On City of New York’s “Computer Science for All”

Today I’m taking a look at the City of New York’s recent announcement of its plan to introduce computer science to all public schools in the next 10 years.

I’m always interested in the details of public announcements. Where is the money coming from? Where is it going? and how will it be measured? Here’s what I could find out about this announcement:

• $81 million dollars over ten years to introduce computer science to all public schools in the next 10 years (by 2025?)
• It will be a 50-50 public-private partnership with the first 2.5 years funded by three Foundations (the Solomon Wilson Family Foundation, Robin Hood Foundation and AOL Foundation). This makes the City’s contribution approx $40m or around $4m per annum. This also means the City of New York will essentially need business development managers to find the remaining funds.
• Computer science will not be a graduation requirement. It will be compulsory up until year 8 and then middle and high schools can offer the subject as an elective.

What I couldn’t figure out is how the money will be spent, and by who. There were a few leads – the first is that the City estimates it will need about 5,000 trained teachers. The second is that the National Science Foundation has said it plans to train 10,000 teachers to teach computer science. Although this May 2015 release talks about the NSF training approx 100 New York public school teachers. I’m hoping those 100 were a pilot for an ongoing program.

This announcement is part of a much larger education initiative to support literary and numeracy programs with the measured intention of increasing university participation rates. It also builds off two other initiatives: a computer science teacher training program (2013, mentioned above) and an Advanced Placement program (2014), that would see college level material offered in high schools.

The program is expected to face challenges in training enough teachers, supporting schools and students with infrastructure and also adapting the content and learning styles to accommodate a world where coding is taught in boot camps, micro courses and in project based learning. Critics of the program have said that this money would have been better spent increasing numeracy and literacy rates and that teaching computer science is a passing trend that will be quickly outdated.

My thoughts:

I’d love to see the breakdown of how the money is being spent. Not to critique it, but to gain ideas for what we could be doing locally. Other programs I’ve looked at spend their money on teacher training, so that would make sense. Infrastructure is another bucket that needs funding but is much more expensive as you have both capital and maintenance costs – mixed with your standard deployment costs.

Teacher training is a very real issue. It is something we will face here in Australia. I also believe that it is a known issue therefore can be factored into deployment plans. If there is a serious plan to rollout coding in schools then the teacher professional development side of things should not be underestimated as it plays a serious part in the program’s success.

On the Australian Technologies Curriculum

Bamn. There we have it. The Australian Technologies Curriculum has been officially approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Education. This Foundation – Year 10 curriculum contains two subjects: a) Design and Technologies and b) Digital Technologies. It’s fair to say that it is the second subject that has most piqued the tech industries’ interest due to the inclusion of coding/programming (visual programming in year 5-6 and general coding languages in years 7-8).

The Minister’s announcement also touches on the previously announced $12million STEM fund that will go to:

• the development of innovative mathematics curriculum resources ($7.4m) – “The Mathematics by Inquiry project will produce a suite of innovative, high quality mathematics teaching and learning resources” (LINK)
• supporting the introduction of computer coding across different year levels ($3.5m) -not too many details on this one – sounds like it will be an online resources collection.
• establishing a P-TECH-style school pilot site ($500,000) – an industry/govt collaboration based on the IBM/City of New York school. These will be based in Geelong and Ballarat. The program is administered by Skilling Australia Foundation (LINK)
• funding summer schools for STEM students from underrepresented groups. ($?600,000) – Previous press releases mentioned a focus on Indigenous Australia and females in technology, but not too many details since then.

My thoughts:

This is pretty big stuff. It was exactly a year ago that the curriculum review suggested that the introduction of technology subjects would crowd and complicate the Australian curriculum and that coding should be introduced as part of an elective from year 9 onwards. This time last year there was a very real chance that technology in general, and coding in particular, would be integrated as part of other subjects – or, left up to the interests of individual schools/teachers to introduce.

Given the implications of implementing an Australia wide curriculum change – the $12million STEM funding is starting to look a little out of place. At the time it looked like a consolation prize for an education system that was going to miss out on a technology focus. Now that the game has changed – this fund appears a little piece meal – four interesting, but not exactly game changing or scalable initiatives.

For a government aiming to position Australia for the 21st century – the introduction of this curriculum is a good start. The responsibility is now passed to the State Governments to look at the extent to which it will be adopted and the speed/quality of implementation.

On the Digital Technologies Curriculum review process

I thought I’d put up a piece on further developments in the ongoing discussion on the role of the Digital Technologies (K-10) curriculum in Australia. This curriculum would deliver on calls for mandatory technology education, coding in particular, from foundation to Year 10. Last October I put up a piece on the then recent review of the Australian curriculum. This review suggested, amongst other things, that technology should be taught as an elective from Year 9 and older (roughly the same as we have now). The tech industry, and tech education advocates, saw this as a worrying sign.

However, things took a positive turn in December, when the Commonwealth Government (Department of Education) announced it would refer the Review’s recommendations to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). ACARA is the joint Commonwealth/State Government education group that led the original consultations and designed the Digital Technologies curriculum. ACARA has been asked to report to the Education Council at its first meeting in 2015.

There are still a few more areas to address. Fran Foo’s December article on this matter specifically asked for comment from NSW and WA governments as to whether they would commit to supporting this industry call for mandatory tech education (and the Digital Technologies curriculum). The NSW response was “NSW is committed to its current practice where technologies learning commences in early stage 1 (kindergarten) with the Science and Technology syllabus and continues into years 7 & 8“. A quick glance at the NSW Board of Studies website shows that NSW has just launched an updated Science K-10 (incorporating Science and Technologies K-6) syllabus in 2015. The article then quotes the NSW Board of Studies as saying “Should the Technologies Curriculum be endorsed by education ministers and BOSTES (Board of Studies, Teaching and Education Standards) decide to  adopt it, consultation with stakeholders including the advocates of coding and algorithmic thinking will ensue”.

My thoughts:

I guess we wait and see. I can absolutely see how a review could decide that the Digital Technologies would be a challenge to implement – by default it features content (coding) that is not particularly strong in Australia. This is all the more reason that it should be taught. The curriculum review focused on whether the content of the Digital Technologies curriculum was achievable from an educators point of view – was it written in a style that people could deliver. This one I’ll leave to educators. Another point was whether teachers would be supported to deliver the content – this was/is a concern for those delivering the technology subject in the UK, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Finally I can see why State Government education groups would be cautious about radical overhauls of education systems. Education is vital and not something that is easy to switch up – so naturally they would want to follow due process.

On the plus side, at least the conversation is continuing.

On EU Code Week

So… October 11-17 was EU Code Week. The week that European educators focused on raising the profile of computer science initiatives across the EU. EurActiv has published a series of special reports focusing on coding, education and the economy. They are collated in this nifty PDF – worth the read.

Again we see similar themes. The opening address links the concepts of digital natives – familiar with technology but under served by current education systems, the pervasiveness of technology across different industry sectors – not just the tech sector, a recognised gap between unemployment and the demands of the growing tech sector and technology as a potential economic solution for growth and job creation. Example: “The EU’s app-developer workforce will grow from one million in 2013 to 2.6 million in 2019. Additional support and marketing staff will take that figure to 4.8 million by 2018.”

The special report touches on the role of public-private partnerships in championing awareness-raising campaigns and spreading best practice. It mentions a “Coding Industry Coalition” (nb. Google hasn’t heard of it outside of EurActiv’s report) of global businesses that has formed in response to this demand. The idea is that European Union policy makers have little to no control over national based education programs. Therefore industry must step in to demonstrate the usefulness of coding in schools.

The report also mentions the “EU Coding Initiative” – the first localised coding platform in Europe. The initiative provides teaching and educational resources, awareness raising initiatives and online tutorials (beginner-expert). The European website was built off the successful Code.org site and features many of the same tutorials and videos. The About section has a little more information:

“The aim of the campaign is to promote coding through a mixture of online and offline, real-life activities, with a view to establishing coding as a key competence within every education system in Europe. The eu.code.org website, developed in conjunction with Code.org, will provide resources in a number of languages, catering to everyone from the youngest coders, to pedagogical resources and lesson plans for teachers, to industry training and certification for professionals. The European Coding Initiative will play a central role in a number of Europe-wide advocacy and awareness-raising campaigns, including Europe Code Week, Computer Science Education Week, the Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs and the European activities of the Hour of Code campaign.”

On Malcolm Turnbull and Tech Education

Last month, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for Communications and hero of the tech world, spoke at what looks like a Westpac associated event. The topic: “The Importance of Tech Education in Our Schools” (24 October, 2014).

In most regards the speech was on-point. It addressed:

• The Digital Technologies curriculum review – stating that the review’s intent was to simplify Australia’s curriculum and that coding could emerge through another strand, such as mathematics. This incorporation of coding into the mathematics curriculum was mentioned three times in the speech. Turnbull also mentioned the need to distinguish between the recommendations of Phil Callil, the subject matter expert, and the review as a whole. This was to remind people that Callil determined that key ICT skills taught as part of the digital technologies syllabus, such as coding and computational thinking, should be taught from Foundation to Year 10.
• The role of technology in changing our economy – the need to create new jobs as old jobs disappear and the need for Australia to remain internationally competitive. Particularly if Australia wishes to remain a high cost centre with a strong social support network. He referenced Dr Ian Chubb’s recognition that about half of all US economic growth in the last 50 years came from scientific and technological advances.
• The difference between passively consuming technology and actively making it – quote:

“…Instead of teaching students how to be passive consumers of technology…, our educators should be teaching students how to create, how to code.”

• ICT education participation rates – commencements in tertiary ICT courses have also fallen sharply, with a 53 per cent decline between 2001 and 2011, while completions declined by 58 per cent over the same period. And that while female participation in the workforce is almost 50%, female participation in STEM careers sits at 25%.

Mr Turnbull said that we need to ensure that:

• We are equipping students with the skills for employment in an increasingly competitive globalised economy
• We are improving the pathways for students to study IT from Foundation through to secondary school and onto university
• There is an increase in the percentage of school-aged girls participating in ICT and women employed in the ICT sector
• Teachers are supported to undertake professional learning in key areas of IT competency.

The speech referenced two ideas:

• First, the $500,000 set aside for the Geelong based P-Tech. Modelled on IBM’s work in the US – this P-Tech would increase industry engagement in the school system
• Second, we closely monitor the impact of the UK introducing a Digital Technologies curriculum.

My thoughts:

Most of the speech’s content is exactly what people are looking for. Recognition that technology will play an increasingly important role in our future, that jobs are changing and the economy needs to change with it. One thing that stood out was the constant referencing of mathematics as the solution to embedding logic and computational thinking in the K-6 curriculum. Not sure if everyone will agree that’s the solution… but if it is going to live anywhere under the current structure that’s not a terrible place. It was interesting to see Turnbull specifically name-check the Canberra based Australian Mathematics Trust (see quote below).

The speech was a little light on solutions. The current initiatives put forward by the Commonwealth Government include: a) review the curriculum, b) $3.5 million to embed ‘coding across the curriculum’ and c) the P-Tech. It’s tough to see how these initiatives will have the desired effect – especially given the emphasis put on the incredible pace that technology is influencing the world.

Full quote on Australian Mathematics Trust:

Teaching students how to code – to use computers to create rather than just consume – from Foundation through to Year 8 could be appropriately incorporated into the mathematics syllabus, for example.

A leader in this area is the Australian Mathematics Trust based in Canberra. I commend you to the work they are doing in informatics, a mathematics discipline, where students learn the basic algorithms, data structures and computational techniques that underlie information and communication, and demonstrate their learning through computer programming tasks.

On the Australian Government’s $3.5m coding in schools announcement

The Australian Government’s curriculum review recently suggested that technologies subjects were best placed as an elective for students in Year 9 and above. A day later the same government announced a $12 million fund to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects in primary and secondary schools. Of particular note is the second item – a specific $3.5m allocation to introduce coding across different year levels in Australian schools.

The $12 million is broken down like this:

• $7.4m to develop and implement Mathematics by inquiry
• $3.5m towards introduction to computer coding across the curriculum
• $0.5m towards establishing a P-TECH styled education facility
• $0.6m to extend national science and mathematics summer schools to include more girls, disadvantaged and Indigenous school students, including those from regional and remote areas.

This funding is a subset of a larger $400m project called the the Industry, Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda (the Agenda). Under this Agenda, the Government has four key ambitions, including:

1. a lower cost, business friendly environment with less regulation, lower taxes and more competitive markets;
2. a more skilled labour force;
3. better economic infrastructure; and
4. industry policy that fosters innovation and entrepreneurship.

The $3.5m coding in schools funding description currently reads:

Building on these maths education programmes, the Government will provide a further $3.5 million to encourage the introduction of computer coding across different year levels in Australian schools. ‘Coding across the curriculum’ will contribute to addressing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry feedback which consistently emphasises a looming acute shortage of computer programming skills. It is anticipated that a consortia of organisations with appropriate professional capacity and technical expertise will be contracted through tender processes to deliver these programmes.

My thoughts:

Need more information. The $12m funding announcement came a day after the Government released its review effectively suggesting that specific tech subjects are mainly relevant for students Years 9 and above. The review also suggested that computer science learning objectives were best delivered when folded into other subjects. This announcement of a specific fund for coding ‘across different year levels’ doesn’t align with the curriculum announcement. Another thing I’m not clear on is the duration – $3.5m per annum is very different to $3.5 over four years.

Coding in schools is currently a niche interest – mainly existing as weekend, lunchtime or after school programs outside the school structure. This helps retain their independence and keeps the administration lean. Organisations like Code Club have just started expanding – these organisations are powered by international resources, enthusiastic local volunteers/teachers and, where available, private sector funding. CoderDojo operates in the same area but has more of an industry mentorship/weekend activity approach.

I’m keen to know if the allocated funding is intended to scale existing extra curricular activities or whether it is intended for something embedded in the school structure.

On the UK’s Digital Curriculum

Are teachers ready for the coding revolution? (BBC News, January 2014) is an article about the changes to the English digital technologies curriculum. However the article is not the most interesting part of this post – as always – the money is in the comments section. I did a quick read of about 100 of the comments (of 240) and have pulled together a summary below. For the most part the comments were negative, criticising the UK government’s ability to roll out an education program, questioning its necessity, questioning teachers capability in delivering the curriculum, debating England’s role in the global technology value chain…

Here’s the summary:

On teachers:

The comments focused on teachers not having the skills or confidence to deliver programming in the classroom. Some thought that a poorly taught subject would do more harm than good – further discouraging people from pursuing technology as a career path or skills set. They suggested that teachers are already overworked and don’t have time to master a new set of tools (such as Scratch). The point was raised that students would rapidly overtake their teachers and the teachers would be left struggling without support.

On programming as part of the curriculum:

These comments asked why should programming be taught in primary school – they suggested primary school was for reading, writing, science, sports, socialisation. Teaching programming would create a generation of anti-social nerds. They suggested that there is a myth that a) programming is necessary to be in the tech space and b) coding is being oversold as an economic solution – that in reality it is a boring, frustrating, tedious process. Others argued that teaching coding languages was pointless however there was some benefit to teaching computational thinking and logic. Another point said that what really needs to be taught is entrepreneurship and business skills – then the students would learn to apply their tech knowledge through doing. And the ever present – why do I need to learn to code if I am not planning on working in technology?

On the economy:

There was a lot of discussion about whether anyone actually needs coding skills in 21st century England. That this is a skills set that should be outsourced to cheaper locations in the world (specifically mentioning India and Eastern Europe). Some commented that there were already enough skilled workers in England but that employers were looking for cheap labour overseas so talent was left languishing in unemployment queues. Others said that salaries were too low to attract high quality students into those careers. Another comment was that you don’t actually spend time coding if you are working in tech.

On the Government’s plans:

High levels of cynicism that the program would be over promised and under delivered, leaving teachers high and dry without resources.

My thoughts:

Tough crowd. However the comments do raise interesting points for any government looking to tackle technology in the curriculum. The biggest question I saw was about whether every student needs to learn to code? The typical answer is ‘not really’ – not everyone is going to head into the tech space. A more nuanced answer is ‘yes’, because students need to be exposed to this line of thinking – alongside the traditional maths, writing, science – so that they are not locked out of future job prospects. A key difference between the the 1980s (the last time governments had a tech push) and now is the omni presence of technology in our lives. Technology is no longer a nerd thing, everyone is using a smartphone and doing business/life over the internet. You don’t have to have a career in this space but you do need to know how it works.

The question of employability has been raised before. How can we say we are experiencing a STEM crisis if there is currently a skilled pool of programmers unable to find jobs (be it the US, Australia or the UK). At the moment the only answer I have found is that this relates to whether these candidates have continued to develop their skills/certificates and also do they have the soft skills and diverse backgrounds needed for the roles – but this needs more research and insight.

Either way, the above comments give an indication of the types of questions a government would need to address before rolling out a program of this nature.

On the BBC’s Make It Digital campaign (2015)

The BBC has announced its “Make It Digital” campaign – including a series of TV programs supported by online content to educate young people on coding. The campaign coincides with the new computing curriculum’s introduction in England.

The broadcaster is also moving into programming-themed children’s TV shows for autumn 2015 (nb. Australian September-December 2015). Jessica Cecil is the organiser of the BBC’s coding and digital creative initiative – here’s a great blog post Jessica wrote outlining the BBC’s plans.

The TV programs:

The new materials on Bitesize (a BBC education website) cover 40 different elements tailored to the new curriculum, ranging from primary school level up to GCSE exams. Topics for younger pupils include debugging programs, writing animation code and explaining how the internet works. Coverage for older children includes algorithms, data representation and binary.

Tech-themed TV shows that will be broadcast later in the year include:

• Technobabble – an app and gadget-themed show made by the team behind Newsround, designed to encourage its audience to expand its computer skills
• Appsolute Genius – a spin-off of the existing CBBC show Absolute Genius – in which the hosts, Dick and Dom, interview prominent computer programmers, including the creators of Sonic the Hedgehog and Pac-Man. The show will also run a competition in which one child’s idea for a video game will be picked and development of the title will be tracked over a 12-week period before it is released for free to PCs and mobile phones
• Nina and the Neurons: Go Digital – five episodes of the CBeebies show that will explore 3D printing, coding and driverless cars

Interesting – this is the BBC’s second recent attempt to get this off the ground – the other venture, BBC Jam, had to be scrapped in 2007 after complaints from the commercial sector that it posed unfair competition to education-themed businesses. The project had been intended to support the government’s computer-based “digital curriculum” of the time. The BBC was also involved in a similar initiative in the 1980s to support computer education/uptake.

My thoughts:

This is fairly awesome and picks up on a lot of trends. It normalises the tech space by including it in mass media. It delivers both online and TV based content (expensive and difficult to achieve). It is consortia based, tapping into the best of the tech educators already addressing these issues. It aligns and supports the government’s curriculum rollout (which makes sense). I’m impressed by their ability to make historical dramas about technology (first female programmers, inventors of the internet etc). I can’t wait to see it roll out.

(source article: BBC begins kids coding push with Bitesize and TV shows by Leo Kelion, 1 Sept 2014)

On ICT Literacy in Australia (National Assessment Program)

Australia has an information and communication technology literacy assessment. Started in 2005 (run again in 2008 and 2011), the assessment looks at a student’s capabilities in Year 6 and Year 10 (approx age 12 and 16). In 2011 5,500 students per age category were chosen at random, representing 649 schools. The 2014 assessment will take place between October and November this year. The 2011 report is available here.

Background:

The assessment defines ICT literacy as: “the ability of individuals to use ICT appropriately to access, manage, integrate and evaluate information, develop new understandings, and communicate with others in order to participate effectively in society” – the 2011 report pointedly notes “ICT literacy has not focused on programming but on computer use”. The assessment included seven main activities covering topics such as installing software, managing an anti virus, web based research on topics, creating a video about a topic, updating a wiki entry, working with collaborative software,  using email and organising an event using online tools.

The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) has released a couple of statements over the years that give insight into their acceptable levels of ICT literacy (my emphasis and underlining):

When students leave school they should be “confident, creative and productive users of new technologies, particularly information and communication technologies, and understand the impact of those technologies on society”. – Adelaide Declaration on Australia’s National Goals for Schooling, 1999

Successful learners “have the essential skills in literacy and numeracy and are creative and productive users of technology, especially ICT, as a foundation for success in all learning areas”. – Goal 2, Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, 2008

Assessment outcomes (2011): 

• 62% of Year 6 students reached or exceeded “proficient standard” (49% in 2005 and 57% in 2008)
• 65% of Year 10 students reached or exceeded “proficient standard” (61% in 2005)
• Children of parents working in “unskilled, manual and sales jobs” were less proficient than those in “senior manager and professional” jobs – Year 6 (50% v 79%) and Year 10 (57% v 78%) students
• Children of Indigenous parents were less proficient than those of non-Indigenous – Year 6 (31% v 64%) and Year 10 (36% v 66%)
• Regionally ACT is streaks ahead of the other states/territories in terms of student proficiency
• ACT, Victoria and NSW were generally more proficient than WA, Qld, Tasmania and NT
• Tasmania and Northern Territory were the only two regions to NOT show an increase in proficiency from 2005 to 2011
• Queensland showed the greatest proficiency difference between Year 6 (55%) and Year 10 (63%) students

Student perceptions of Using ICT:

Students indicated a high level of interest and enjoyment in using computers. Males recorded higher levels of interest than females and Year 6 students expressed greater interest in using ICT than Year 10 students. Year 6 and Year 10 students showed themselves confident that they could easily download music from the internet, upload files to a website and create a multi-media presentation (with sound, pictures, video). They were less confident about their ability to construct a web page or create a database. There were no differences between males and females in terms of confidence in using ICT, but there were significant differences between Year 6 and Year 10: Year 10 students expressed higher levels of confidence in using ICT than Year 6 students. [Excerpt]

Gender in ICT:

Females recorded higher levels of ICT Literacy than males. Even though female students expressed lower levels of interest and enjoyment than males in computing, they expressed similar levels of confidence in their ability to carry out ICT-based tasks without assistance. [Excerpt]

My thoughts:

You can see I have underlined the assessment’s emphasis on “using technology”. So much of what I do and what I read is about the need to shift mentalities away from ‘using’ and into ‘creating/making’. I see the purpose of measuring base level proficiency – particularly when there are circumstances where children of some families (unskilled labour) score between 20-30% less than those of whose parents are managers and professionals. In that context, it sounds like there are some base level needs that should be addressed before we start concentrating on  training up armies of computer scientists capable of creating a generation of high growth tech jobs for Australia’s future economy.

I wrote this post to raise a couple of points:

• Australia does have a digital literacy assessment that is tracking proficiency over time
• There are wide variations in proficiency based on geography, parental backgrounds and whether you are from a minority or marginalised group
• The current assessment focuses on basic use of technology to perform everyday tasks – not coding or more advanced computer science concepts
• … in the future, hopefully after the uptake of the new Digital Technologies Curriculum, it should start addressing these areas

On French primary school kids learning to code

France is the latest country to announce that its primary school kids are learning to code. What I’m interested in is the how and the what of that headline. A quick scan of this announcement showed that it is referring to an optional class offered during students’ extracurricular time rather than embedded in the curriculum itself. I’m guessing this is something like CodeClub, CoderDojo, CodeAcademy territory – just with some solid media announcement and an endorsement from the Minister for Education.

IT World has a little more information – and also references Estonia, Finland, the UK and… Australia as international examples of countries that are tackling tech at young age. Go team! IT World also asks some obvious questions of the French announcement like who will teach the classes and what language/curriculum will form the basis of the classes.