I'm way behind on my Communications of the ACM. I generally only read them when I use my trainer in the mornings and with summer running and outside riding, I'm still on the December 2015 issue.

This morning, I read a viewpoint by Jeremy Scott and Alan Bundy on a program in Scotland. If you're an ACM member, and if you're a CS practitioner, student, academic, or teacher you should be, you can read the piece for details.

Me? I noticed a number of similarities between what Bundy and Scott described and efforts here in the USA including some of the red flags.

I'm not here to talk about the program described in detail or their successes and failures. I don't have enough information to fairly comment on that. I'm here in my usual role of curmudgeon to highlight common red flags that if unheeded could cost all of us the opportunity to get really great CS Ed to all of our students.

One red flag right away were a number of references to the program being curriculum and materials driven, not teacher driven. The viewpoint states that materials "were designed to be used by even non-specialist teachers." We see the same thing here in the USA and not just in CS Ed. Teaching overall is being devalued with the elite pushing programs that handcuff good teachers to a script (which leads students towards "success" in passing a nonsense standardized exam) all the while sending their own kids to elite private schools with knowledgeable teachers.

I know i didn't want my kids to be taught chemistry history or any other subject by a teacher that hasn't studied the content yet here we go saying it's okay for CS.

The counter argument is that we have to do something now and we'll do better later. We all go in with the best of intentions but more often than not, once a politician has their sound bite and once a cheap apparent solution is in place, it's good enough and we're done. I ranted about that a while back both here and here. To their credit, Bundy and Scott talk a bit about this concern in the piece.

The piece also said "It is also necessary to employ a pedagogy that is informed by the latest research into the most effective ways to teach computing." This sounds good but the truth is, education research doesn't have the best reputation among educators. Last month, I asked one of the best math teachers around what was being bandied about as best practices in math education according to "the research?" He basically said "the research says do fad du jour but that doesn't work for me so I just do actually good technique."

Over the years, I've spoken to many teachers and by and large the best ones discredit "the research." Of course, my comment will be discredited by ed researchers saying that "you're just giving anecdotes" but then, if I did the same thing while employed as a researcher, did a couple of surveys and submitted it for publication, then it would be "research." So much of teaching is a craft and the truth is, practitioners know best.

Related to this is authentication by citing authority. Particularly dangerous in our field because many people with little to no real background in teaching CS are anointed as experts and thought leaders (see this post: here). In this case, the viewpoint cites Cameron Fadjo. I've only met Cameron once or twice and he seems like a sharp guy but when he was given the post of Director of Software Engineering for NYC, according to his linked in profile, he had neither taught k12 nor had any real CS background. This is of course the profile of many CS Education thought leaders.

My overall take. It sounds like just like here, Scotland has people trying to make a difference and trying to do good. It also sounds like they're falling into the same traps and pitfalls as we are on this side of the Atlantic.

I only learned about NYCIST last spring. They're the "New York Consortium for Independent School Technologists." They had something of an open house that I attended. I heard about them from friend and fellow CS educator Saber Khan.

Last Thursday I spent an afternoon and evening with NYCIST members for a discussion of the state of K12 Computer Science Education in the City.

Most of my work has been with public schools and most of the teachers I know, public school teachers so it was great to make new friends in the Independent school community.

One thing I realized during the evening was that NYCIST has a real opportunity to do something special.

In some ways, the public schools are leading the way in computer science education as a result of this administrations CS4All initiative but at the same time, public schools face some real challenges. While some "early adopters" have developed their own take on computer science education, by and large, CS4All is being defined and driven by few for all and, at least right now, the model seems to be the "a little PD and you're a CS teacher" model.

At the same time, standardized testing and teacher evaluations are pressuring schools, particularly schools of our most vulnerable students to push resources towards test prep in tested subjects rather than real education, including CS.

In this particular instance, NYCIST and independent schools can be what charter schools were supposed to be before they were corrupted.

Laboratories of innovation.

NYCIST has already gathered together interested parties and the independent schools aren't burdened by the weight of politically driven testing and teacher evaluation. At the same time, small class sizes and flexible models allow for innovation.

If they wanted to, they could probably create curricular and instructional frameworks for CS education and. dare I say it, share it back to the public schools.

I know I'm ignoring independent school politics and other issues that would prevent this from happening, but I just feel that if there's a desire to do so from a group like NYCIST, it could happen.

I'm looking forward to continuing to work with my new friends and if any of you are interested in finding out more about NYCIST, just tweet to Saber.

I don't know if my idea here will take root but if it does, I'd love to work with NYCIST to make something happen.

I've been meaning to comment on these tweets for a while:

I went to high school with some scary smart people. Never made math team. Didn't get into honors math. Thought I wasn't good at it.

— Stanislav Nikolov (@snikolov) June 30, 2016

@zamansky :D

that's the thing though you can get such an inferiority complex by always comparing yourself to others https://t.co/LvaMjp1WVf

— Stanislav Nikolov (@snikolov) July 1, 2016

Stan, of course, is one of the most talented people I know.

It reminded me of a conversation I had with my colleague and friend Jim last year. I had just recieved an email from a former student turned friend. We were trying to find some time to catch up. I told Jim I had just heard from this young lady and Jim replied "I remember her, she's awesome. Really smart." I mention this because the individual we were talking about, while to us, extremely talented in addition to being just a terrific person spent much of her career living in self doubt.

Meantime, I was having a conversation with another friend and the topic turned to impostor syndrome and the desire to make it a thing of the past.

Problem is, I don't know if that will ever be the case. I'm approaching 50 and have a career of good work behind me but I still find myself questioning my credentials, work, and ability. Then I realized I wasn't alone when I read Robert Talbert's recent blog post about his going through the tenure process for a second time and "learning through this process that I have not outrun impostor syndrome and probably never will."

Stan's tweets tell part of the story. When we surround ourselves with smart, accomplished people, we sometimes feel we don't measure up. I've found that for the most part, the extremely accomplished people I've worked with are very unassuming and low key. They seem to operate assuming that everyone else is at least as capable and quick as they. I recall Paul Graham talking about this in an essay but I don't remember which one. The problem is, if you don't understand their sincerity, you end up feeling even more inadequate.

It gets worse when we start comparing ourselves to some unreal composite. I remember feeling pretty stupid back when I was younger comparing myself with others. The problem was that I clearly didn't measure up to the best math kid, or the best computer kid, the best fencer, the best violinist, etc. Now, the best math kid might have been a lousy athlete and the best fencer, a so so mathematician, but to me, I was comparing myself with this composite super human. No wonder I never measured up. Eventually, though, I realized three things. First, there's always someone better at something and always someone worse. Second, that's not the true value of ones worth as a person, and three, I bring some good stuff to the table and I should be (and am) content with that

So, I still struggle with impostor syndrome but at the end of the day, it just serves as a reminder to look back on what I've done and what I've learned in the process. I start out in question but in the end, leave confident. Maybe the trick isn't to eliminate impostor syndrome but rather to understand and contain it. We don't want to live in fear and anxiety but both are useful emotions when we control them and not the reverse.

It's probably good when we question ourselves and re-evaluate our positions - we just have to make sure as we're bringing new people into the tech fold that we foster acceptance and confidence and when impostor syndrome sets in that it can be channeled into a positive and not scare people away.

The day after Labor Day. The day NYC teachers traditionally return to work. For the first time in a quarter century, I'm not one of them.

It's weird.

Instead, I'm in the second week of Hunter College's fall semester. So far so good on that front. I'm getting to know my students, planning activities and overall having a good time.

But, I do have to reflect on some of the things I'm not going to get to do this week:

I'm not going to have the opportunity to be blindsided by a CS schedule made without consulting me or any other CS teacher and having to work frantically to fix it so that the CS teachers have the programs and rooms they want.

I'm not going to be able to have that panic attack when the NFS/NIS server isn't working and no one can log in.

I'm not going to sit through a mindless faculty meeting where nothing is really ever accomplished.

More seriously, I am going to miss seing my friends and colleagues after the summer and Thursday - the day the kids get back is always a thrill and I'm going to miss that.

In a way, I'm experiencing a version of what retired teachers go through. Many teachers retire in June but it's not until after Labor Day when the change really sinks in.

Soon, I'll start posting CS teaching content again but for today, I want to tip my cap to all the public school teachers in NY that are going back to work today and who will shortly be teaching their five classes of thirty four kids each ¹.

I saw this headline earlier today: The U.S. Just Made a Bold Move to Improve Diversity in Tech.

The article talks about a program by which a number of code schools will be able to accept federal student aid. I don't know if we're talking student loans or grants but I'm not sure it matters.

The headline sounds great. I'm not so sure that this is a good thing.

My thinking's evolved over the years but right now, everything tells me that public funds and for profit education don't mix.

What we, more often than not, end up with is a cash cow for a private concern.

Example one: The edTPA - a required exam for teacher licensing, at least in NY. Prospective teachers pay hundreds of dollars to pass this gatekeeper. Pearson, a private company (and not even an American one) is essentially in charge of teacher licensing. They make the assessments, they grade them, they decide who passes. A foreign company is deciding who teaches our kids and at great expense to those prospective teachers.

We'd be much better off going back to the old days. To become a teacher, you had to pass through "The board of examiners." Basically, to get your permanent license you had to do an oral defense. Teachers would be placed in a room of principals, supervisors, and master teachers for an open grilling. It was cheaper and MUCH more effective.

Example two: The PSAT 8/9, PSAT, and SAT. These are exams that tell us one thing: how kids will do on future PSAT and SAT tests. They're not good predictors of college success but the college board (a non-profit in name only) has convinced us, or at least "convinced" our politicians of the exams importance. So, rather than having individuals make a choice as to whether or not to take these exams, NY forks over who knows how much money per year so that our kids can take a test with the belief that the exam will mystically make them college ready. To make matters worse, students lose a day of instruction and teachers have to proctor the exam instead of teaching.

Example three: Common core tests. Made in secret, graded in secret with cut off scores designed after the fact. Absolutely no educational value but once again, public funds flow freely into testing companies.

The problem is that these private concerns never really have to show results and they're never held accountable and since the money we pay them is hidden in city and state budgets, the taxpayer is none the wiser.

So, what about code schools?

In a similar vein, money will flow from the government to the code schools. The question is, do they really have the secret sauce.

I have lots of friends who run and work in code schools and have met many more. Some code schools are trying to really educate and some not so much. In any case, let's take a look.

You frequently hear about the success stories but for every one of those, you can also find a manager talking about the fact that the code school graduate can't do anything other than ape the narrow tool that they were exposed to in the three or so months at the code school. So, the truth is that results are probably a mixed bag.

Is this good? Well, when you consider the typical code school MO it really isn't.

To attend a for profit code school you have to not only afford the tuition but also be able to sustain yourself for the duration of the program. That makes most code schools options for the well to do - those already well positioned for success.

Then they make the candidates go through pre-work – frequently online course work. So, before you even step into a code school, they know you're likely going to succeed.

Once in, they train the candidates in a narrow slice of tech. I've talked to a number of code school leaders about that. I've asked how well the kids would be able to adapt given the constraints of their 3 month or so training. The typical answer was that the candidate could just re-up and pay again to learn the next limited time only skill.

Should taxpayer dollars go to this? Probably not. There's no indication that code schools can provide meaningful long lasting education to even those who are best prepared to learn on their own. Whats' more, we haven't seen evidence that they have the answers for the under-served. Combine that with government's history of not keeping an eye on and not holding accountable private education providers, I think we're just setting up a new line of corporate welfare that will, on the surface help some but it is in no way the answer.

Too often public/private means that the private entity gets the money and the public gets stuck holding the bag. Better would be to have tech companies foot the bill. Some coding schools already do this. Tech companies that are happy with coding school graduates can finance the program.

What we should be doing is focusing on things like community colleges. Organizations that are supposed to be real, long term, community centers. With moderate tweaking, there's no reason why a community college, not to mention 4 year schools, couldn't provide far superior preparation than even the best code school.