Is it CS for All or is it All for CS?

CS for All, to me has always meant exposing all students to CS for two reasons. First, so that every student gains some understanding of CS and also so that some of those students might be inspired to go on and study more CS. For that basic understanding, that should include a few things - the way a CS person thinks and problem solves, what a CS person does or might do professionally, and also specific practical skills that students can employ regardless of what they pursue in the future - that is programming.

Now, this isn't revolutionary, it's the same in other subjects. All students in the USA study Biology. If taught well, they learn a bit about what a biologist does, they learn the basics - how biology affects their lives, and perhaps some are inspired to go on to be doctors and scientists.

Of course, subjects like History and English are a little different in emphasis but you get the idea.

CS isn't special but a well educated student should have this exposure to lots of fields and CS is one of them.

Mark Guzdial wrote a great post relating to this, specifically that the emphasis should not be in the "Sense of Belonging in CS" but rather on using computing to support whatever students pursue later on. I won't rehash Mark's post as he already stated his case more eloquently than I could so just click on through and read it. Shortly after Mark posted, Alfred Thompson added his two cents. That's also worth a read.

I thought I'd add a little myself. I won't rehash what they wrote but just add another wrinkle for thought. I will say I'm 100% in agreement with Mark's position.

I had an epiphany on this around 1998 when I realized that I should be working on more than just the experiences for the top Stuy CS kids. I've always referred to it as the 80% / 20% problem. The percentages are really all wrong, the 80% should be much higher and 20% much lower (though at Stuy, historically, the 80% was somewhat lower and the 20% higher).

The idea that the majority of your students in a required CS class (the 80% or more) aren't going to go into a tech field and may or may not even take a more advanced CS class. The rest will take more classes but still may or may not go into the field. The Stuy numbers skew differently in part due to the fact that Stuy has always been considered a STEM school in spite of strong humanities and arts so the population probably already skews towards taking more CS.

Anyway, the wrinkle I'll add is the teacher. I'm a strong believer in having a separate required CS class in High School to address the 80/20 problem - the one required course for EVERYBODY and I think what we designed at Stuy has been very successful both in terms of what I've heard back from those that went into tech as well as those that went in other directions. In earlier grades, integrating CS or tech concepts could make more sense. Now, I'm not against more subject integration - that would be a great thing, I just don't see it as realistic given the current high school model.

Given that model, teacher background and preference can have a great impact on what is taught. Sure, there might be a set curriculum but teacher impact is so much more important.

I've met teachers who approach their class with the assumption that all their students are or will be subject majors. I was once speaking with a young, charismatic, popular, and effective chemistry teacher. I asked - how do you deal with the fact that the majority of your students won't do any more chemistry after your class? He said he didn't. His approach was that they were all going to be chemists. I've seen the same in other subjects.

I have a friend who's been a high school math teacher for years. Super smart but was only effective with the high end math kids. We joked that he was the only teacher we knew teaching a graduate seminar in high school geometry. If he had the right students, it worked great. If not, well….

If a teacher has this approach, then the 80% will likely get short shrift. On the other hand, if the teacher doesn't have any passion for the subject (or doesn't have sufficient knowledge as is frequently the case right now for CS teachers in K12) then the 20% get the short end of the stick whether the subject is Math, Chemistry, CS or anything else. I've even seen this with some English teachers who view High School English more like an advanced college literature course rather than a place to yes, work on literature but also a place where students learn to write and communicate.

Whatever curricula, standards, frameworks, or guidelines the powers that be push down into the schools, the implementation on the street is going to rely on the teachers and their biases and preferences will do as much if not more to influence if we're "CS for All" or "All for CS."