think about themselves as agents in the world. I came into the field in a non-traditional way, later in my career, so I may have a different perspective.

My formal training is in literature, writing, and art. I discovered programming in my own work as an expressive medium, as a way to move beyond what one can create with existing applications or design tools. I’ve wanted to share these discoveries with students, so I’ve developed my own introductory courses and electives. I want my students to discover the beauty, delight, and power of computing in a playful way.

I’m mostly self-taught in Computer Science, but have been fortunate to be part of both traditional and non-traditional professional development communities.

• The CS4HS workshop at the MIT Media Lab on Creative Computing gave me an example of how a professional development workshop could enact the same thoughtful and reflective pedagogy they wanted us to share with our students.
• Fellow instructors in Google’s CAPE program have been incredibly generous with creative ideas for engaging students and exploring new concepts. We continue to stay in touch with one another even after our formal relationships through Google have concluded.
• The internet, my local hackerspaces, conferences and gatherings related to the maker movement, and certain university or museum websites also provide me with new ideas and spaces to share and learn about emerging technologies, art, and Computer Science.

Based on my experience, I’d love to see funders continue to support both traditional and non-traditional professional development resources for teachers. To grow the field, we need to grow the variety of ways we bring teachers into it. If that growth builds on diverse and inclusive approaches to the material, more teachers from non-CS fields will see it as inviting, and more teachers who work in underrepresented communities will think of CS as a powerful possibility for their students.

In teaching Computer Science, and in coaching other teachers in different ways of getting students excited about the field, I’ve been fortunate to find myself in situations where my non-traditional approach and background are seen as strengths and not deficits. I hope the field can continue to embrace those of us who come at it from a different angle.

computer science efforts occur throughout the K-12 curriculum but they are unlikely to be recognized as “computer science instruction”. Consider if we asked the question, “Who is going to teach reading to our students?” Obviously, reading carries through multiple subjects and pervades a great deal of instruction in ‘other’ areas: history, technology, science, even mathematics. This survey appears the equivalent of asking “Who is teaching reading?” and then only listening to the voices of English/Reading teachers. Returning to computer science instruction -- what about the technology teachers who teach robotics/programming, the business teachers who teach web design and HTML, the physics teachers who use modeling and simulation activities in the classroom, etc.? I’m concerned that if we only look to ‘Computer Science Teachers’ to support our efforts to teach computer science, we will overlook many existing resources who are teaching computer science (maybe more importantly, applying computer science) under different curricular “umbrellas”.

Regarding the population taking the survey, by focusing so much effort on the inclusion of CSTA-related members, the survey may be drawing a disproportionally motivated population than those generally teaching CS. In my district, for example, we have only two AP CS teachers and I am the only one associated with CSTA – the other teacher is not “exclusively” a CS teacher, so he doesn’t belong to that professional organization. Also, I teach with others in my building (the robotics coach, the physics teacher, the computer problem solving teacher) who don’t identify as “CS” so they, also, do not belong to CSTA although they do provide an important role in the support of CS activities in my school. Perhaps we could reach out to FIRST Robotics FRC, FTC, and FLL teams (for example) to identify additional sources of input. Other choices might be to contact teachers registered for AP CS: Java with the college board and state Career and Technology Education teachers. Personally, I did not join CSTA until last year, so I consider myself fortunate to have been aware of and included in this survey.

While reading the paragraph “More than Half of the respondents reported being the only CS teacher” it struck me again that the survey does not appear to be reaching teachers who instruct CS but in different content areas. My CTE colleague next door, who teaches robotics, most certainly teaches “CS” but it took me a little bit of reflection to remember this fact while filling out the form – my instinct was to consider only teachers with a class containing the phrase “computer science” in its description. The survey might do a better job distinguishing computer science within the curriculum from computer science as the curriculum. Surely, both of these aspects will need to work together to form a coherent strategy for reaching national CS instruction goals (whenever those might be adopted).

Regarding computer science as a teacher’s only/primary responsibility, I think there’s a difference between “I teach two CS classes and then I teach Math” and, on the other hand, “I teach two CS sections and then three sections of Digital Visualization and one section of Modeling and Simulation.” [Both of these later subjects involve a great deal of CS instruction but are not taught as “CS” classes…] Identification as a CS teacher may be especially hard for CTE instructors who just don’t view themselves from that perspective. Retraining, obviously, is in order – not just to prepare CS teachers but also to help CTE and other STEM teachers learn to identify as CS stakeholders.

might in education.

Given the difficulty of competing monetarily with the private or government sectors, can schools offer something different? AP curriculum restricts teachers to a certain lock-step curriculum, in many cases, and this is a lot less fun to teach than graphics, games, etc. Allowing the sort of flexibility that makes programming fun—for both teachers and students—would give the teacher a level of autonomy that is a big plus in job satisfaction, and possibly something that would attract candidates who might otherwise gravitate towards other, more lucrative, options.

We need more young teachers.

48% of CS teachers being female is pretty good.

Can we implement some sort of program to bring CS professionals in to schools—one time, part-time, etc.—with the idea that these people lend real expertise to the classroom and also with an idea that they may entertain becoming CS teachers themselves.

Graduate degrees in education are worth so much less than degrees in CS. I have a Masters in Ed and I would trade it in a heartbeat for a masters (or even a BS) in CS. Content mastery is vital; experience in teaching will give teachers what they need to know to handle a classroom, etc.

“Sole” CS teacher at school: 55%. Collaboration, for most teachers, is very useful. Is there a way to encourage collaboration among teachers from different schools? Not always easy but in this case, might be quite useful. Our Google CAPE group is meeting this summer, supported by Google.

Do we want to develop CS professionals or competent business types, or both? CS ed can benefit most from the brightest, most motivated students, and that means those taking programming and other rigorous courses, as opposed to “productivity” or “applications” type courses. I don’t believe those courses should be our focus at all. Let the business teachers cover that sort of thing.

Why aren’t there CS departments in schools?

Software shouldn’t be an issue for any school; programming environments are, for the most part, free and easily accessible for any machine. And, hardware demands are minimal for programming classes so older machines can be used with very few issues or negatives.

The bottleneck is qualified, interested teachers.

Focus on Coherence: Be careful about asking for a consistent curriculum across the country. CS is not like Math, or Spanish, or Chemistry. Skills learned in programming in one language are almost always transferable to other languages, so there is no “one” language or curriculum that must be followed for students to become comfortable and competent. Suggestions would be better than mandates.

highly skilled and experienced teachers who, independent of circumstance and school support, have been able to build successful CS programs through active advocacy, innovative practices, and involvement in the national Computer Science Teachers Association. I easily hear their voice represented in many of the study’s responses. I also have peers who are primarily Math, Business, or Technology Education teachers tasked with teaching a single computer science class because there are only enough kids to warrant a one period offering. Combing through the study’s results, I don’t readily hear their voice or see their perspective. My district contains both types of teachers. There are some schools that are able to support multiple computer science teachers and some that can only offer a single, mixed-level class of introductory and advanced students, a two classes-in-one situation due to a lack of enrollment. Many teachers lack formal education in Computer Science and show up to my district’s workshops eager for pre-packaged curriculum and professional development. They lack support because administration has a general misconception of what Computer Science entails and how it should be recognized.

There are two surprising results that can be attributed to an overrepresentation of elite CS teachers, but also misinterpretation of the questions. The study reported that 146 of the 774 respondents (19%) teach AP CS P. The problem with that response rate is that CS Principles has only been piloted by high schools for two years with a whopping total of 10 pilot teachers. Even accounting for all the possible unofficial pilot teachers who are just working off the available CS Principles Objectives framework, it is hard to imagine that there would be 146 CS Principles teachers at all, let alone 1 in 5 CS teachers nationally. I believe that the respondents are confusing the teaching of what they consider the principles of computer science with offering the official CS Principles course being developed by the College Board.

Another result I attribute to question confusion was the finding that 70% of respondents agree or strongly agree that they have sufficient formal training in pedagogy. I have talked to many CS professors specializing in K-12 CS education and they all agree on one thing: there isn’t enough research on CS education, particularly when it comes to pedagogy. The same professors have noted a significant lack of teacher pre-service programs geared towards training CS educators. How can 70% of respondents say that they have had formal training if there isn’t even a clear agreement on what effective CS instruction looks like and CS pre-service teacher training is virtually non-existent? The 70% response rate is not surprising if the question was interpreted as pertaining to general teaching pedagogy, but quite alarming if respondents did understand the intended purpose of the question, which was to assess training in CS-specific pedagogy.

What if those surveyed did understand the questions correctly? The issue that the study potentially exposes is that teacher preparation is the cause for our nation’s computer science opportunity gap. The teachers who responded to the survey seem to be highly prepared and clued into the latest computer science curricula. What about the teachers with less experience and preparation? The opportunity gap exists for students because there is a gap between teachers who have the resources, professional development, and experience to grow innovative and popular CS programs and those who are struggling to find enrollment and are not benefitting from participation in communities like the Computer Science Teachers Association. It is not surprising that the study reports a very positive outlook on CS teacher preparation and sufficiency when 83% of respondents claim CSTA membership. What would be surprising is that 83% of our nation’s CS educators are active CSTA members. In the end, this study is valuable as a portrait of the highly effective computer science teacher, but it may not be an accurate depiction of the average computer science teacher.

Takeaways:

What is my takeaway as a CS teacher leader involved in training other CS educators?

• Professional development needs to be tailored to the different background experiences teachers bring to the workshop. Include game development, advanced programming, and computational thinking/problem solving.
• In developing more CS teachers, I will focus on current Math teachers, because many are already coming from Math and situated in Math departments.

Questions raised:

• How can 68 percent of respondents say CS is their primary subject, but only 35% of respondents reported being full-time computer science teachers?
• How can the study technique be improved to survey a broader perspective?
• What does effective CS teaching look like and how should it be measured? If the response group is an elite sample, I’d like to use what these teachers are doing in their classrooms to inform pre- and in-service teacher training.

incredible potential. What barriers will we need to overcome to make this goala reality? These results suggest that schools that currently offer CS have stakeholders who think CS is important. Did these stakeholders realize the merits of CS after they witnessed the resulting student growth in those who took the classes? Or instead, did many of these schools have stakeholders who believed in CS in the first place and they were the ones who fought to add the courses? What challenges will we encounter in schools with the opposite situation - those whose stakeholders do not see the value of CS offerings? What groundwork needs to be laid to win the support of unsupportive stakeholders? Is this a campaign best waged at the national level since many of these schools face similar challenges, or would the most effective campaign be executed at a local, school-by-school level because each set of stakeholders is so unique?

Our goal is not just 10,000 CS programs but 10,000 successful CS programs. In my experience, the support of stakeholders can make a school's CS program. If school, district, and community leadership along with parents see the value in CS, students see the value in CS. These students not only enroll in the courses but make connections between the course material and their lives. This is success.

skewed towards those teachers who are active and motivated to see CS succeed at a national level. I would imagine there is a significant percentage of the population who didn't respond because they either did not receive the survey (they are not part of the standard contact streams) or they responded in typical teacher fashion (I don't have time for this). However if CS is going to succeed you need a central core of people who are motivated to see the CS10K through. Maybe this survey helps represent the core unit from which to build out Computer Science.

The demographics speak to how CS education originally developed. When Computer Science first came to the high school level, there were no "CS teachers." So how did districts in the late 1980s-90s find teachers? They converted math teachers to CS teachers. In fact, my mentor teacher had her formal training in math before she became a CS teacher. I believe if you could drill down deeper into the 40-50 age category, you would find a large portion of those teaching were formerly (or currently) math teachers. Some of the same basic principles of math (critical thinking, variables) enabled these teachers to make the transition to CS without too much re-education.

Additionally, Computer Science began (check my assumption) as an Advanced Placement Course (AP Computer Science A and AP Computer Science AB). Schools were forced to place these classes into an already existing educational structure that did not have a "place" for Computer Science. Since many of the new teachers came from math and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in CS apply to math, it was easier to put Computer Science in the Math department at school. The state of Texas still allows students to count AP Computer Science A as a math credit for graduation (this might be changing soon).

The reason AP Computer Science A teachers seemed to be the most well trained is that ETS (College Board) has the biggest training impact across the nation. You can attend one week teacher training for AP Computer Science A as well as shorter two day workshops. These have been in place longer than most other training, so they are more standardized as far as the topics taught. You will see that trend change as more time and resources are devoted to train teachers for the AP Computer Science: Principles course.

Have you thought about supplementing your data with how the state's themselves approach Computer Science? You had the most respondents from Texas, California, Georgia, New York, and Pennsylvania. While it makes sense that the larger states would have a larger percent respond. I think the state's policies towards Computer Science play a key role in the success of CS as well. The state of Texas has a teacher certification for Computer Science. This is not the case for other states. Texas (up until recently) required ALL students to take one technology credit to receive a high school diploma. This affects the number of CS teachers in Texas. Last year, the state of Texas added approximately 12 new Computer Science courses to their list of course offerings (up from 3). States with no plan or formal position on Computer Science will have a harder time implementing CS at the local level.

If surveyed, you might be surprised how many teachers would NOT put Office/Business Applications under the Computer Science umbrella. If you surveyed the identical educators and asked them their level of CS education and whether or not Office/BA fits under CS, you would find a trend that the more educated the teacher, the less likely they could include those classes. Our school needs to hire a second Computer Science teacher because of growth. However, up to this point, the only teachers that have replied are business teachers. While these are highly qualified teachers for business classes, they are not qualified to teach CS as we define it. Computer Science focuses more on how to use the computer to develop tools that people use, NOT how to use the tools themselves. A crude analogy is the difference between knowing how to drive a car and being a mechanic. You can be an expert on Microsoft Office, however you have no idea how to write the code to make your own Office program. You can be a formula 1 race car driver, yet not know anything about how to fix the engine. This will be a source of confusion and contention as CS develops.

Finally, one of the biggest hurdles facing CS education is that any qualified teacher (young or old) can make significantly more money working in industry than teaching. This is anecdotal evidence - but a former student of mine graduated with a bachelor degree in Computer Science in May. (The same degree I have). He was offered a job working in industry that pays over 2 times the amount that I make as a teacher. There will still be those of us to teach because we love teaching, but you will lose plenty of talented individuals because teaching does not offer a competitive wage.

having 10,000 teachers teaching a computer science course in 2016. The group of teachers represented in this study is a subset of the 10,000 targeted by CS10K. Who are these teachers that responded to the study and how effective will they be in leading the CS10K initiative? How will they lead the way in making CS Principles and Exploring Computer Science the cornerstone of CS10K? We need these new courses, as well as existing courses, because CS10K is about more than 10,000 teachers teaching the same computer science to the same homogenous group of students. The CS10K initiative will only be successful if the students in the 10,000 and more courses are a diverse group. Over 140 teachers in this survey indicate that they are teaching CS Principles, even though the course has been officially piloted by fewer than 20 high school teachers and roughly 100 teachers applied to be one of 40 pilot instructors for the course beginning in 2013. What kind of courses are these 140 unaffiliated pioneers teaching? Are they reaching a diverse group of students? Will they be ready to use performance-based and formative assessments in class? The performance-based assessments (initially named portfolio assessments) require a new pedagogical approach, but are a cornerstone of the collaborative and creative aspects of the CS Principles curricular framework. Will the current group of teachers be capable of being pioneers and leaders for recruiting existing and new teachers as part of the CS10K initiative? This new capacity study shows teachers who indicate they have sufficient curricular materials, hardware, and software to teach. But we know from leading workshops and making presentations that most teachers we see self-identify as being not ready to teach a CS Principles course. As we work toward CS10K we must work to understand how to get the teachers represented by this survey, generally identified as experienced and capable, to be part of the effort to get more teachers reaching a different group of students taking computer science. How to do this successfully is one of the important questions raised by this survey.

The group of teachers identified in this study has similar characteristics to the group identified in a 2002 College Board Study* : experienced, middle-aged, and white. Do the demographics of those teaching a new computer science course have an impact on the demographics of those students interested in taking a new course? Can teachers with extensive experience in teaching traditional courses in traditional ways learn new ways to approach computer science? Can these teachers help students work collaboratively to solve problems, to reflect on their collaboration, and to understand those aspects of computer science that will make them educated cyber-citizens, not just accomplished programmers? The professional development opportunities identified as “worthy of pursuit” by teachers in this survey are not representative of new ways of teaching about computational thinking and computer science that go beyond programming. How should our community develop professional development opportunities that will help new and existing teachers be successful, how will we nurture them and provide them with as sense of purpose and identity in reaching a new group of students? These are important questions for those developing these opportunities, recruiting teachers to be successful, and working to sustain that success over time.

*What are the Characteristics of AP teachers? An Examination of Survey Research, Glenn Milewski and Jacqueline Gillie, College Board Research Report 2002-10, Published in 2002, accessible via http://bit.ly/1a9Cplw

representative of either the larger group of current computer science teachers or the potential group from which we will need to draw if we are to reach the goal of 10,000 well-prepared computer science teachers. As noted in the implications at the end of the findings document, varied approaches will be needed. But what struck me even more forcefully was that this group of teachers represents the population of students that are already interested in computing, are in high resourced schools where administrators and the school community value computer science.

The difference between the number of suburban schools represented and the number of urban schools represented is significantly different than the general population. And if you look closely at the data, those from urban districts report significantly lower levels of support. Add this to the fact that ECS teachers report lower levels of sufficiency on the various options, this paints a picture of reality. To broaden participation in computing, we need to recognize this disparity and address it directly in all of the work we do. It can’t just be the students and teachers in suburban areas that have a supportive community. How do we reach 10,000 teachers in 10,00 schools without reaching urban schools and those traditionally underrepresented in computing?

vision that offers the potential to raise computer science education in K-12 to unprecedented levels and to make computer science accessible to and engaging for all students. In times of change, however, we need a deeper understanding of ourselves to ensure that we can keep moving in a positive direction. The results of this teacher capacity study are enlightening. We see a community of teachers actively engaged, well-prepared, and generally satisfied. I was not surprised, to learn, for example that 35% of our teachers have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, that 74% have graduate degrees, or that most computer science teachers also teach other subjects. I was pleased but not surprised to learn that 87% of the respondents reported having an advocacy role for computer science education. I was, however, deeply surprised to see that 60% of the respondents indicated that they had sufficient curriculum materials and resources and I wondered if that is because there are so many more resources available now than there were five or ten years ago. Compared to how things were, things seem very good indeed. This capacity study provides us with an important snapshot of where we are right now, but like many snapshots, the real story is not who is in the picture, but who is not. We know that many of our current teachers did not respond to this survey and so are not included in this data and my guess is that these are the teachers most in need of professional development, resources, and community. We also know that in many schools across this country too many students do not have access to rigorous computer science courses. The results of this survey tell an important story about who we are right now, but they also hint at who we can be if we find ways to include all of those missing teachers and students.