IOWA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Computer Science Standards Review Team Meeting Notes

Date: Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2018 Time: 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Location: Prairie Meadows Plaza View Room, Grandview University, Student Center, 2811 E. 14th, Des Moines 50316

MEMBERS PRESENT: • John Bedward, Professor, • Bennett Brown, Teacher, Southeast Junior High, City – co-facilitator • Dan Carver, Teacher, Carlisle Elementary School • Soma Chaudhuri, Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, • Samantha Dahlby, K-12 Education Coordinator, NewBoCo • Steve Davis, President, Bio::Neos, Inc. • Sharon Flinspach, Teacher, Fairfield High School • Stephen Fyfe, Professor, • Amanda Goranson, Teacher, Dubuque Senior High School • Mauree Haage, Teacher, Twin Cedars • Tony Kioko, Principal Financial • Kyle Kuhlers, a teacher at Union Community School District • Nancy Mwirotsi, Pi515 Program • Aaron Odekirk, K-12 Technology Integration Instructional Coack, Fort Dodge Community School District • Jason Pontius, Director of Institutional Research, • Steve Rittgers, Professor, • Ben Schafer, Professor, University of Northern Iowa • Ann Wiley, Instructional Technology Coordinator, Johnston – co-facilitator

Team members who were absent: Deidre Baker, the incoming president of ICTM; Cory Emily, principal at Mt. Olive Lutheran School; Clint Gentry, teacher at Valley High School in West Des Moines; Mark Gruwell, LearnAcre Inc.; Cindy Herren, a K-12 technology and innovation leader for the Waukee Community School District; Spencer Herzberg, a computer programmer for ADT; Denise Hoag, a teacher at Thomas Jefferson High School in Council Bluffs; and Patrick Miller, the principal of Odebolt Arthur Battle Creek Ida Grove High School.

Also in attendance were Rita Martens, administrative consultant for the Department of Education’s Bureau of Standards and Literacy; Erika Cook, the bureau chief for standards and curriculum; ex- officio members Kris Kilibarda, the science consultant for the department; April Pforts, the mathematics consultants for the department; and Pat Thieben, the career and technical education lead for the department; Ryan Wise, director of the department; Staci Hupp, chief of the bureau of communications and information services; and Melissa Walker, writer for the standards review team.

Iowa Department of Education Page | 1

AGENDA ITEM: Introductions; purpose/recommendations Notes: Erika Cook, the bureau chief for standards and curriculum for the Iowa Department of Education explained the purpose of the review team’s creation. State officials have an initiative to make computer science more accessible and to enroll more students statewide in its courses. Last fall, a task group met as directed by the Iowa Legislature to make recommendations for computer science standards. One of those recommendations was for a review team to recommend a set of computer science standards for the state of Iowa. Each member of the review team was selected because of his or her expertise.

Cook introduced the team’s co-facilitators: Bennett Brown, a teacher at Southeast Junior High in Iowa City, and Ann Wiley, an instructional technology coordinator for the Johnston Community School District. Team members then introduced themselves to the group.

Ryan Wise, the director of the Iowa Department of Education, talked more about the task force’s recommendations. He explained that standards have been recommended for several other areas of education in Iowa. He said the wide range of experience and perspective of the review team – its members range from the private sector to the state’s youngest learners to post-high school education – will help create standards that can take Iowa’s students to the next level in computer science. Some of the review team members also served on the task force that previously met. Senate File 274 was the legislation that mandated the formation of the review team to develop computer science standards. Specifically, every elementary student will learn the foundations behind computer science; every middle school student will have an introduction to computer science; and every high school student will have the opportunity to take a computer science class. The review team’s goal will be to create a set of recommended standards that the Iowa State Board of Education will consider for adoption in June. An incentive fund will be available for districts to use to train their teachers to receive a computer science endorsement.

Wise said part of the need for computer science standards is because of inconsistency across the state. He said one way to ensure high quality computer science education for all students regardless of where they live, their race, their language or any disabilities, is to have high quality computer science standards.

There were questions about the computer science endorsement and whether the team would be involved. Pat Thieben, the career and technical education lead for the department, said the Board of Educational Examiners would determine what a computer science endorsement would consist of and what courses teachers would need to take to receive one.

Wise also addressed the current budget for computer science: $500,000 was the budget request for the computer science incentive fund and a new full-time position at the department to oversee the work. He said this position will help keep focus on computer science and ensure standards move forward. A $250,000 placeholder has been put in for the current year, and $500,000 for fiscal year 2019. He said the state of Arkansas budgets $1 million a year for computer science and has seven or eight FTEs. Wise said his hope is that Iowa will be able to increase its budget and personnel devoted to the area in the future.

Iowa Department of Education Page | 2

There was a question about whether officials thought a potential change in administration would affect the review team’s work or the budget. Wise said SF 274 passed with bipartisan support, and that other states have demonstrated bipartisan support for computer science standards across a change in party or governorship. He said he’s confident the budget allocations will remain.

There was brief discussion about the recommendation regarding Iowa Learning Online. The state currently has 42 classes that Iowa students can take online. The computer science working group discussed online versus in-person computer science classes and the possibility of both, so a student can have access to classes even if there is no physical teacher. Wise said the department has requested $500,000 to create ILO computer science courses. Gov. Kim Reynolds added the request into her budget proposal, but it will need to be approved by the legislature. Wise said the review team’s standards could help support the budget request.

The standards will be recommended, not required, standards for school districts and school to use. Schools and districts awarded the incentive grant to train their teachers will be required to adopt them. Wise told the review team to consider writing standards that are so good school districts do not want to miss the opportunity to adopt them and utilize the incentive fund.

Cook said there are benefits to using the standards to create equity among school districts and schools across the state. Districts also will be able to use state resources to train their teachers and will not need use their own money.

The review team will consider whether to write the standards for individual grades, grade bands, for the entire elementary level and by what curriculum is offered at the secondary school level. Cook said the standards should enhance what a school is already offering.

Review team members discussed how computer science integrates with other subject areas and how that would affect standards. Department officials said there has been discussion at the state level about the overlap and among the working group about how computer science fits with math, science, career and technical education and information technology pathways.

The team also wanted to know whether they would include recommendations about apprenticeships for students into the recommended standards. Wise said the team’s initial work would be to set standards but that future discussions would need to take place with others, including the Iowa Legislature, about how connections are made between the standards and practical experience, either apprenticeships or work-based learning.

Team members also were given the link to the work group’s full report to review.

AGENDA ITEM: Computer Science in Iowa Notes: Jay Pennington, the bureau chief of information and analysis services for the department, met with the group to review computer science education in the state. He shared information broken down according to course enrollment by group and gender, course offerings by district size, the number of computer science full-time employment positions, course enrollment by race/ethnicity, teaching requirements, and teacher certifications/endorsements for those teaching a computer science class.

Iowa Department of Education Page | 3

Pennington explained some of the data in more detail – a long course list, which included introduction to computers and any course involving computers. Fewer schools offer courses under the short course list, which includes application and the development and networking side of computers.

He also provided more data about enrollment in Iowa: 42 percent of the state’s school districts have 599 or fewer students, which accounts for 10 percent of the overall state student population. Nine percent of the state’s school districts have 2,500 or more students, which account for 52 percent of the overall students in Iowa’s schools.

Cook said there is no official teaching certification or endorsement to teach computer science in Iowa. Those teachers who are teaching these courses come from a variety of disciplines. She also reiterated that the standards the team is discussing would be recommended or voluntary for school districts, similar to the fine arts standards the state has.

The team asked whether other states had required computer science standards. Most attach them to graduation requirements, while others are required to provide the standards independently.

Team members were asked to study the Iowa computer science data from Pennington with their table groups and report to the larger group what they determined from the information regarding enrollment, demographics and endorsements/certifications:

• The smaller school districts have the higher percentage of students enrolled on the long course list but a smaller percentage when classes are broken down into the short course list. Cook said she saw this as an opportunity with the incentive fund for these school districts to receive teacher training to offer more specialized computer science courses. • The majority of teachers who teach computer science courses have a business endorsement or certificate. Department officials said there could be overlap in the number of teachers who teach computer science courses because they may have more than one endorsement and be listed more than once in the data. This may also include business teachers who are teaching a keyboarding class. • There is room for growth among all areas, specifically the percentage of female students who are taking computer science courses: 8.6 percent compared to 19.1 percent of males.

AGENDA ITEM: National Context of CS Standards Notes: Brown highlighted several areas related to the national context of computer science standards.

Under the category of what the standards need to address and include:

• Mindset development: The ability for students to think in different ways by introducing them to different ways of analyzation through computer science. Introducing students early on to the idea of working independently and then rejoining in an organized way. Getting rid of the idea that someone or one thing is in charge in order to change a student’s way of thinking. I.e.: Why do birds fly in a “v”? How does a cell know when to divide? Teaching students at an earlier age how to use a computer for algorithms, processes and procedures

Iowa Department of Education Page | 4

• Scope and sequence: There will be set applications students will need to learn at specific grade levels in order to move on to more complicated ones. Currently, many students are learning computer science at the high school level for the first time as an elective class. There needs to be a set standard for which content is learned at which grade level. • Workforce development: There needs to be more emphasis placed earlier on with computer science in order to help future workforce development. Students are making unofficial career choices by second grade and later in seventh grade. High school is too late to introduce computer science for the first time. • Early exposure for ALL students: Early exposure to computer science is important to establish equity among all students. Currently, some might not realize computer science could be a career for them unless they have a parent who works in information technology. Early exposure also is important for gender equality within the area. Currently, a high school that has a middle school computer science program or is involved in Project Lead the Way will have about 50-percent-male-to-50-percent-female ratio in its high school computer science classes. That number increases to 85 percent compared to 15 percent for schools that don’t have those programs.

The team began to discuss the future of computer science and how the standards they will recommend will adjust for changes in technology.

Dan Carver, a teacher at Carlisle Elementary School, shared information about a presentation he attended at a trade show that discussed a quantum computer that will revolutionize computing in the next five years. For most of these students who will be affected by the standards, they will still be in school in five years, so the standards need to take into account basic concepts in computer science – not the gadgets – that can withstand changes in technology.

Amanda Goranson, a teacher at Dubuque Senior High School, said she hopes people will see how computer science can enhance the other sciences and support other disciplines.

Other team members agreed that setting standards should help the public and others in education view computer science as its own discipline.

The team also discussed, with input from department officials, how computer science courses would be recorded on a student’s high school transcript and the implications of putting it under a different discipline that overlaps.

The team was presented information with what type of computer science curricula is being used in Iowa:

• AP Computer Science A: Is a year-long course in high school and a semester in college. Includes a written test on Java. • NSF (National Science Foundation) Broadening Participation Funds: AP CS Principles, which is a non-programming class that discusses data and manipulation of data, and how the Internet works; and Exploring Computer Science • Examples: Project Lead The Way and Code.org.

Iowa Department of Education Page | 5

Iowa STEM also has other courses that are offered within the Microsoft Imagine Academy program. NICE has a cyber security training course for students, and Central Campus in Des Moines offers a cyber security class for students to receive credit from Des Moines Area Community Collee. Thieben said there are also 40 career and technical programs that districts offer that include information technology and computer science programs.

The team discussed various curricula and their focus and which concepts of the K12 Computer Science Framework they incorporate. The concepts are listed on page 59 of the Framework document.

Wiley introduced the team to the various computer science standards and recommendations that are available as created and adopted by other states or institutions:

• ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) – College Degree Programs • ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) • CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association) 2009 • CSTA 2016, 2017 (available in paper copy for team members) • CSK12 Framework (not a set of standards; available in paper copy for team members)

AGENDA ITEM: Computer Science Framework Notes: Katie Hendrickson with Code.org presented information about the K12 Computer Science Framework document to the team via a Zoom meeting.

Code.org was one of the five leaders who helped develop the Framework.

She explained that:

• The Framework is a high-level guide describing computer science for all students • At its center are core concepts and practices of computer science • It is a community effort and a rallying point for computer science education

She said the Framework can be used to help Iowa create computer science standards, and to remember that the standards are similar to a mission statement for what the state wants students to learn, but that they need to be written in a way they can be implemented.

Twelve states currently have developed standards for computer science; nine more, including Iowa, are in the process. Of those states that have standards, most have them organized by grade band. I.e.: Florida has K-2, 3-5, 6-8 and 9-12.

Hendrickson defined computer science for the team as “The study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their hardware and software designs, their applications, and their impact on society” (Tucker et. al, 2006).

The main points being that computer science is more than digital literacy; it’s more than coding. It’s foundational for all students in all fields.

The vision of the Framework is to empower students to

Iowa Department of Education Page | 6

• Be informed citizens who can critically engage in CS-related discussions • Develop as learners, users and creators of CS knowledge and artifacts • Better understand the role of computing in the world around them • Learn, perform and express themselves in other subjects and interests

She explained that the Framework provides a vision, structure and guidance for states to create their own standards, curricula or professional development. It includes concepts and practices that are linked together to create meaningful experiences in computer science. That, combined with the guidance, provides recommendations for standards and how they can be developed.

Many states, as well as the CSTA, have used the Framework to help organize the structure and to create their own standards.

Hendrickson suggested the team consider:

• Grade levels versus grade bands – both the Framework and CSTA were written in grade bands • Understand the audience – a wide range of individuals will be reading the document • Understanding the scope of standards versus implementation – rural versus urban – focus on the standards first and then guide the curriculum and implementation based on them • CTE versus academic pathways • Balancing needs of now versus ideal later – balance the two so the standards are not outdated in a couple of years

She provided a checklist of goals to go through when writing standards:

• Rigor: What is the intellectual demand of the standards? a. Expectations are important for every student to help them succeed. There needs to be deep level of content understanding, application of content and understanding procedure. • Focus: What’s the most important thing to learn? a. The standards need to be manageable and focus on priorities. • Specificity: Do they convey performance expectations? a. Provide detail to convey the level of performance without being prescriptive. b. Allow students to demonstrate their knowledge and skill in multiple ways that are socially and culturally relevant. • Clarity/Accessibility: Are they accessible to a wide range of users? a. Make them readable to novices/accessible to the general public. b. Be jargon-free (use glossary). c. Ensure multiple teaching audiences from the math educator teaching CS for the first time to state science supervisors writing standards to state board and policy makers can read and understand the standards. • Coherence: Do they convey a unified vision across K-12? • Measurability: Are they objective and verifiable? a. Focus on results. b. It’s not about large-scale assessment but about supporting teacher practice. Iowa Department of Education Page | 7

c. The Framework carefully selected verbs to use that reflect the core practices of CS that can be observed/measured. • Diversity/Equity: Are the standards for all students? a. Writers should represent diverse backgrounds and perspectives. b. Include a wide range of ways to measure performance. • Connections to other disciplines a. Overlap between CS and other subjects. b. Intentional connections to show how CS can support learning in other areas (page 72). • Integrate practices and concepts

The team then asked questions of Hendrickson:

1) Of the states that had high school computer science courses as part of their standards, did they adopt a canned curriculum? It’s a mix. Virginia has standards that are tied to a specific course. 2) How have practices and concepts been paired? Can they be randomly matched up? One state built a practice and concepts wheel, but it’s best to think about which go best together and not randomly place them together. 3) What learning practices were used for the Framework when developing grade bands versus grade-specific standards? There is less information available about how computer science is learned to determine how grade-level progressions would work. There is a chapter about research in the Framework that supports how it was developed with the assistance of 27 writers, dozens of advisers and hundreds of public reviews. 4) How often should computer science standards be updated? Computer science standards will need to be updated more often than other standards with a max of six years in between. Standards need to be written that can last the test of time, so they should not include information tied to particular devices or methods of implementation. Rather, they should be based on thinking skills and logic, and the underlying thought processes. There is no schedule for updating the Framework. 5) What is the direction states are going when they decide to deter from the Framework? It’s too hard to give an example because states are just now beginning to develop their own standards apart from using the Framework.

Team members were then asked to choose a grade band, look through the practices or concepts of the Framework, and discuss what their school/district is already doing that relates to these concepts and practices.

Table discussions:

• Troubleshooting as it relates to the concept of Collection on page 117. It’s a concept that many likely do but how do you cover it within the concepts? • Lead-type activities such as teamwork and the ability create software and have instant feedback already occur. There are concepts that could be taught earlier from logic to coding.

Iowa Department of Education Page | 8

• It’s a hodgepodge. Anytime something is added in one place, more needs to be added at another level. Try to line up the lessons with the Framework and see where there are gaps. There are school districts that have a computer science program or classes but aligning with a guided document could help identify and reach goals/targets. • Under practices, the problem needs to be analyzed before code is written: information needs to be received, a design done and approved, and then coding begins in the business world. • There are connections between other subjects where computer science is being used, and teachers don’t realize it. I.e. using probes and recording data in a science lab.

AGENDA ITEM: CSTA Standards Notes: Deborah Seehorn, the interim director of CSTA, presented information about the CSTA’s K-12 computer science standards, which were revised in 2017.

Four teachers wrote the standards, which took into account college and career readiness and used the 2011 standards as a starting point, along with teacher input, standards from other countries and states, and concepts and practices from the Framework.

Seehorn went through the vision and history of revising the CSTA’s standards.

The revised standards were written for teachers by teachers, are informed by research, taking into account career and college readiness, are for all students, and are a step toward an evolving landscape.

She shared that the 2017 standards

• Have language that more closely mirrors the Framework • Have clarification statements • Are presented electronically in a searchable table that can be viewed using customized filters • Have progressions within concepts and sub-concepts that are more clearly delineated

Seehorn explained the difference between standards and the Framework, reminding the team that the Framework is not a set of standards. She also provided the committee with an example of the CSTA standards that shows concepts within a progression chart to show what would be done within each grade-level band.

The team then asked questions of Seehorn:

1) How closely aligned are some of the curriculum such as versions of CS Principles, Code.org or Project Lead the Way? No crosswalk has been completed to compare; however, there is a process for which a crosswalk comparison can be done and submitted to CSTA. Project Lead the Way was working on a crosswalk, but it hasn’t been submitted for vetting. 2) Educators were used to develop the standards. Why was input not requested from the business community? Input from business was part of the 2011 standards and the Framework, so writers felt that was adequate. The standards were released to the entire community for vetting, and anyone could have given feedback. 3) What does Seehorn think about not focusing on implementation when writing and reviewing standards for recommendation? Focus on what students need to be able to do, so involve

Iowa Department of Education Page | 9

practitioners from every grade level. As the team is reviewing standards, focus first on what students should be able to do at each grade level. How that is started and done in the schools are the next steps. 4) What states have developed standards based on these, and are there places where states have departed from the CSTA standards? The only state to adopt them outright is Pennsylvania. Wisconsin referred to the 2016 standards and wrote their own but did not make any changes when the 2017 standards were released. Seehorn did not know what states have modified portions of the l 5) Are there professional learning opportunities closely aligned to the standards that Seehorn would recommend? There have been some in the past but none now unless at a possible conference in July in Omaha. 6) Are the CSTA standards one way to adopt the Framework, or could there be others? This isn’t the only way to adopt the Framework, but Seehorn thinks it is the best way. There are other states that are making changes, so she would recommend Iowa’s review team consider each standard, and if they think there is something better for the state, change as needed.

Team members were then asked to choose a grade band, look through the practices or concepts of the standards, and discuss what their school/district is already doing that relates to these concepts and practices.

Table discussions:

• Groups discussed some of the individual standards for middle school and their difficulty in being adopted, as well as other examples used in the standards. • At the high school level some schools have a computer science program that aligns with some of the standards; others don’t. • Part of the challenge is computer science is industry-led, so how do they level the playing field? Increased collaboration will become part of this. • In K-2, many teachers are already addressing 21st Century technology literacy. They’re doing most of the standards except algorithms and programming. • The standards each have a descriptive example, but readers need to know there are different means to achieve the standards other than the ones written. Iowa should highlight this for its standards. • School districts need to help teachers understand the standards, and unless a district spends time on its professional development, teachers may gloss over the areas they don’t understand. • The more the standards are tied to other subjects, the more accessible and less scary they’ll be for teachers. Department officials cautioned adding computer science standards to other subjects could make it more challenging for teachers who are already struggling to teach the required standards for their subject area. April Pforts, the mathematics consultants for the department, said many of the same words can be applied over multiple areas, but they don’t always mean the same thing. For example, the same term can be used differently between mathematics and computer science.

Iowa Department of Education Page | 10

AGENDA ITEM: Future steps/closing Notes: Team members were assigned to review specific grade-band levels within both the CSTA and K12 Framework, and to read the standards developers chapter in the Framework.

At the next meeting, team members will be asked to report what parts they think need to be in the Iowa standards and why, and how the standards could be tweaked. Cook said the team also will examine what other states have done when setting their computer science standards. The team’s assignment has been to review, tweak and recommend standards, not write new standards from scratch.

Rita Martens, administrative consultant for the Department of Education’s Bureau of Standards and Literacy, said another component of the team’s work will be the public survey. The State Board of Education will weigh stakeholders’ feedback as part of its decision to adopt the team’s recommendations.

The computer science standards survey will be completed by March with a month of public feedback being accepted. Team members will decide by March what the survey will include.

After the team completes, its recommendation, the department will hire a computer science consultant who will create a leadership team that will help develop professional development to assist school districts in implementing the new standards.

The next meeting will be Feb. 7. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Iowa Department of Education Page | 11