skip to main content
research-article

State Case Study of Computing Education Governance

Published:16 July 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

High school computing education reform efforts have been ongoing across the United States, particularly in the past decade. Although national Computer Science (CS) for All initiatives are promising, states retain control over education policies. Recent computing education reform efforts in the state of Maryland (U.S.A.) focused on providing every public high school student with access to high-quality high school computing courses. Such access provides exposure to computing careers and better prepares a diverse pool of students for computing majors in college and the workforce. This comprehensive embedded multi-level case study examines the state’s computing education reform efforts from 2010 through 2016. The expansion of computing education indicates that while there was positive growth, the growth was not the same for all categories of public high school students. Top-down policies assist in providing leverage to elevate the need for CS; however, bottom-up efforts to support students and to enable teachers to retain autonomy and professionalism is also needed for CS expansion. Despite successes, barriers at the state, Local Education Agencies (LEA), school, and classroom levels persist and are discussed. The findings in this study can be applied to other states with similar governance structures and policies, and we provide specific recommendations.

References

  1. Computer Science Teachers Association. 2013. Comparison Results for the 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 CSTA National Secondary School Computer Science Surveys. Technical Report. CSTA. Retrieved from: https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.csteachers.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/Research/HSSurveys/CSTASurvey2013Comp.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. College Board. 2018. About AP Computer Science Principles (kernel description). Retrieved from: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-computer-science-principles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ira E. Bogotch. 2014. Autonomy and accountability: The power/knowledge knot. School Lead. Manag. 34, 4 (2014), 317--323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Hae Yeon Choo and Myra Marx Ferree. 2010. Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Socio. Theor. 28, 2 (June 2010), 129--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Code.org. 2018. About Code.org. Retrieved from: https://code.org/about.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. David K. Cohen and Jal D. Mehta. 2017. Why reform sometimes succeeds: Understanding the conditions that produce reforms that last. Amer. Educ. Res. J. 54, 4 (2017), 644--690.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. College Board. 2017. AP CSP Curriculum Framework. Retrieved from: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-computer-science-principles-course-and-exam-description.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Patricia Hill Collins. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Commission on Standards for School Mathematics. 1989. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Marie desJardins and Susan Martin. 2013. CE21-Maryland: The state of computer science education in Maryland high schools. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). ACM, New York, NY, 711--716. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. John Dewey. 1902. The Child and the Curriculum. Number 5. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. John Dewey. 1998. Experience and Education. Kappa Delta Pi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. John Dewey. 2004. Democracy and Education. Courier Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallup. 2018. Pioneering Results in the Blueprint of U.S. K--12 Computer Science Education. Retrieved from: http://csedu.gallup.com/home.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Christopher Gamrat, Heather Toomey Zimmerman, Jaclyn Dudek, and Kyle Peck. 2014. Personalized workplace learning: An exploratory study on digital badging within a teacher professional development program. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 45, 6 (2014), 1136--1148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Megean Garvin, Michael Neary, Kayla Carrigan, and Marie desJardins. 2018. Maryland computing education growth from 2011--2016. In Proceedings of the 3rd RESPECT Conference. IEEE Special Technical Community on Broadening Participation, Baltimore, MD.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Joanna Goode. 2007. If you build teachers, will students come? The role of teachers in broadening computer science learning for urban youth. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 36, 1 (2007), 65--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Mark Guzdial. 2016. Bringing computer science to U.S. schools, state by state. Commun. ACM 59, 5 (Apr. 2016), 24--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mark Guzdial, Barbara J. Ericson, Tom McKlin, and Shelly Engelman. 2012. A statewide survey on computing education pathways and influences: Factors in broadening participation in computing. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’12). ACM, New York, NY, 143--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Atli Harðarson. 2018. The school as a democratic workplace: The political dimension of Dewey’s democracy and education. Educ. Cult. 34, 1 (2018), 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Angela K. Henneberger, Mathew C. Uretsky, Susan Klumpner, and Michael E. Woolley. 2016. Remedial Coursework in Maryland: Examining Trends, High School Predictors, and College Outcomes. Technical Report. MLDS and University of Maryland, Baltimore. Retrieved from: https://mldscenter.maryland.gov/egov/Publications/Remedial_Oct2016__Final.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Joseph Kahne. 1994. Democratic communities, equity, and excellence: A Deweyan reframing of educational policy analysis. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 16, 3 (1994), 233--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Suneal Kolluri. 2018. Advanced placement: The dual challenge of equal access and effectiveness. Rev. Educ. Res. 88, 5 (2018), 671--711.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. John Konvalina, Stanley A. Wileman, and Larry J. Stephens. 1983. Math proficiency: A key to success for computer science student. Commun. ACM 26, 5 (1983), 377--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. James Kurose and Erwin Gianchandani. 2018. NSF Highlights Expanded Efforts for Broadening Participation in Computing (kernel description). Retrieved from: https://www.hpcwire.com/2018/09/13/nsf-highlights-expanded-efforts-for-broadening-participation-in-computing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Judith Warren Little. 1993. Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 15, 2 (1993), 129--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Paul Manna. 2013. Centralized governance and student outcomes: Excellence, equity, and academic achievement in the US states. Policy Stud. J. 41, 4 (2013), 682--705.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Paul Manna and Patrick McGuinn. 2013. Education Governance for the Twenty-first Century: Overcoming the Structural Barriers to School Reform. Brookings Institution Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jane Margolis. 2010. Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. NSF. 2014. College Board Launches New AP Computer Science Principles Course. Retrieved from: https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133571.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Barack Obama. 2016. Fact Sheet: President Obama Announces Computer Science for All Initiative. Retrieved from: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-computer-science-all-initiative-0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Noa Ragonis, Orit Hazzan, and Judith Gal-Ezer. 2010. A survey of computer science teacher preparation programs in Israel tells us: Computer science deserves a designated high school teacher preparation! In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 401--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Hunter Railey. 2017. State education governance structures: 2017 update. 50-state review. Education Commission of the States (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Daniel Reyes-Guerra, Marianne R. Russo, Ira E. Bogotch, and Maria D. Vásquez-Colina. 2014. Building a school leadership programme: An American paradox of autonomy and accountability. School Lead. 8 Manag. 34, 4 (2014), 414--437.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jean J. Ryoo, Jane Margolis, Clifford H. Lee, Cueponcaxochitl D. M. Sandoval, and Joanna Goode. 2013. Democratizing computer science knowledge: Transforming the face of computer science through public high school education. Learn., Media Technol. 38, 2 (2013), 161--181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Nicholas Tampio. 2017. Democracy and national education standards. J. Politics 79, 1 (2017), 33--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. William G. Tierney, Zoë B. Corwin, and Amanda Ochsner. 2018. Diversifying Digital Learning: Online Literacy and Educational Opportunity. JHU Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Baltimore County University of Maryland. 2018b. Freshman Applicant Requirements. Retrieved from: https://www.admissions.umd.edu/apply/requirements/freshman.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Baltimore County University of Maryland. 2018a. Undergraduate Admissions. Retrieved from: https://undergraduate.umbc.edu/apply/freshmen.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Jennifer Wang and Sepehr Hejazi Moghadam. 2017. Diversity barriers in K--12 computer science education: Structural and social. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’17). ACM, New York, NY, 615--620. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Jennifer Wang, Hai Hong, Jason Ravitz, and Sepehr Hejazi Moghadam. 2016. Landscape of K--12 computer science education in the U.S.: Perceptions, access, and barriers. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE’16). ACM, New York, NY, 645--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Terri S. Wilson and Matthew Ryg. 2017. Non-ideal autonomy: Dewey and reframing educational authority. Philosophy of Education Archive (2017), 247--255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Robert K. Yin. 2010. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. The Guilford Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. State Case Study of Computing Education Governance

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
        ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 19, Issue 4
        Special Section on ML Education and Regular Articles
        December 2019
        297 pages
        EISSN:1946-6226
        DOI:10.1145/3345033
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 16 July 2019
        • Revised: 1 March 2019
        • Accepted: 1 March 2019
        • Received: 1 September 2018
        Published in toce Volume 19, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format