Posts about schoolshttp://cestlaz.github.io/categories/schools.atom2018-09-19T23:47:49ZMike ZamanskyNikolaCreating a school for CShttp://cestlaz.github.io/posts/creating-a-school/2018-09-11T18:06:09-04:002018-09-11T18:06:09-04:00Mike Zamansky<div id="outline-container-orgc9e98c1" class="outline-2">
<h2 id="orgc9e98c1"></h2>
<div class="outline-text-2" id="text-orgc9e98c1">
<p>
<a href="http://blog.acthompson.net/2018/09/do-we-really-need-cs-focused-high.html">Do we really need CS focused high schools?</a>
</p>
<p>
That's the question Alfred Thompson asked partly in reaction to my
<a href="https://cestlaz.github.io/posts/that-time-bill-gates-visited-afse">post</a> talking about Bill Gates' visit to <a href="http://afsenyc.org">AFSE</a>, a NYC public school
with a CS focus.
</p>
<p>
On both posts, <a href="https://twitter.com/reallymdp">Michael Preston</a> shared some important and good points about
AFSE as a starting point and gateway that helped lead to CS4All in NYC
and also specifically about AFSE.
</p>
<p>
In response to Alfred's question I thought it was time I shared a bit
about what I was pushing for AFSE back when I was involved. I wasn't
able to talk publicly about any of this at the time because I was
warned very sternly by one DOE person involved that I shouldn't talk
to "outsiders" about my concerns or designs. In retrospect, since I
stopped getting replies to my emails and was apparently dropped from
email lists after they selected their founding principal, I probably
should have been more public about my critiques. On the other hand, I
should have been more politic internally prior to getting to that
point.
</p>
<p>
Reading Alfred's post, what I was pushing for AFSE at the time cuts
right to Alfred's question so I thought I'd write about it today.
</p>
<p>
Before starting though I want to be <b>absolutely clear</b> about one
thing. This is not a critique of AFSE as it stands. There are some
great teachers and wonderful students there and I do what I can to
support both whenever I can. This is a post about my design vs the
DOE's design and later implementation. Also note that the numbers,
sizes, restrictions and designs are all based on NY state and NYC
requirements along with what one can typically do in a NYC public
school.
</p>
<p>
Even though it's the least important issue with respect to a CS school
or not, let's start by getting the dirty word out of the way. Given
the stated mission of the school (at the time) I wanted a screen. Not
a "Stuy test" screen but something. Probably something more along the
lines of the screen used by the Manhattan Science Hunter High
School. We never got that far in discussing it. My contention was and
still is that if you want to produce "Google ready" software engineers
by high school graduation, particularly in a small school, you can't
start with kids 2 or 3 years behind in math. Now, if your goal isn't
"Google ready engineers" but rather to use CS to engage a population
that isn't otherwise engaged, I can get behind that and you don't need
a screen. It's important however to note it's a different mission.
</p>
<p>
The DOE would maintain that you don't need any screen and kids can
start out years behind and by the end of their senior year they'd be
years ahead. It doesn't work that way.
</p>
<p>
They'd ask tech people at meetings what they looked for in employees
knowing that they'd get back "teamwork, creativity etc." I would of
course follow up with "where do you look for these candidates" and
they'd say "MIT, Cal Tech, Harvard."
</p>
<p>
The DOE insisted on no screen. This is fine but it's no surprise that
Google's not beating down the doors for AFSE graduates right out of
high school and the math regents show that you indeed can't take kids
from multiple years behind and end up with them multiple years ahead
given typical school resources. They're doing really good work there
but there's no such thing as a miracle school just hard work and
incremental progress. I have heard more than once that the founding
principal had lobbied for a screen so I feel my original assessment
was correct.
</p>
<p>
Next up, size. The DOE insisted on a small school focused on CS. They
wanted a school of around 136 kids per grade, which makes for 4
"homerooms," and that the school would focus on CS. My proposal was
very different. I advocated for a school with about 340 kids per grade
and not specifically focused on CS but rather with a great model CS
program - a Software Engineering Institute at the blah blah school if
you would.
</p>
<p>
A small school can't support a wide range of classes. With 4 classes
of kids per grade you don't have a lot of schedule flexibility in
terms of class levels or electives. You also have very few teachers
per subject - for a subject taught for a full year every year for a
single period, you'd have one teacher per grade in that subject. If
you're a school for CS you're not going to be able to offer a robust
schedule of music or arts classes. Likewise an arts school is going to
be hard pressed to offer a suite of science electives. Remember,
public schools are not flush with money and can't just offer loads of
courses for a handful of kids.
</p>
<p>
What we end up with is a school with limited offerings beyond CS and
we're asking kids to decide in 8th grade if that's the career path for
them. This is a hidden problem of all small schools. Kids shouldn't
have to decide on their future in the 8th grade. They should all be
able to go to schools that offer a wide range of subjects to a good
degree of depth. Only large public schools can do this. I know that
public schools come with their own problems but this is one of the
trade offs. I believe that having this selection done in 8th grade
along with the tech stereotypes and preconceptions is a big part of
the schools difficulty in appealing to girls.
</p>
<p>
Now even if every student who applied and is randomly accepted into
AFSE does indeed want to be a CS person then we've also lost because
we've done nothing to get more kids into the pool. It could still
potentially function as a model school in terms of courses or possibly
pedagogy but it won't expose and inspire anyone new with respect to
tech.
</p>
<p>
Let's contrast that with what I proposed. I wanted around 340 kids per
grade or 10 "homerooms." How did I arrive at that number? It wasn't
just a guess. Schools like Stuyvesant or Brooklyn Tech are clearly too
large and impersonal but small 136 kids per grade schools are too
small. The 10 homeroom per grade school seems to be the best
compromise. There are enough teachers so that there's institutional
memory when one leaves, enough of them and students for a varied set
of electives. It also means that there are enough teachers to avoid
bad fits between teacher and student. At the same time, it's not so
large that kids get lost. I also spoke with some of the best
programmers I know - not computer programmers but people who schedule
students for classes in schools and this seems to be the best
compromise size range. Also, with this size you don't necessarily need
a screen if you want "Google ready" software engineers. There will be
enough of a range kids that come in behind and kids that come in ahead
can get what they need.
</p>
<p>
I also didn't want it to be a CS school but rather a school with great
CS. That way it would appeal to a range of students. Kids who think
they want to do CS and those who don't. At the end of they day some of
the kids that think they wanted CS won't want it and those kids will
have other options. At the same time some of the non-tech kids will
take the required CS and find out that "this is neat stuff" and we get
to increase the number of people in the tent.
</p>
<p>
I still believe my design would have worked out better but that's not
to say that I don't think that AFSE has been and is important. As Mike
pointed out in his comment, AFSE was the first unscreened school to
offer legit and it did (and does) offer a place for CS kids that don't
get into or don't want to go to a place like Stuy which is very much a
large school and an unforgiving machine. It was also a showpiece that
helped pave the way for CS in all NYC schools. All of that's good.
</p>
<p>
I do regret parts of what went down between me and DOE. I don't regret
sticking to my beliefs in terms of school design but I would like to
have been able to handle the politics of the situation better. Had I
remained involved I think I had more to offer. I don't regret it too
much – at the time it went from the DOE telling me one week to "you
can have any role in the school you want" to the next week "we want to
introduce you to the person who we're making principal" and I
recognize that I'd have a hard time putting that aside now and the me
of a decade ago would have found it impossible. That said, I think
everyone would have been better off if both sides could have played
things better.
</p>
<p>
I'd still love to have the chance someday to set up and run a school
of my design with my team. It'll probably never happen but it would be
nice.
</p>
<p>
"
</p>
</div>
</div>