Opening was Amy Ko who gave a talk titled "Love, Learning, and Computing Education."

I very much enjoyed the talk and judging by the fact that it was referenced in the second day panel as well as by the lead of one of the BOFs I attended, the talk at least got people thinking and talking and that's the point.

Much of the talk focused on Ko's journey citing a few specific examples of teachers who were able to take the time to nurture Ko's love of learning through computing. These stories also told of the teachers creating a safe, accepting, and supporting space for Ko so we've got love going on here in multiple ways.

I say "were able to" since many times the system works against teachers giving the type of support Ko received. In one example, a teacher worked with Ko outside of the class and the implication is that a good deal of time was volunteered. This sometimes just isn't possible.

For most of my career, I had 34 kids per class, 5 classes per day, and frequently 2 or more preps. All this and almost no time to do prep work and student assessment. Much easier to make connections in a private school with say 15 kids in a class.

This is not to say that it can't be done. I was indeed able to connect with many of my students as evident by the fact that so many have chosen to remain in touch with me post graduation. I also tried to create a safe and accepting environment wherever I've taught and again, based on former student feedback, I think overall I've done a good job,

I also am pretty sure that there were some kids I was never able to connect with and some where I couldn't give them the support that they needed.

Ko also touched on the purpose of computing education - is the goal to help our students flourish in general or to prepare them for careers at companies like Google?

This is an interesting one and it's probably something more relevant to college educators.

Do we teach the subject or the student?

Well, in the early grades, it's all about the student. If you ask an elementary school teacher what they teach they'll say something like "first grade." Over the years, it shifts. If you ask the same question in high school or beyond, you might here "math" or something similar - the subjects, not the student.

Of course, that's an over simplification but it was an important reminder that it's really the student - the person that's important.

Even then, though, it's complicated.

When I retired I got a note from a former student, they thanked me but at the end of the note, they said that the first thing they were able to do after getting that big tech job that they felt I helped them get, they were finally able to move their family into a decent apartment for the first time.

Brought me to tears.

The truth is, while we should be working to be a "force for good" in the development of our students, the practical can be important as well.

Great keynote. Glad it got people thinking and talking.

Friday was a panel discussion of the SIGCSE award winners. Richard E. Ladner and Paul Tymann were on stage and the moderator also had some answers from Phillip Guo who wasn't present and who's paper on Python Tutor won the "test of time" award

To be honest, I enjoyed the panel but there wasn't a lot that I found thought provoking.

The moderator asked how CS education has evolved and both live panelists talked about the availability and ubiquity of computers. Phillip Guo's answer, provided in writing ahead of time focussed on how little the way we teach CS has changed which has both good points and bad ones.

Paul Tymann commented on how we need to increase the number of CS PhDs and graduates and I'm not sure I agree here. CS has been the hot field for a while now and enrollments have been through the roof. Maybe a little contraction would be good. That's not to say that we shouldn't continue working to broaden participation but maybe we don't need the overall number to keep climbing - we need it just to be more representative of our populations.

The one answer that I really liked was when the panelists were asked what they considered their greatest successes.

I made a note "for me - my students success" and waited to hear what the panelists would say.

Paul Tymann went first - he said something like this "there are all the papers I've published, grants I've won, … but my real success has been my studnets."

Yes!!! He got it right!!

Richard Ladner agreed.

It was a great way to wrap up the main part of the panel.

During the audience question part, Tymann also had a great response noting that we don't teach students to think about the consequences of what they're doing and that we must look at the consequences of the curriculum.