{"id":10664,"date":"2017-12-06T03:35:34","date_gmt":"2017-12-06T03:35:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=10664"},"modified":"2017-12-07T03:40:32","modified_gmt":"2017-12-07T03:40:32","slug":"taking-a-second-look-at-the-learn-to-code-craze","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/taking-a-second-look-at-the-learn-to-code-craze\/","title":{"rendered":"Taking a second look at the learn-to-code craze"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kate M. Miltner<\/a>, University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Over the past five years, the idea that computer programming \u2013 or \u201ccoding\u201d \u2013 is the key to the future for both children and adults alike has become received wisdom in the United States. The aim of making computer science<\/a> a \u201cnew basic<\/a>\u201d skill for all Americans has driven the formation of dozens of nonprofit<\/a> organizations<\/a>, coding<\/a> schools<\/a> and policy programs<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As the third annual Computer Science Education Week<\/a> begins, it is worth taking a closer look at this recent coding craze. The Obama administration\u2019s \u201cComputer Science For All<\/a>\u201d initiative and the Trump administration\u2019s new effort<\/a> are both based on the idea that computer programming is not only a fun and exciting activity, but a necessary skill for the jobs of the future.<\/p>\n

However, the American history of these education initiatives shows that their primary beneficiaries aren\u2019t necessarily students or workers, but rather the influential tech companies<\/a> that promote the programs<\/a> in the first place. The current campaign to teach American kids to code may be the latest example of tech companies<\/a> using concerns about education<\/a> to achieve their own goals. This raises some important questions about who stands to gain the most from the recent computer science push. <\/p>\n

Old rhetoric about a \u2018new economy\u2019<\/h2>\n

One of the earliest corporate efforts to get computers into schools was Apple\u2019s \u201cKids Can\u2019t Wait\u201d program<\/a> in 1982. Apple co-founder Steve Jobs personally lobbied<\/a> Congress to pass the Computer Equipment Contribution Act<\/a>, which would have allowed companies that donated computers to schools, libraries and museums to deduct the equipment\u2019s value from their corporate income tax bills. While his efforts in Washington failed, he succeeded in his home state of California, where companies could claim a tax credit for 25 percent<\/a> of the value of computer donations.<\/p>\n

The bill was clearly a corporate tax break, but it was framed in terms of educational gaps: According to a California legislative analysis<\/a>, the bill\u2019s supporters felt that \u201ccomputer literacy for children is becoming a necessity in today\u2019s world\u201d and that the bill would help in \u201cplacing needed \u2018hardware\u2019 in schools unable to afford computers in any other way.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kids Can\u2019t Wait took advantage of Reagan-era concerns that Americans were \u201cfalling behind<\/a>\u201d global competitors in the \u201cnew economy.\u201d In 1983, a U.S. Department of Education report titled \u201cA Nation at Risk<\/a>\u201d warned that the country\u2019s \u201conce unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.\u201d The report\u2019s authors blamed the American education system for turning out graduates who were underprepared for a fast-changing, technology-infused workplace. <\/p>\n

\n \"\"<\/a>
\n Federal officials, including then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, launched an effort to get classrooms online in 1995.<\/span>
\n AP Photo\/Dennis Cook<\/a><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Over the past 30 years, the same rhetoric has appeared again and again. In 1998, Bill Clinton proclaimed<\/a> that \u201caccess to new technology means \u2026 access to the new economy.\u201d In 2016, U.S. Chief Technology Officer Megan Smith described the Obama administration\u2019s coding initiative as an \u201cambitious, all-hands-on-deck effort<\/a> to get every student in America an early start with the skills they\u2019ll need to be part of the new economy.\u201d<\/p>\n

While technology is often framed as the solution for success in a globalized labor market, the evidence is less clear. In his 2003 book \u201cOversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom<\/a>,\u201d education researcher Larry Cuban warned that technology on its own would not solve \u201ceducation\u2019s age-old problems,\u201d such as inequitable funding<\/a>, inadequate facilities<\/a> and overworked teachers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Cuban found that some educational technology initiatives from the 1990s did help students get access to computers and learn basic skills. But that didn\u2019t necessarily translate into higher-wage jobs<\/a> when those students entered the workforce. However, the equipment and software needed to teach them brought large windfalls for tech companies \u2013 in 1995 the industry was worth US$4 billion<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Under pressure<\/h2>\n

If computers in schools didn\u2019t work as promised two decades ago, then what\u2019s behind the current coding push? Cuban points out<\/a> that few school boards and administrators can resist pressure from business leaders, public officials and parents<\/a>. Organizations like the CS For All Consortium<\/a>, for example, have a large membership of education companies who are taking advantage of funding from state legislatures<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A huge boost comes from the tech giants, too. Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and others are collectively contributing $300 million<\/a> to the Trump administration\u2019s new federal initiative \u2013 no doubt seeing, as The New York Times observed, the potential to \u201cmarket their own devices and software<\/a> in schools as coding classes spread.\u201d <\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t always the best deal for students. In 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School District planned to give Apple iPads to every student in every school \u2013 at a cost of $1.3 billion<\/a>. The program was a fiasco: The iPads had technical problems and incomplete software that made them essentially useless<\/a>. The fallout included investigations by the FBI and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission<\/a>, and a legal settlement in which Apple and its partners repaid the school district $6.4 million<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, tech companies are framing their efforts in more noble terms. In June 2017, Microsoft president Brad Smith compared the efforts of tech industry nonprofit Code.org<\/a> to previous efforts to improve science and technology training in the United States. Recalling the focus on scientific research<\/a> that drove the Space Race<\/a>, Smith said<\/a>, \u201cWe think computer science is to the 21st century what physics was to the 20th century.\u201d <\/p>\n

Indeed, tech companies are having a very hard time hiring and retaining software engineers<\/a>. With new concerns about restrictions on visas<\/a> for skilled immigrant workers, the industry could definitely benefit from a workforce trained with public dollars. <\/p>\n

For some tech companies, this is an explicit goal. In 2016, Oracle and Micron Technology helped write a state education bill<\/a> in Idaho which read, \u201cIt is essential that efforts to increase computer science instruction, kindergarten through career, be driven by the needs of industry and be developed in partnership with industry.\u201d While two lawmakers objected to the corporate influence<\/a> on the bill, it passed with an overwhelming majority.<\/p>\n

History repeating?<\/h2>\n

Some critics argue that the goal of the coding push is to massively increase the number of programmers on the market, depressing wages<\/a> and bolstering tech companies\u2019 profit margins. Though there is no concrete evidence to support this claim, the fact remains that only half of college students<\/a> who majored in science, technology, engineering or math-related subjects get jobs in their field after graduation. That certainly casts doubt on the idea that there is a \u201cskills gap<\/a>\u201d between workers\u2019 abilities and employers\u2019 needs. Concerns about these disparities has helped justify investment<\/a> in tech education over the past 20 years<\/a>. <\/p>\n

As millions of dollars flow to technology companies in the name of education, they often bypass other major needs of U.S. schools. Technology in the classroom can\u2019t solve the problems that budget cuts<\/a>, large class sizes<\/a> and low teacher salaries<\/a> create. Worse still, new research is finding that contemporary tech-driven educational reforms<\/a> may end up intensifying the problems they were trying to fix. <\/p>\n

\"TheWho will benefit most from this new computer science push? History tells us that it may not be students.<\/p>\n

Kate M. Miltner<\/a>, Ph.D. Candidate in Communication, University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This article was originally published on The Conversation<\/a>. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kate M. Miltner, University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism Over the past five years, the idea that computer programming \u2013 or \u201ccoding\u201d \u2013 is the key to the future for both children and adults alike has become received wisdom in the United States. The aim of making computer science a \u201cnew […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":10665,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3410],"tags":[3659,927,3657,3658,934],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10664"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10664"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10664\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10666,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10664\/revisions\/10666"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10665"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}