$500K NSF Grant Boosted Girls' CS Participation At Obama Daughters' $37K/Yr HS

theodp writes: On Friday, a paper entitled Creative Computation in High School will be presented at SIGCSE '16. "In this paper," explain the paper's authors, "we describe the success of bringing Creative Computation via Processing into two very different high schools...providing a catalyst for significant increases in total enrollment as well as female participation in high school computer science." One of the two schools that participated in the National Science Foundation-supported project — see NSF awards 1323305 & 1323463 for Creative Computation in the Context of Art and Visual Media — was Sidwell Friends School, which a 2013 SMU news release on the three-year, $500K NSF grant noted was best known as the school attended by President Obama's daughters. Interestingly, in a late-2014 interview, the President lamented that his daughters hadn't taken to coding the way he'd like, adding that "part of what's happening is that we are not helping schools and teachers teach it in an interesting way." Hey, nothing that a $4B 'Computer Science For All' K-12 Program can't fix, right?

Comments

but its not obamas fault.

[nimbius]

It may be convenient and tempting to blame Obama for this, but its actually something he benefits from thats existed for more than a hundred years. Namely, how wealth learns and lives as opposed to the rest of us.

While most of us go to public school, eat school lunches and attend public universities when and if possible, the cloistered elite do not. An entire parallel yet grossly superior system of education exists for millionaires and billionaires, and everything from its fundamentals to its lunchtime is radically different. While we are playing gym and learning typing in highschool, the children of wealth learn elocution, policy, and various other traits that help them to accept their future roles as C level management, elite constitutional law attorneys, and even members of world banking organizations. If obamas children are learning programming, its merely as a jovial introduction into the world of directing, managing, or guiding long-term and broad stroke efforts in the field. They will not themselves become a "programmer."

that having been said, the children of the elite will always benefit disproportionately from government grants alongside their already generous foundation and nonprofit donations. they have overwhelming resources to secure and exploit them that public, and many private institutions, do not.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[slashping]

Lots of people have a family name. Turning it into a brand the way she did is seriously impressive. Few here are anywhere near that caliber.

You are right. A family name isn't enough, you also need a sex tape.

The rich are going to get theirs

[rsilvergun]

Stop asking yourself how you can stop them from getting it and how we can get it for everybody else. All crap like this story does is get people yelling about govt waste. And all that happens when you try to cut it is your education budget for your kid's school gets cut.

"CS not interesting"

[Anonymous Coward]

"part of what's happening is that we are not helping schools and teachers teach it in an interesting way"

It has nothing to do with the teaching technique. You can't force people to become interested in computer science and programming. If you aren't the type of person who is naturally drawn towards this particular type of problem solving, you'll quickly be discouraged by the constant setbacks and frustration that accompany all programming endeavors. Very few people have the natural mathematical talent and abstract thinking abilities necessary to enjoy this work and thus overcome the first 5-10 years of pain and eventually become good.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[dgatwood]

Computer science is the study of software at a broad level, including software design methodologies (practical CS) and problem complexity (theoretical CS). The first is science (a social science, specifically), because you can experiment with different methodologies, see how they perform, and draw conclusions. The second is more of a theoretical science because you're studying the way computers behave and modeling real-world systems in simplified terms and hopefully verifying how those models relate to real-world behavior, though the latter part is often ignored by theoreticians.