From the «more real skills» department:
Feed: Raspberry Pi
Title: Computer science education is a global challenge
Author: Sue Sentance
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:49:24 -0400
Link: https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/brookings-report-global-computer-science-education-policy/

For the last two years, I’ve been one of the advisors to the Center for
Universal Education at the Brookings Institution, a US-based think tank, on
their project to survey formal computing education systems across the world. The
resulting education policy report, Building skills for life: How to expand and
improve computer science education around the world[1], pulls together the
findings of their research. I’ll highlight key lessons policymakers and
educators can benefit from, and what elements I think have been missed.
[image 2]

Why a global challenge?

Work on this new Brookings report was motivated by the belief that if our goal
is to create an equitable, global society, then we need computer science (CS) in
school to be accessible around the world; countries need to educate their
citizens about computer science, both to strengthen their economic situation and
to tackle inequality between countries. The report states that “global
development gaps will only be expected to widen if low-income countries’
investments in these domains falter while high-income countries continue to move
ahead” (p. 12).
[image 3]

The report makes an important contribution to our understanding of computer
science education policy, providing a global overview as well as in-depth case
studies of education policies around the world. The case studies look at 11
countries and territories, including England, South Africa, British Columbia,
Chile, Uruguay, and Thailand. The map below shows an overview of the Brookings
researchers’ findings. It indicates whether computer science is a mandatory or
elective subject, whether it is taught in primary or secondary schools, and
whether it is taught as a discrete subject or across the curriculum.
[image 5][5]Computer science education across the world. Figure courtesy of
Brookings Institution[1] (click to enlarge).

It’s a patchy picture, demonstrating both countries’ level of capacity to
deliver computer science education and the different approaches countries have
taken. Analysis in the Brookings report shows a correlation between a country’s
economic position and implementation of computer science in schools: no
low-income countries have implemented it at all, while over 20% of high-income
countries have mandatory computer science education at both primary and
secondary level.

Capacity building: IT infrastructure and beyond

Given these disparities, there is a significant focus in the report on what IT
infrastructure countries need in order to deliver computer science education.
This infrastructure needs to be preceded by investment (funds to afford it) and
policy (a clear statement of intent and an implementation plan). Many countries
that the Brookings report describes as having no computer science education may
still be struggling to put these in place.
[image 6]

The recently developed CAPE (capacity, access, participation, experience)
framework[7] offers another way of assessing disparities in education. To have
capacity to make computer science part of formal education, a country needs to
put in place the following elements:

* Policy
* IT infrastructure
* Computer science[8]content in the curriculum[8]
* Teacher education

My view is that countries that are at the beginning of this process need to
focus on IT infrastructure, but also on the other elements of capacity. The
Brookings report touches on these elements of capacity as well. Once these are
in place in a country, the focus can shift to the next level: access for
learners.

Comparing countries — what policies are in place?

In their report, the Brookings researchers identify seven complementary policy
actions that a country can take to facilitate implementation of computer science
education:

1. Introduction of ICT (information and communications technology) education
programmes
2. Requirement for CS in primary education
3. Requirement for CS in secondary education
4. Introduction of in-service CS teacher education programmes
5. Introduction of pre-service teacher CS education programmes
6. Setup of a specialised centre or institution focused on CS education
research and training
7. Regular funding allocated to CS education by the legislative branch of
government

The figure below compares the 11 case-study regions in terms of how many of the
seven policy actions have been taken, what IT infrastructure is in place, and
when the process of implementing CS education started.
[image 10][10]Trajectories of regions in the 11 case studies. Figure courtesy of
Brookings Institution[1] (click to enlarge).

England is the only country that has taken all seven of the identified policy
actions, having already had nation-wide IT infrastructure and broadband
connectivity in place. Chile, Thailand, and Uruguay have made impressive
progress, both on infrastructure development and on policy actions. However,
it’s clear that making progress takes many years — Chile started in 1992, and
Uruguay in 2007 — and requires a considerable amount of investment and
government policy direction.

Computing education policy in England

The first case study that Brookings produced[11] for this report, back in 2019,
related to England. Over the last 8 years in England, we have seen the
development of computing education in the curriculum as a mandatory subject in
primary and secondary schools. Initially, funding for teacher education was
limited, but in 2018, the government provided £80 million of funding to us[12]
and a consortium of partners to establish the National Centre for Computing
Education (NCCE)[13]. Thus, in-service teacher education in computing has been
given more priority in England than probably anywhere else in the world.
[image 14]

Alongside teacher education[15], the funding also covered our development of
classroom resources[16] to cover the whole CS curriculum, and of Isaac Computer
Science, our online platform for 14- to 18-year-olds[17] learning computer
science. We’re also working on a £2m government-funded research project looking
at approaches to improving the gender balance in computing in English
schools[18], which is due to report results next year.

The future of education policy in the UK as it relates to AI technologies is the
topic of an upcoming panel discussion[19] I’m inviting you to attend.
[image 20]

The Brookings report highlights the way in which the English government worked
with non-profit organisations, including us here at the Raspberry Pi Foundation,
to deliver on the seven policy actions. Partnerships and engagement with
stakeholders appear to be key to effectively implementing computer science
education within a country.

Lessons learned, lessons missed

What can we learn from the Brookings report’s helicopter view of 11 case
studies? How can we ensure that computer science education is going to be
accessible for all children? The Brookings researchers draw our six lessons
learned in their report, which I have taken the liberty of rewording and
shortening here:

1. Create demand
2. Make it mandatory
3. Train teachers
4. Start early
5. Work in partnership
6. Make it engaging

In the report, the sixth lesson is phrased as, “When taught in an interactive,
hands-on way, CS education builds skills for life.” The Brookings researchers
conclude that focusing on project-based learning and maker spaces is the way for
schools to achieve this, which I don’t find convincing. The problem with
project-based learning in maker spaces is one of scale: in my experience, this
approach only works well in a non-formal, small-scale setting. The other reason
is that maker spaces, while being very engaging, are also very expensive[21].
Therefore, I don’t see them as a practicable aspect of a nationally rolled-out,
mandatory, formal curriculum.

When we teach computer science, it is important that we encourage young people
to ask questions about ethics, power, privilege, and social justice.
Sue Sentance

We have other ways to make computer science engaging to all learners, using a
breadth of pedagogical approaches. In particular, we should focus on cultural
relevance, an aspect of education the Brookings report does not centre.
Culturally relevant pedagogy[22] is a framework for teaching that emphasises the
importance of incorporating and valuing all learners’ knowledge, heritage, and
ways of learning, and promotes the development of learners’ critical
consciousness of the world. When we teach computer science, it is important that
we encourage young people to ask questions about ethics[23], power, privilege,
and social justice[24].
[image 25]

The Brookings report states that we need to develop and use evidence on how to
teach computer science[26], and I agree with this. But to properly support
teachers and learners, we need to offer them a range of approaches to teaching
computing[27], rather than just focusing on one, such as project-based learning,
however valuable that approach may be in some settings. Through the NCCE, we
have embedded twelve pedagogical principles[28] in the Teach Computing
Curriculum[29], which is being rolled out to six million learners in England’s
schools. In time, through this initiative, we will gain firm evidence on what
the most effective approaches are for teaching computer science to all students
in primary and secondary schools.

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 02:48:46 UTC+1, RS Wood wrote:

> From the «more real skills» department:
> Feed: Raspberry Pi
> Title: Computer science education is a global challenge
> Author: Sue Sentance
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:49:24 -0400
> Link: https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/brookings-report-global-computer-science-education-policy/
>
> For the last two years, I’ve been one of the advisors to the Center for
>
> Why a global challenge?

Because it's yet another global fraud under the general headings of the lying with numbers and the making of people stupid: here mistaking mathematics (CS) with engineering (SE), for 25+ straight years of straight plain frauds and the misery of an entire industry, however in the context of four centuries of global frauds plus the dumbing down all nations... Welcome to the global shithole.

*Plonk*

Julio

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 16:18:50 UTC+1, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 02:48:46 UTC+1, RS Wood wrote:
>
> > From the «more real skills» department:
> > Feed: Raspberry Pi
> > Title: Computer science education is a global challenge
> > Author: Sue Sentance
> > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:49:24 -0400
> > Link: https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/brookings-report-global-computer-science-education-policy/
> >
> > For the last two years, I’ve been one of the advisors to the Center for
> >
> > Why a global challenge?
>
> Because it's yet another global fraud under the general headings of the lying with numbers and the making of people stupid: here mistaking mathematics (CS) with engineering (SE), for 25+ straight years of straight plain frauds and the misery of an entire industry, however in the context of four centuries of global frauds plus the dumbing down all nations... Welcome to the global shithole.

Kids should learn *programming*, which is applied *logic* (building, construction, problem solving), and it's *not* to be conflating with any mathematics. But then we might get kids who actually think, don't just push levers....

What a fucking shithole...

Julio

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes:

> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 16:18:50 UTC+1, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 02:48:46 UTC+1, RS Wood wrote:
>>
>> > From the «more real skills» department:
>> > Feed: Raspberry Pi
>> > Title: Computer science education is a global challenge
>> > Author: Sue Sentance
>> > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:49:24 -0400
>> > Link:
>> > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/brookings-report-global-computer-science-education-policy/
>> >
>> > For the last two years, I’ve been one of the advisors to the Center for
>> >
>> > Why a global challenge?
>>
>> Because it's yet another global fraud under the general headings of
>> the lying with numbers and the making of people stupid: here
>> mistaking mathematics (CS) with engineering (SE), for 25+ straight
>> years of straight plain frauds and the misery of an entire industry,
>> however in the context of four centuries of global frauds plus the
>> dumbing down all nations... Welcome to the global shithole.
>
> Kids should learn *programming*, which is applied *logic* (building,
> construction, problem solving), and it's *not* to be conflating with
> any mathematics. But then we might get kids who actually think, don't
> just push levers...

That's quite right. Applied logic. Much farther from mathematics than
most people or teachers can see. (It can be dramatically stupid: I see
exercises in programming courses where the solution is a mere if-else
but students can't do it because the problem requires them to solve a
geometry problem, which is totally not the purpose of the course. It
leaves me speecheless.)

Speaking of teachers, if I may, here's an opinion

https://felleisen.org/matthias/OnHtDP/colleagues.html

that illustrates the current situation.

It would be great if we could assume that this would eventually change
as generations of people (literally) die out, but it's these generations
that produce the next teachers, so it is not surprising to see a problem
perpetuating itself --- of course.

On 2021-11-01, Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 16:18:50 UTC+1, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 02:48:46 UTC+1, RS Wood wrote:
>>
>> > From the ??more real skills?? department:
>> > Feed: Raspberry Pi
>> > Title: Computer science education is a global challenge
>> > Author: Sue Sentance
>> > Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 07:49:24 -0400
>> > Link: https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/brookings-report-global-computer-science-education-policy/
>> >
>> > For the last two years, I???ve been one of the advisors to the Center for
>> >
>> > Why a global challenge?
>>
>> Because it's yet another global fraud under the general headings of the lying with numbers and the making of people stupid: here mistaking mathematics (CS) with engineering (SE), for 25+ straight years of straight plain frauds and the misery of an entire industry, however in the context of four centuries of global frauds plus the dumbing down all nations... Welcome to the global shithole.
>
> Kids should learn *programming*, which is applied *logic* (building, construction, problem solving), and it's *not* to be conflating with any mathematics. But then we might get kids who actually think, don't just push levers...
>
> What a fucking shithole...

Profanity, bad temper. Have you had a bad day, dear?

Now take a deep breath and try and explain what you see as the problem in a
rational calm manner that people might actually want to read.

semi-plonk :-)

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:

[...]

> Profanity, bad temper. Have you had a bad day, dear?
>
> Now take a deep breath and try and explain what you see as the problem in a
> rational calm manner that people might actually want to read.

Let the guy be however he wants. Yes, profanity and so on, but if that
were a really something you discourage then you wouldn't be writing a
reply like the one above because such interaction only reinforces what
you apparently argue against. IOW, you say one thing but the facts show
another.

Language is perhaps a small part of communication. Clarifying too much
for helping those who can't read doesn't quite cut it. (Guiding
ourselves by the fact and that saves us up a lot of energy.)

On 2021-11-01, Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> wrote:
> Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:
> Let the guy be however he wants. Yes, profanity and so on, but if that
> were a really something you discourage then you wouldn't be writing a
> reply like the one above because such interaction only reinforces what
> you apparently argue against. IOW, you say one thing but the facts show
> another.

Alternate point of view (2017): maybe the problem is the West.
https://www.salon.com/2017/06/18/russian-students-dominate-at-the-computer-programming-olympics-and-american-computer-science-students-are-unsurprised/

On 2021-11-01, Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> wrote:
> Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> Profanity, bad temper. Have you had a bad day, dear?
>>
>> Now take a deep breath and try and explain what you see as the problem in a
>> rational calm manner that people might actually want to read.
>
> Let the guy be however he wants.

Really? No effort to pass feedback? If he has a message then surely he
wants others to understand? He failed, his anger got in the way, I
didn't understanding what he was getting at.

You explained things better.

> Yes, profanity and so on, but if that
> were a really something you discourage then you wouldn't be writing a
> reply like the one above because such interaction only reinforces what
> you apparently argue against. IOW, you say one thing but the facts show
> another.
>
> Language is perhaps a small part of communication. Clarifying too much
> for helping those who can't read doesn't quite cut it. (Guiding
> ourselves by the fact and that saves us up a lot of energy.)

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> writes:

> Kids should learn *programming*, which is applied *logic* (building,
> construction, problem solving), and it's *not* to be conflating with
> any mathematics. But then we might get kids who actually think,
> don't just push levers

Part of the problem is how powerful computers have become. If you put
a kid in front of an Apple ][, Kaypro, Osborne I, in a couple of hours
the kid could be making the computer do what computers do with BASIC.
In a semester of classes, it could include making the computer do what
it does with C of dBase II.

Now computers do windowing, graphics, interactive animation, full
motion video, CGI & TCP/IP telecom and kids have seen that. It's what
computer *do*. They want to make computers do *that*. "Hello,
world", bytes, bits, character strings, trees & arrays are
boooorrring.

I'm very grateful that I got started with computers using an Osborne 1
even though I was middle-aged and the Osborne was at that point
obsolete. It was simple enough that I could learn the basic
structural and procedural principles along with languages such as C
and Lisp. And it came with documentation designed to help me do so.
Computers still work on the same principles but learning about them is
now obfuscated by 40 years' worth of incremental complexity.

> What a fucking shithole...

Not a constructive contribution to the conversation.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 05:07:07 UTC+1, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name> writes:

> > Kids should learn *programming*, which is applied *logic* (building,
> > construction, problem solving), and it's *not* to be conflating with
> > any mathematics. But then we might get kids who actually think,
> > don't just push levers
>
> Part of the problem is how powerful computers have become.

That's just not a problem. The main problem is that people generally have just no clue what programming even means, thanks again (to begin with) to 25+ years of speculations and misguidance. Or education. Or culture. Or decency.

> Now computers do windowing, graphics, interactive animation, full
<snip>
> Computers still work on the same principles but learning about them is
> now obfuscated by 40 years' worth of incremental complexity.

We had Logo in the 80's for kids to learn... Programming is NOT learning about computers if not marginally, i.e. not anymore than learning to write is about pens and pencils.

> > What a fucking shithole...
>
> Not a constructive contribution to the conversation.

Calling out the flooding of bullshit, fraud and worse, and more generally just *calling things by their name* is a service to humanity actually, what's left of it that is. YMMV.

HTH,

Julio