposed to as may different things as possible.

They love learning like this, and besides what 6 year old boy wouldn't want to sit in the cab of a 240 ton dump truck, or see the only remaining prototype of largest steam shovels ever built (one of only 2 of this type of shovel still in existence).

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[tehcyder]

I completely agree with you. A big part of the problem is that the best and brightest students in any particular subject area aren't allowed to advance faster than students with "special needs", because that means someone's little snowflake was left behind.

Why do people keep saying this?

There are geniuses who have PhDs in their teens, they seem to manage not to be left behind with the great intellectually unwashed.

I think the problem here on slashdot is that there are a lot of bright (but not genius level) kids who think they are exempt from the "boring" bits of school life, like studying for subjects that don't interest them, making friends and doing sports, and get annoyed when they can't spend all day doing exactly what they want to.

Re:Stupidity of Leadership

[tehcyder]

If you're genuinely that "gifted" you will do well regardless. If your classes are really too easy, you will just read around the subject in your own time.

Smart down kids

[Roodvlees]

"or special needs"
So kids with down syndrome should be just as capable?
Are those kids in a different group or is this plan very ambitious?

Re:Smart down kids

[oldmac31310]

They will enjoy the cat videos more than anyone else and will get a 'special prize', god bless their retarded souls.

Re:Smart down kids

[spauldo]

"Special Needs" generally refers to physically handicapped kids or kids with a learning disability. In other words, they need to accommodate children who are deaf, blind, or dyslexic.

Kids with IQs below 72 tend to have their own curriculum and (around here, anyway) are not expected to keep up with the same standards as kids with normal intelligence.

Using computers != Computer Science

[clifwlkr]

I really wish that people would realize there is a big difference from using an app on a tablet or coding up a web page with some javascript to actual computer science. Computer science involves math, design, understanding memory usage, computer architecture, and much more. It is not just hacking out some code. You are not teaching pre-schoolers computer science. Nor are you teaching elementary school children that either.

That said, you should be teaching them basic algebra and logic skills that will be very applicable to many things in life. Absolutely teach them how to use a computer. All kinds of things can be done with that. Don't claim you are teaching them computer science.

I guess it really annoys me because it is like saying a TV repair man is an electrical engineer. Heck, that one is at least slightly closer than calling making a web page being a computer scientist....

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[oldmac31310]

I don't think it is either a physical or economical possibility to repair a TV these days. I'll get off your lawn, old man.

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[kamapuaa]

"Computer Science" is a misnomer anyway. Only .3% of it, even at a college level, involves applying the scientific method. Really it just involves knowing computer stuff and doing clever computer things. Why not teach that to children?

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[dave420]

Because if it can be taught to children, those who think themselves awesome because they know it suddenly start to think a little less of themselves, which triggers an emotional outburst as to precisely why it's a bad idea for children to learn about a very important part of the modern world. Or something similar :-P

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[clifwlkr]

Actually you can often repair TVs these days.... Number one thing that fails in them is the power supply and that is really easy to fix. Second most common, a bad capacitor. Once got a 'broken' LCD tv and it was an internal fuse that was gone. Five minutes with a soldering iron and fixed. Just because you believe they can't be fixed, or paying someone is not worth the money to fix them as there is so much cheap Chinese junk on the market, does not mean they can't be fixed. You just don't know how is all. I fix stuff all the time that is 'broken' in minutes. Take a look at the maker movement and learn something...

That said, it is an analogy. You clearly understood it, so that worked too!

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[ruir]

Double douchebad alert. Your envy is ugly. Very ugly. A bean counter in slashdot lol, or worse a Human Resources drone lol. Glad you learned how to read. The problem is that teaching some kids how to program, it does not come nearest most of our top of crop. Even in adults, there is a whole world or two of distance between helpdesk/field IT and devops or a good network architect (not the cables and phone guys again). Like in most professions, where you have the plumbers and work men, and then they guys who design the buildings and all the people between the enterprise ladder. It is only so amusing they think they will solve some automagical problem teaching kids, it is almost as they decide to teach all the kids CPR to take care of a problem of missing doctors. Even most of my colleagues in IT in faculty who did not know why they were there did not want to learn "too much" about it, so good luck with the kids anyway.

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[oldmac31310]

ha, ha. Thank you for that. Well noted and no offense taken. It sucks, but I have neither the time nor the will to repair it. The music is the important part though. You might think that is shite too. If so, no problem. Now get off MY lawn.

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's the emotional outburst, folks. Clap clap, thank you for the demonstration. Very helpful.

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[Darinbob]

Fixing things instead of buying new ones means you're stuck in old obsolete economy. We must all buy new things all the time or else the world will collapse.

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[tehcyder]

Double douchebad alert. Your envy is ugly. Very ugly. A bean counter in slashdot lol, or worse a Human Resources drone lol. Glad you learned how to read. The problem is that teaching some kids how to program, it does not come nearest most of our top of crop. Even in adults, there is a whole world or two of distance between helpdesk/field IT and devops or a good network architect (not the cables and phone guys again). Like in most professions, where you have the plumbers and work men, and then they guys who design the buildings and all the people between the enterprise ladder. It is only so amusing they think they will solve some automagical problem teaching kids, it is almost as they decide to teach all the kids CPR to take care of a problem of missing doctors. Even most of my colleagues in IT in faculty who did not know why they were there did not want to learn "too much" about it, so good luck with the kids anyway.

I'd have been more impressed with your wall o'text if you'd taken the time to translate it into English.

Re:Using computers != Computer Science

[ruir]

Go learn spanish then man. Tongues never hurt anyone. I wonder how you got or not impressed if you cannot read it then. It is a pity we have only to read idiots like you here, instead of people bringing any value added contribution to a conversation. I think I will simply will stop reading replies.

K and Pre are not appropriate levels

[Anonymous Coward]

K and Pre are not appropriate levels for teaching CS. You must have at a minimum the ability to add, subtract, and multiply. You also need the ability to describe how to do something in a literate manner in a different language.

Those two levels are more about learning how to go to school. How to sit still thru a class. How to pay attention to the teacher. How to deal with other people. Dont hurt other people. etc, etc, etc

I think back on my K/Pre days I was lucky I could tie my shoes correctly every day.

5/6th grade is more appropriate for starting to learn CS type material.

Are there exceptions? Sure. But those are exceptions not the normal route.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a similar feeling. Though to me the term "science" comes into play not for mere coding, but further along, when you get into theoretical computing topics. When I was in college, it seemed strange to me that programming, networking, and databases were considered science. (I am a software engineer professionally, but also have a degree in physics, so I may just be a little snooty.)

Re:Happy Wednesday from The Golden Girls!

[oldmac31310]

It's not Friday yet you cunt.

If we actually cared for the children's well-being

[Anonymous Coward]

...we would be exposing them to economics, law and management and keep them as far away as possible from computers.

Re:Computer science is for luddites.

[oldmac31310]

I heard you like apps, so I got you an app to go with your apps in Soviet Russia.

I never use algebra!!!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> the racial demographics of the school district's 209 AP Computer Science
> participants (181 Asian, 0 African American, 6 Latino, 1 Native American, 14 White, 7 Other).

There is an opinion piece on CNN right now of a Asian guy screaming at Asian parents how rotten they are for doing this.

Well, somebody has to invent the new stuff and medicines you are indignantly voting for politicians to give you for free.

Re:I never use algebra!!!

[rockout]

I'd like to see a source for these numbers that you're using as an excuse to give us your political views.

Re:I never use algebra!!!

[Perl-Pusher]

I'd like to see a source for these numbers that you're using as an excuse to give us your political views.

"MissionLocal has a two-page SFUSD flyer on the project, which aims to illustrate the "importance of computer science" with the same Code.org jobs infographic that Microsoft used to help achieve its stated goal of creating a national K-12 CS crisis, and demonstrate "disparities in accessing CS education" for SFUSD's 57,000 students with a small-sample-size-be-damned bar chart of the racial demographics of the school district's 209 AP Computer Science participants (181 Asian, 0 African American, 6 Latino, 1 Native American, 14 White, 7 Other)."

Usually one reads the initial story before commenting.

Re:I never use algebra!!!

[Areyoukiddingme]

Usually one reads the initial story before commenting.

You must be new here...

All Your Kids Are Belong To Us

[Anonymous Coward]

They might be able to program but probably still won't be able to speak English correctly.

Need exposure to rock, hip hop music

[Anonymous Coward]

That's going to be a big part of their adult lives.

Should start them off with

[Anonymous Coward]

assembly. Always the best starter course. Weeds out the wannabes and punks.

Small Sample Size

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't use the "too small sample size" argument when 100% of people were sampled.
Sure, only 209 students were looked at for race, but only 209 took the AP exam.
181/209 = 86% of students taking the AP test were Asian - with ZERO statistical error.

The road to hell...

[lq_x_pl]

something something good intentions.
It is faaaaaar more beneficial to give preschoolers more time doing developmentally appropriate gross and fine motor tasks that sitting them down in front of a computer. The brain is wired by way of the body. If I wanted my kids to have more screen time, I could provide plenty at home. Most kids already spend too much time in front of a screen. They need to be outside, moving.
The most talented programmer I ever met didn't even touch a computer until he was in highschool — his youth was "squandered" outside playing games with his friends and reading books.

Re:The road to hell...

[ErichTheRed]

If I wanted my kids to have more screen time, I could provide plenty at home. Most kids already spend too much time in front of a screen. They need to be outside, moving.

I'm seeing this with my 2 little kids. Screen time just leads them to want more screen time. I doubt you want this in preschool-age children. My 4-year-old started reading pretty early, and we've been working really hard to keep encouraging that rather than stuff him in front of a computer. Kids at this age need to learn motor skills, appropriate behavior and how to interact with others. The computer stuff can come later...there's a whole lifetime to watch cat videos on YouTube. Kids in preschool would be much better served learning reading, counting, how to sit still for 5 minutes and concentrate on something, and impulse control. I'm no parenting genius, but focusing on this stuff for now has worked out OK so far...ask me in 14 years whether I failed or not. :-)

Re: The road to hell...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I can't believe they want preK doing something other than developing motor skills and interpersonal skills. The brain is still figuring out how how to use muscles and developing ethics and sensory appreciation: it's not a time for CS, tuning into the box and tuning out the world. Brains don't develop on a schedule that suits the autistic overlords pushing CS on the schools

Re:The road to hell...

[tehcyder]

I'm seeing this with my 2 little kids. Screen time just leads them to want more screen time

Once you factor in phone time, by the time they're in their early teens the only time they're not mediating their experience of the world through a screen is when they're asleep.

Remember folks!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as an income disparity between men and women. If women really were getting paid 3/4 what men were for the same job, companies would be trying to hire as many women as they could get a hold of.

Re:Remember folks!

[tehcyder]

There's no such thing as an income disparity between men and women. If women really were getting paid 3/4 what men were for the same job, companies would be trying to hire as many women as they could get a hold of.

Oh, well that's all right then.

Binary before arithmetic in preschools...

[__aaclcg7560]

Smells like New Math to me? I had to go to college learn math the proper way.

Re:Binary before arithmetic in preschools...

[klashn]

I agree. Just another way to put a larger circle through a square hole.

Not computer science, basic skills maybe?

[ErichTheRed]

I doubt they mean actually teaching Computer Science, even the concepts, to preschoolers.

Everyone points to this as a way to ensure the future supply of cheap labor for companies, and there's some truth to that. But, wouldn't you rather people have at least some exposure to the basics? I highly doubt anyone who wouldn't already be attracted to a CS-related career will be swayed by this, but introducing concepts earlier might intensify student focus in kids who are already interested.

IMO, this would help with the current problem I see. Millenials are often touted as "technology gurus" and "digital natives" because of the fact that they grew up from birth with modern computers. The reality is this -- technology is easy for the end user to use now. Phones and even computers have operating systems that anyone can pick up and use at a "user" or "content consumer" level. Everyone has a laptop sitting in their pocket that can make phone calls. The difference between computer skills and computer science is the ability to do things beyond the user level, and that's getting harder and harder to teach as things get further abstracted. 500 million iPhones != 500 million computer science nerds!

What will be interesting is the next wave of transition. You're still going to have the hardcore CS guys hacking the Linux kernel, writing the VMWare hypervisor, etc. What I don't see being good as a long term career is "corporate development." A lot of those CRUD applications or website stuff are going to get easier and easier to cobble together from frameworks, and I'm betting there will be a point where it gets shuffled off to "the business." Hardware is cheap now, so inefficient code can be easily covered up, and frameworks can be as bloated as necessary to make things easy. It'll be the equivalent of today's corporate departments being run on a scary mess of Access databases and Excel macros...and I'm betting it won't pay well.

Re:Not computer science, basic skills maybe?

[turbidostato]

"I doubt they mean actually teaching Computer Science, even the concepts, to preschoolers."

Probably you are right.

Which means they shouldn't have any decision power on such curricular matters since they don't know what they are talking about.

Re:Not computer science, basic skills maybe?

[walterbyrd]

> Millenials are often touted as "technology gurus" and "digital natives" because of the fact that they grew up from birth with modern computers

IMO: knowing how to use Facebook, and how to take selfies, is not my idea of a technology guru.

Script-toddlers ...

[MacTO]

These people (a) don't know what computer science means or (b) don't understand a thing about child development.

Even allowing for an incredibly overly generously broad definition of computer science, one that stops just short of clicking a mouse button or tapping on a screen, they're going to have an awfully hard time teaching pre-K children computer science. These people really ought to know that since there's a reason why schooling starts at age 5 or 6: very few children have reached a stage cognitive development to support structured learning by that age.

Re:Script-toddlers ...

[bluefoxlucid]

It's arguably harmful to introduce small children to advanced computer technology. The skills they need are in the mind: social skills, reading skills, learning skills. Yes, you can teach people to learn; the brain is a huge collection of tools, like a wood-and-metal-working shop, and not knowing how any of them works will leave you churning out uselessly-rudimentary objects instead of furniture and machines. With those tools, you could learn everything about computers; with a rote-learned understanding of computers, you will stumble much when approaching any problem you can solve using the computer.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[MarioXXX]

I have a similar impression. My idea of computer science, is that it's not computer science until you need to read an algorithm book.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Registered Coward v2]

I'm saddened by the misapplication of "computer science" as a term. When I took computer classes, they were not called "computer science" until one was actually supposed to program the computer. Like, open an IDE, write code, and compile it. I don't think that it's appropriate to use computers to teach basic skills to children, but regardless of that perspective, it is wholly inappropriate to call an introduction to computers "computer science".

I'd go a step further and say learning a computer language isn't studying computer science any more than learning a foreign language is studying linguistics. There is a difference between acquiring a specific skill and understanding the concepts and theory behind how the skill is employed.

Rant, rant, rant

[oldmac31310]

Go grey beards, go! Woo hoo! Tell us about your tortured childhood and your childrens' privileged (tortured) childhoods. Please do! We all want to hear how you worked 72 hours a day just so that your hunger for key mashing could be sated and now you listen to pink floyd in traffic jams to and from well paying dead end jobs that you think you are in control of. Go on. We love to read about that.

Re:Rant, rant, rant

[__aaclcg7560]

The girls from my seventh grade class told me I came from a "poor family" because my parents got me a Commodore VIC-20 and not an Apple II for Christmas in 1983, and since we didn't have cable TV I didn't know what MTV was all about. If that wasn't bad enough, I had to read BYTE Magazine at the library. I'ts a miracle that I'm a senior system admin 30 years later.

Re:Rant, rant, rant

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Rich bastard, we never got a proper computer in our house until I was almost out of high school.

After years of nagging my parents broke down and got me one of those cheap computer things that was little more than a keyboard and 1 line LCD display. I think the thing had a z80 or 6502 processor with 32kb ram but you couldn't save things when you turned it off. It was even worse than a TRS-80 model 100, that would have been a nice machine by comparison. It ran off of like 4 D cell batteries and you could buy cartridges that had educational programs but I never got those. I did learn how to program in it's flavor of BASIC and translated a number published programs from other BASIC dialects so I could play those games if I could (lots of text games).

DISTRICT GOALS

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this portion of the resolution rather puzzling:

"Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs."

How will the district determine if student access/achievement is *not* predictable?

Oh wait...here's what's listed first under district goals:

Access & Equity - Make Social Justice a Reality.

Explains a lot.

Re:DISTRICT GOALS

[neminem]

The more puzzling thing is that they apparently want "achievement" to "not be predictable" on the basis of "special needs". How can you possibly ask that the "achievement" of a literally retarded student not be "predictable", unless you're not actually even measuring anything and are just rolling a die?

You don't need to.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids will learn on their own. Computers are just a tool. And one day, your kid will be working on something and realize that if they wrote some code to do the grunt work, they'll learn. You leave for work one day and when you get home, she'll have something up and running.

Yeah, have the kid learn advanced math or organic chemistry - at least start having them get it in their head.

The programming classes are for future workers for google, facebook, and other SV companies that are creating advertising/social media/consumer device crap. Prepare your kid for the future of bio-medical.And send them to school in the Northeast (Cambridge) - get them away from the hasbeens of the Valley.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[TimSSG]

I have a similar impression. My idea of computer science, is that it's not computer science until you need to read an algorithm book.

I would expand your definition; it is NOT computer science until the topic of algorithms and program design is covered at least in some amount. Tim S.

Re:Computer science is for luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard you like apps, so I got you an app to go with your apps in Soviet Russia.

In Soviet Russia, you go with apps!

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[alvinrod]

Programming itself isn't so much a science as it is the application of one, but the theory behind writing compilers, understanding languages/grammars, as well as mathematics behind all of it are quite a bit different. The name is kind of a holdover from a time when you very well may have had to write your own compiler and language to get anything else done. A lot of colleges also offer software engineering degrees now which are more focused on software development and less on the theoretical aspects of computers.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[SQLGuru]

This is exactly the message I came to say....but for me, it was Computer Literacy. I'm not opposed to teaching some form of programming (hopefully using something akin to LEGO Mindstorm where it's less about typing the code).....but honestly, most of the computer teachers around here aren't exactly great at it ---- if they were, they'd be in some sort of programming job because teacher pay really sucks.

Someone can surely top this

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should require computer science curriculum for embryos slated for abortion.

Re:Computer science is for luddites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just west of Soviet Russia, you go with Lapps!

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[EvilSS]

I'm saddened by the misapplication of "computer science" as a term. When I took computer classes, they were not called "computer science" until one was actually supposed to program the computer. Like, open an IDE, write code, and compile it. Classes on computer usage before that were called "technology", "desktop publishing", "computers", and other names that did not include "science". I don't think that it's appropriate to use computers to teach basic skills to children, but regardless of that perspective, it is wholly inappropriate to call an introduction to computers "computer science".

It just means that it is considered a common field now. Think of it like biology or chemistry or physics. Chemistry can cover everything from a basic grade school class to something like, say, nuclear magnetic resonance theory (hardest class I've ever taken). It's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

There are 10 kinds of pre-schoolers

[istartedi]

There are 10 kinds of pre-schoolers. Those who've had enough nap time, and those who haven't.

I thought programming was supposed to be fun.

[cohomology]

Making something "mandatory in all grades" breeds dislike. Young kids often like programming, (or math, or art, or language, or music) and understand right away that it can be fun. Then the schools mess it up. If you haven't read it, I recommend the essay known as Lockhart's Lament:

A musician wakes from a terrible nightmare. In his dream he finds himself in a society where
music education has been made mandatory. “We are helping our students become more
competitive in an increasingly sound-filled world.” Educators, school systems, and the state are
put in charge of this vital project. Studies are commissioned, committees are formed, and
decisions are made— all without the advice or participation of a single working musician or
composer.

My wife, an educator, just heard me ranting and popped into the room: "Preschoolers need to play. That is the developmentally appropriate thing for them to be doing." She also reminded me that Steve Jobs didn't want his children looking at screens - he wanted them talking and reading.

Wrong analogy - try mathematics or music

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about mathematics and music?

We teach music in school, and that includes reading the language and practical experience "speaking" the language via instruments. But musicians do more than just speak the language at a rudimentary level, they provide interpretation and the ability to translate the language into a emotional experience for the listener.

Similarly, we teach mathematics in school (starting as young as kindergarten), and that includes reading the langauge and fundamental grammatical principles (used to be known as "arithmetic") and "speaking" the language via learning the tools and using them to solve problems (which covers everything from arithmetic to calculus and fourier transforms). But the thing that mathematicians do is develop and refine the language - they create new tools, new principles, new grammar, they prove new properties or disprove old conjectures. This is completely different from the "math" that we learn in school, but that doesn't make the math we learn in school less math.

Just because we don't use the word "linguistics" in school to mean "learning languages" doesn't mean that we can't apply a word associated with expert usage to novice skill acquisition in other fields.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[JazzLad]

Meh, it isn't science until you are tinkering with the DNA of the butterflies

Outsource

[Anonymous Coward]

So they can outsource your job to India? This coding push is a farce. They're are plenty of qualified programmers, they just won't pay.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[narcc]

I will narrow it. It's not computer science until we start calling maths 'number science'.

WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you teach computer 'science' without teaching basic physics and electricity? Or even reading and writing?? Such insanity. Well, to do it right, they will all have to learn to talk in binary.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Lost Race]

Computer Science is the study of computation. Computer programming is engineering, not science. I don't know what it's like today, but when I was in college most of the Computer Scientists could barely program at all, and in general looked down on programming as a kind of crude, dirty manual labor.

Computer science?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they going to teach them? Computability theory? Discrete mathematics? Turing machines? Algorithm theory? No? Might it be that they are going to get used to playing with software from Apple, Microsoft, etc.? If that's the case, we are NOT talking about computer science.

wtf?

[AndyKron]

When will they start inserting probes into the fetus to start learning earlier?

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not computer science until we start calling science, "logical experimentation".

best developers generally not taught

[peter303]

Many of the creative geniuses in know, including myself, educated ourselves in technology and other subjects. Either the teaching system couldnt handle use, or was concernerned mosty with average students.

Re:best developers generally not taught

[mysidia]

I don't understand why it's all about coding. They would do the world a great service if they would teach early students computer science concepts such as: Combinations and permutations, Probability theory, Set Theory, Analysis of algorithms, Symbolic logic, basic proofs in symbolic logic.

They should keep the questions they ask students simple and involve engagement of the brain always presenting novel problems, rather than emphasizing rote, such as ability to solve practiced problems of a standard form for a time-limited testing session.

Plus confine the nature of tests to questions about theory/background, and limit problems on exams to trivial "Toy" problems that can be worked out mentally in less than 1 minute.

IOW: Evaluation primarily based on submitting assignments, class participation, and participation in group projects measured by the examiner inspecting the development documents and reviewing which tickets were assigned to which student, And what code each student committed.

Just teaching coding.... the average student will need half a semester, before they can successfully write "Hello World"

They might be capable of implementing FizzBuzz on their own after a few years.

BUT they may seriously inspire people or help spark interest in the field, so even if the courses are useless to 80% of the students...... I think it really is worth it to society to require that everyone being schooled has a taste of programming, And that the taste they get is Not biased towards the negative; in other words, the classes should be given in a digestible manner, still with a challenge, but tasks kept simple enough to avoid scaring people away.

Re:best developers generally not taught

[tehcyder]

Many of the creative geniuses in know, including myself, educated ourselves in technology and other subjects. Either the teaching system couldnt handle use, or was concernerned mosty with average students.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that anyone who refers to themselves as a creative genius, isn't.

remember Udacity "rescuing" San Jose State?

[peter303]

Tech MOOCs was supposed to be a cost-efficient way of remedial education for the half of freshmen who needed it. But it not work. MOOCs are generally for self-disciplined and motivated students, the opposite ot those who never reached 8th grade proficiency levels and need remedial work. Sometimes more tech is not the answer.

Re:remember Udacity "rescuing" San Jose State?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

But it not work.

Apparently it didn't.

Meanwhile in Silicon Valley...

[Thelasko]

...computers are banned from the classroom in a popular preschool.

will kids pass left behind, Common Core tests?

[peter303]

The cyncial trend in education has been a NARROWING of offered courses to foucus on all those silly tests kids have to take so school system get more government money and teachers get performance bonuses.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[nedlohs]

Computer science also isn't programming the computer. Sure it involves that like "Chemistry science" involves test tubes and fume hoods.

But just like you can do chemistry without using a test tube you can do computer science without programming a computer. And just like you can use a test tube without doing chemistry you can program a computer without doing computer science.

But yes, it would be rather strange to wander through a preschool and hear: "OK class, can anyone tell me what a pushdown automaton is? Good Sally. Now can anyone else give me an example of something a pushdown automaton can do that a finite-state automaton can not?"

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[MozeeToby]

I see lots of comments like yours, but after clicking 3 of the linked stories I don't see anything about the proposed curriculum. It's possible that it is, like you seem to assume, merely computer work and training.

It's also possible that it is in fact age appropriate computer science education. No, your kindergartner can't write C, but they can learn how to follow a flowchart to do a task that would be otherwise too complicated for them. They can play games and activities with sorting and filtering. They can learn about '0'. You can even introduce the concepts behind the basic data structures to a kindergartner if you do it right. The kids need not touch a computer at all in a young "computer science" course.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a community college degree in programming. It's an AAS (Associates in Applied Science) degree. This is different from a pure "sciences" degree in that it's about the application of the science in the real world rather than the furthering of the science itself.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen some of the classes given to grade-school students and it is indeed "computer science". Learning a language or application or even how to code is not computer science. These courses were actually teaching CS fundamentals such as database concepts including normal forms, operating system concepts, and computer architecture. I was quite surprised and happy with the level and quality of some of the material. The knowledge gained would be helpful for anyone in today's world or as a leg-up on taking up studies in computer science. This is a bit of a sore subject with be because I have a CS degree and have worked with many people who are coders who know absolutely nothing of computer science.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[tlhIngan]

Computer Science is the study of computation. Computer programming is engineering, not science. I don't know what it's like today, but when I was in college most of the Computer Scientists could barely program at all, and in general looked down on programming as a kind of crude, dirty manual labor.

No, computer programming is a trade. Like plumber, or electrician. You go to a trade school and they'll teach you Java or C++ or whatever in a semester.

Computer engineering is the application of computers to solve problems - usually it refers to the field involving both hardware and software (e.g., embedded systems). Software engineering applies computer science and encompasses system architecture, design and integration. There is a lot of overlap between computer engineering and software engineering. Coding is required, but not in any specific language since it varies. Computer engineers may require assembly, C, C++ and other languages, while software engineers may also involve scripting and higher level languages, database design, etc.

Programmer aka codemonkey is a trade job. There are plenty of those people who will take your spec and write code for you. Engineers will take your requirements, and translate and design the system and give you specs you can give the programmers to write. And scientists generate the tools the engineers need in order to translate what people want to physical reality.

IMO: the term "computer science" is misused

[walterbyrd]

Learning MS-Office is not learning "computer science" anymore than learning to use the copy machine is electrical engineering.

Maybe we should "computer usage skills" or something?

A course in algorithms is computer science, not learning to use MS-Windows.

You're an optimist

[jsrjsr]

From the article:

3. "Students' access to and achievement in computer science must not be predictable on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language, religion, sexual orientation, cultural affiliation, or special needs."

The easiest way to accomplish that is to punish anyone who gets ahead of the class. WE MUST ALL BE EQUAL!!!

Re: You're an optimist

[Anonymous Coward]

That's No Child Left Behind.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[nbauman]

It's also possible that it is in fact age appropriate computer science education. No, your kindergartner can't write C, but they can learn how to follow a flowchart to do a task that would be otherwise too complicated for them. They can play games and activities with sorting and filtering. They can learn about '0'. You can even introduce the concepts behind the basic data structures to a kindergartner if you do it right. The kids need not touch a computer at all in a young "computer science" course.

I did some research into K-12 science education. Science magazine had a lot of good articles.

I thought the most important thing that professional teachers knew, that I didn't know, and that most non-teachers don't know, is figuring out what's age appropriate.

Science magazine gave some examples of some fairly important, sophisticated ideas that you can teach to kindergarten kids -- if you know how to do it. OTOH there were some ideas that I thought were obvious, that even high school kids had trouble with.

What works -- one lesson for kindergarten kids was to learn the difference between living objects and inanimate objects. They give the kids a collection of small objects -- seeds, pebbles, etc. Then they plant the objects. A few days later, the seeds sprout but the pebbles don't do anything. That demonstrates what it means to be living. This is actually a point of confusion for kindergarten-age kids, and this is a good way of teaching that lesson.

What doesn't work -- DNA. Molecules. Kids can't understand the concept of molecules even in the lower high school grades. How could they? Science is the study of your observations of the natural world. How can 6th grade kids observe molecules? How can they do anything but learn by rote and parrot the textbooks? I took my niece to a museum, and they had an exhibit of DNA, with plastic CATG codes and evrything. After she saw the exhibit, I asked my niece what DNA was. She didn't know. I asked some other kids. They had no understanding of what that exhibit was all about. The best they could do was pick up a few buzzwords from the labels, like "Code of life." If I told them that angels were linking peptides together, they would have believed me.

Gerard Piel, the founder of the modern Scientific American, defined science for me. (1) A scientist has a theory. (2) He figures out an experiment to test that theory. (3) He performs the experiment. (4) The experiment confirms or rejects his theory. That's science. He said that every Scientific American story repeated that model. Rosalind Franklin thought DNA was a double helix. She did X-ray crystallography and confirmed it. That's science.

Cooking is not chemistry. Memorizing facts about things that you have never seen is not chemistry. Richard Feynman explained this very well.

Here's the best science teaching story I ever heard:

  A kindergarten teacher was teaching her class about birds. She explained how different birds ate different food, and other age-appropriate facts. Then it was a nice day so she decided to take her class on a walk through the woods.

Along came a woodpecker. It started pecking on the tree. She hadn't mentioned woodpeckers, because woodpeckers weren't a common bird in their area. None of them had seen a woodpecker before.

A little girl said, "Oh, I know what he's doing. He's eating bugs."

Fuck computer science. Fuck coding. Get a good science teacher to take her kids on a walk through the woods, or whatever she thinks is good. Leave the science teachers alone. They know how to teach. They know about computers. If they need your help, they'll ask you.

If computers fit into it, fine, but don't go mandating computers and tell them, "Here, fit this into your science classes."

Read what Feynman has to say about science education, and ask yourself, "How would Feynman apply this to computers?"

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[spauldo]

That varies, though. I've got an AS in computer science from a community college. There was little to no theoretical training involved - just three classes - Java, C, and Visual Basic programming (all taught by a guy that never stepped away from COBOL).

Of course, an associate's degree in computer science is worth slightly more than toilet paper, if only because of the fancy ink.

Gap in Curriculum

[Roger W Moore]

Many of the creative geniuses in know, including myself, educated ourselves in technology and other subjects.

Clearly modesty was not one of the subjects you covered.

Re:Gap in Curriculum

[Zero__Kelvin]

Modesty isn't a subject, which you would know if you were a creative genius.

Re:Gap in Curriculum

[Roger W Moore]

Do you realize that there is more than one definition of 'subject'?

subject (noun) a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with.

I thought "creative geniuses" were expected to think laterally and not be confined to rigid, linear thinking? Not everything you learn at school has a special academic lesson devoted to it...which again is something a creative genius should know.

Re:Gap in Curriculum

[Zero__Kelvin]

I thought "...

Don't think; you weaken the nation.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Darinbob]

And even mere coding is normally an advanced concept. Preschoolers aren't even counting properly, they most likely don't know how to add or subtract, so there is no possibility of learning to "program" even.

This is just a continuation of the decades old hysteria parents have that their kids will fall behind. Dad can't figure out how to set up the VCR, so clearly VCRs are extremely difficult concepts and they should teach that in kindergarten. Apple gloriously bamboozled the parents over that with their advertisement about the kid who flunked out of college because he didn't own an Apple II. They offered Apple II's to elementary schools, who hurriedly snatched up the free goodies, but then shelved them because they were essentially useless in the classrooms.

"Computer Science" covers a range of topics. There is actual science there in many of the topics. Especially networking is all full of science; networking isn't about knowing MAC addresses or configuration commands, it's about queueing theory, information theory, and so forth. Programming is normally either a prerequisite for computer science or else a first year course. Things like networking can be used as the weed out class because of the difficulty (assuming it is taught well and is not just a pre-corporate training class).

OK, a physicist may say that's merely mathematics, but physics is basically just mathematics partially transformed into the real world domain. Databases have finite model theory. Logic design has NP-completeness, computability, etc. Programming has complexity theory. At the core of all of computer science you can find abstract mathematics or electrical engineering.

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Darinbob]

Software engineering is mostly just about software management. There's almost no engineering involved.

Pitching in funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Publically traded companies don't give away anything for free, there's always going to be a catch: it's free until they reach a certain age, indoctrinating children to use your products or restricting other companies from the market - just a few sly motives.

SFUSD School Board is totally disfuctional

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in SF and my youngest will be entering kindergarten in the fall. I spent an inordinate amount of time studying the process, visiting numerous schools (public and private) and generally immersing myself into this. Spoiler alert, my kid is going to Catholic school, and not because we are religious, The school we were assigned in the SFUSD lottery (far from our house, as opposed to the school one block away), has a mission statement of:

"We teach awareness, acceptance, and non-violence, celebrate our differences and achieve academic excellence." However their test scores and my onsite visit proved they were severely lacking in that last part.

The SF school board is a train-wreck of amateurs trying to social-engineer the city. Result is that 28% of children in SF go to private school (vs. 9% in all of CA and by comparison, 20% in Manhattan). They can't get the basics right so there's a 0& chance that they will get computer "science" right. Interestingly one of the things they could have done to get things working right is to revert to neighborhood schools, but in that same article they chucked that down.

If any of you Slashdotters are young and single in the City, please, please, next election actually read about the school board candidates; Don't just vote for the the feel-goody yoga ones, or the transgender taro card reader. But think about where you would want to send your kids to school. I know, I know, you are only planning on being here for a few years until the next mini-recession, then you will take your winnings back to Ohio. I thought the same, but look, I stayed and am now sowing the results of my voting apathy from years ago.

Re: Computer science and the lowest common denomin

[Anonymous Coward]

My title is Computer Programmer/Analyst. Does this make me a software engineer or a computer scientist?

There's Lies ...

[Toad-san]

damned lies, and statistics.

I am ever so NOT in love with our education system. I swear ...

Re:Computer science and the lowest common denomina

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm saddened by the misapplication of "computer science" as a term. When I took computer classes, they were not called "computer science" until one was actually supposed to program the computer. Like, open an IDE, write code, and compile it. Classes on computer usage before that were called "technology", "desktop publishing", "computers", and other names that did not include "science".

I don't think that it's appropriate to use computers to teach basic skills to children, but regardless of that perspective, it is wholly inappropriate to call an introduction to computers "computer science".

In my high school, the computer class was called 'Computer Math', and we spent time learning BASIC and Fortran (66/77) using either the district's Univac or the University's CDC Mainframe over 110/300 baud modems, or we had a Billing's Microcomputer with 8/5.25 inch floppies running CP/M.

I'd prefer if schools would teach students reading, writing, and math skills so if they decide to go to college, they don't show up with middle school skills and needing a ton of remediation...

UGH

Three problems

[Anonymous Coward]

... access to and achievement in computer science ...

Well the first problem is calling writing a spreadsheet, or even writing code, science. After that, are three main problems.

1. Putting something in the curriculum means taking something out. This is a time when children need to learn life skills: talking, group play and the intellectual effort of reading, writing and 'rithmetic.

2. Students can be separated for remedial lessons but not for advanced lessons. This creates a one-size-fits-all curriculum and a pedagogy to match.

3. The more people on the committee, the more argument over what level of knowledge to include and even what is the basic level of knowledge.

Moderately Proficient

[rsilvergun]

is good enough for most programming tasks. The vast majority of programmers aren't 3l33T h8xorz (did I spell that right?). They're the rank and file that put together useful business apps. This is why they were so easily replaced with H1-Bs when the libertarian types dropped all our protectionism in the name of "Freedom".