Computer science education in K-12

“... why does our computer science education, even in elementary school, look so much like the profession of software engineering? Why are we using languages that either are built for industry, or mimic their structure and organization?” https://t.co/UeFgybEsDS

— Ryan Shaw 🌹 (@rybesh) September 15, 2018

From the linked article:

Computational thinking is still poorly defined.

Finally, it’s important to look back at why we’re doing this. Not every student will develop computer software for a living. But we have taken as an article of faith (and I agree with this wholeheartedly) that easy and ubiquitous computation has changed the world, creating new opportunities for learning, and new ways of thinking and understanding. These are important not just for computer programmers, but for educated citizens in the world at large.

If we believe this, though, why does our computer science education, even in elementary school, look so much like the profession of software engineering? Why are we using languages that either are built for industry (like Python, and JavaScript, and later Java), or mimic their structure and organization (like Scratch or Hour of Code)? There’s been much debate in recent years over how we define computational thinking in a way that keeps faith with its meaning as a universal skill. A great answer is that it’s about using decomposition, abstraction, and modeling to tackle the kinds of enormously complex tasks that arise when the grunt work of computation becomes trivial. Today’s standards don’t reflect that answer. [...]

Misuse of standards and why it matters

There’s an even bigger problem: computer science is an inherently creative field, and the way standards are used in STEM stands in the way of students’ ability to create.

Maybe you’ve decided to do some weight-lifting. You might join a gym and try a circuit on the weight machines. Big mistake, say almost all experts! Instead, they advise you to use free weights. Weight machines isolate and develop a small set of major muscles. But lifting free weights also builds a bunch of little muscles that you need for balance and versatility.

In a very similar way, building interesting and complex things in computer science develops a huge number of small skills, without which you might pass an exam, but you will struggle to build new things on your own. Standards are like the major muscles: if you are missing one in your training routine, it’s worth fixing. But it’s not sufficient to isolate just the standards, and train each one in isolation. There’s a whole second tier of skills that, while each one may not be critical, leaves students in a precarious position if they don’t pick up any!

Unfortunately, the current educational climate is about lessons carefully aligned to standards; the educational equivalent of weight machines.

There's more at the link, all of it good.