Saw this article in the New York Times yesterday. It's been making its rounds. There was some discussion in some of the CS Ed related online groups, my friend Alfred Thompson posted his take here, and when my daughter, a professional SWE at Meta for close to a decade came over for dinner yesterday, she brought it up. I haven't posted in a while so I figured I'd add my two cents.

This article made its rounds this past week. It cites a couple of papers claiming that CS teachers are delivering better instruction and might be better qualified than teachers in other subject areas. This is in spite of the fact that CS teachers generally have a generally weak background in CS as well as in CS related pedagogy compared to teachers of other more well established subjects. The papers forming the basis for the article were written by Paul Bruno a professor of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership

So last week I completed my second and final week back at Stuy teaching CS. We spent Monday finishing up the mode lesson and then spent most of the week on this topic - writing a computer program to automatically decode something "encrypted" with a Caesar Cipher. The post I just linked to was from when I first taught the lesson. I've refined and reworked it considerable since then but the gist is the same.