Equity in the Who, How and What of Computer Science Education: K12 School District Conceptualizations of Equity in ‘CS for All’ Initiatives

Equity is arguably an agreed upon value within the Computer Science education (CSed) community, and perhaps even more so within efforts to universalize access to CSed within K12 settings through emerging ‘CS for All’ initiatives. However, stakeholders often mean different things when referring to equity, with important implications for what CS teaching and learning looks like in schools. In this paper, we explore the question of how K12 school district actors’ conceptualizations of equity manifest within their planning and implementation of district-wide CSed initiatives. Based on a research-practice partnership aimed at supporting and researching district-wide CSed initiatives, data presented - interviews with district faculty, district planning documents, meeting transcripts and field observations - were drawn from five participating school districts as they made decisions and enacted activities over 11 months in areas including vision-setting, curriculum, professional development, leadership efforts and use of formative data about implementation. Analyzing these data through equity frameworks found in CSed literature, we highlight three distinct but interconnected ways that district actors conceptualized equity within their CSed initiatives: (1) equity in who Computer Science is for, (2) equity in how Computer Science is taught, and (3) equity in what Computer Science is taught. Data show that these varied conceptualizations resulted in different kinds of decisions about CSed in districts. We discuss the implications of these findings in terms of their relevance to equity-oriented CS education researchers, and what lessons they hold for policy-makers and education leaders engaged in their own efforts to support equitable computer science education.

[1]  Sathya Narayanan,et al.  Upward Mobility for Underrepresented Students: A Model for a Cohort-Based Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science , 2018, SIGCSE.

[2]  Charles P. Bernacchio,et al.  Universal design for learning. , 2007, Psychiatric rehabilitation journal.

[3]  Waldo E. Martin.  Brown v. Board of Education , 1998 .

[4]  Christopher Hoadley,et al.  The Role of Translanguaging in Computational Literacies: Documenting Middle School Bilinguals' Practices in Computer Science Integrated Units , 2019, SIGCSE.

[5]  Leigh Ann Delyser,et al.  Concepts and Practices: Designing and Developing A Modern K-12 CS Framework , 2017, SIGCSE.

[6]  Tarleton Gillespie,et al.  The politics of ‘platforms’ , 2010, New Media Soc..

[7]  Diana Franklin,et al.  Differentiating for Diversity: Using Universal Design for Learning in Elementary Computer Science Education , 2016, SIGCSE.

[8]  Mark Guzdial.  Bringing computer science to U.S. schools, state by state , 2016, Commun. ACM.

[9]  Angela R. Watson.  The Internal Coherence Framework: Creating the Conditions for Continuous Improvement in Schools , 2018 .

[10]  Hannah Lebovits.  Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018, Public Integrity.

[11]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities , 2014, SIGCSE.

[12]  S. Singer,et al.  From the NSF: The National Science Foundation’s Investments in Broadening Participation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education through Research and Capacity Building , 2016, CBE life sciences education.

[13]  William R. Penuel,et al.  Research–Practice Partnerships in Education , 2016 .

[14]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Culturally Responsive Making with American Indian Girls: Bridging the Identity Gap in Crafting and Computing with Electronic Textiles , 2015, GenderIT.

[15]  Tony Doyle,et al.  Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy , 2017, Inf. Soc..

[16]  Michael Lachney,et al.  Culturally responsive computing as brokerage: toward asset building with education-based social movements , 2017 .

[17]  Rachel Cole,et al.  A Landscape Study of Computer Science Education in NYC: Early Findings and Implications for Policy and Practice , 2018, SIGCSE.

[18]  Joanna Goode,et al.  Connecting k-16 curriculum & policy: making computer science engaging, accessible, and hospitable for underrepresented students , 2010, SIGCSE.

[19]  Tom Gaertner,et al.  Brown V Board Of Education , 2016 .

[20]  Sepehr Vakil,et al.  Ethics, Identity, and Political Vision: Toward a Justice-Centered Approach to Equity in Computer Science Education. , 2018 .

[21]  Peter Hubwieser,et al.  The Darmstadt Model: A First Step towards a Research Framework for Computer Science Education in Schools , 2013, ISSEP.

[22]  Leigh Ann DeLyser.  A community model of CSforALL: analysis of community commitments for CS education , 2018, ITiCSE.

[23]  Christopher D. Hundhausen,et al.  On the design of an educational infrastructure for the blind and visually impaired in computer science , 2011, SIGCSE.

[24]  Cameron Wilson,et al.  IT policyThe long road to Computer Science education reform , 2009, CACM.

[25]  Paul Cobb,et al.  Supporting Improvements in the Quality of Mathematics Teaching on a Large Scale , 2017 .

[26]  R. Elmore,et al.  The Internal Coherence Assessment Protocol & Developmental Framework: Building the Organizational Capacity for Instructional Improvement in Schools. Research Paper. , 2014 .

[27]  Philip M. Napoli,et al.  When Media Companies Insist They're Not Media Companies and Why It Matters for Communications Policy , 2016 .