Soloway and Guzdial advance the position that teaching high level languages (Pascal, LISP, Scheme, C, etc.) to non-majors is ineffective, get1. Soloway, E., Guzd.ial, M. Ctancy, M. Lq M., diSess& A. Miller, P. Resni+ M. and Pam P.“Log on Education: Should We Teach Students to Program”., Communications cfthe ACM, 26 (10) pp. 21-24, 1993. ting in the way of the real objective learning to manipulate computational media. Clancy and Linn believe, quite to the contrary, that teaching LISP, embedded in the context of good case studies, is both learnable and empowering. DiSessa sees programming gas the vehicle that allows people to participate in new art forms and engage in thoughts and actions that were simply not possible without the medium. Eisenberg, in part reacting to the HCI effort to root programming out of applications, advocates a fusion of programming and direct manipulation, and therefore sees a future for programming instruction across the curriculum. Miller sees computational thought as expressed in programming languages (even nasty ones like C) taking its place beside spoken languages and mathematics in discourse. Resnick, referencing recent trends in teaching reading and writing, advocates writing programs as part of integrated and meaningful activities; allowing students to explore, experiment, and express themselves. A theme, common to those who advocate teaching programming, is “Situated Programming”. In the panel each participant will make art initial statement, react to other panelists, and interact with attendees.