The brand new initiative at Code.org states that “every student in every school should have the opportunity to learn to code.”
This statement is signed by 80 or so technocrats, politicians and other so-called ‘public figures’, that attempt to deliver a convincing reason why schools should teach ‘coding’, and why kids that don’t know how to ‘code’ will be the disadvantaged of the 21st century.
As a systems analyst, developer, programmer and graphics developer, I would be expected to side with this enthusiastic attempt to spread the knowledge of the digital world of the Machine – but I’m completely opposed to this perilous approach.
Programming, as opposed to ‘coding’ and ‘code’, is a conscious choice, either at a hobbyist level or as part of one’s profession. Not everyone becomes an artist, or a lawyer, or a doctor; to enforce the teaching of ‘code’ as if it were a fundamental necessity in modern life, is downright silly.
Kids today have every resource and opportunity to delve into ‘coding’ at the age that they have access to computers, which can be as early as six. At age 14, I was definitely at an advantage to learn the fundamentals of what happens inside the computer – then, a 20th century miracle. But I had a solid background to work on, because school had laid the foundation by instilling knowledge that does not depend on computers to operate.
Schools need to refrain from teaching kids how to ‘code’. Young adults have every chance to do that on their own, as a career choice or as a hobby, because the world is now dependent on the Machine. Schools must focus on teaching the written and spoken language, and why words are formed as we know them; they must expand on history, ethics and challenge research; they need to culture philosophy, the arts and raise awareness about the environment, the earth and the animals. Schools must show kids how to use their hands, for functions other than typing on keyboards. Students must learn to use all of their senses to stimulate their minds fully; computers restrict that.
The world does not need an army of coders that don’t know what ‘susceptible‘ means, that have no idea who is Plato, and cannot name three art movements of the last century – without resorting to Google.
Particularly those kids in the US that would be forced to become ‘coders’ – because, according to those 80 ‘specialists’ at Code.org that’s a necessity they would not survive without – are bound to discover soon after graduation, that the Philippines, India and China are already filled with programmers that do things cheaper; sometimes, better.
Since Code.org is an initiative to bring coding languages as a compulsory subject at US schools, the best approach would have been to demonstrate how programming interconnects with other aspects of life. Contrary to what Code.org asserts, kids of today must be exposed more to the non-digital world; they must learn first hand how everything worked or failed for thousands of years, before tapping on an iPhone became a substitute for physical interaction.
Theo,
I definitely see where you’re coming from. However, I disagree to an extent.
You mentioned that not every kid becomes an artist, lawyer, or doctor. That’s completely true. But all students do take art classes, english classes, and science classes. Not to force them into a field, but to introduce them to different subjects. I think a programming class could be just as beneficial.
Just my opinion, though!
hey Jacob – Disagreement stimulates debating; a healthy aspect of human communication. And for the most part, doing so behind a computer is always a challenge. Coincidence? 😀
So kids must learn how to code, in parallel with fundamental knowledge that formulates their personality and character? If anything else, coding is for the most part an isolated experience. While team programming exists, it cannot substitute a social interaction experienced by e.g. theater acting, science experimenting or a day at the plant nursery or the zoo.
But let me ask you this. Those 80 technocrats are adamant about teaching young kids how the computer works; why do they oppose sexual education at schools, that teaches how our bodies – and minds – work in tandem?
Unfortunately, the focus of the initiative is misplaced and that’s why I don’t agree with it.
“Disagreement stimulates debating; a healthy aspect of human communication. And for the most part, doing so behind a computer is always a challenge.”
Arguing online doesn’t seem like a challenge you at all Theo 🙂
Coding and understanding the building blocks of how to program is a skill. Understanding this skill will help you be better at almost everything even non-computer related things. Logic modelling ect…
I think the main push behind this is not to subtract from what is already taught, but rather update it/expand it.
I think its ridiculous to “teach” things that can be instantly accessible. That’s not testing or expanding the ability to learn and apply, its testing the ability to memorize and recall facts and figures on demand. That is the definition of being school/book smart and real world dumb. Don’t fill you hard drive with this stuff that’s what google is for 🙂
Coding is a skill, from which things can be built from., broken apart, made better. Its a way to train the brain to think differently and its vastly more important then many of the things emphasized in schools today.
Bill – Arguing != debating, or if you want to go ‘old school’, arguing <> debating. 😀
There are plenty of studies related to the overexposure of today’s youth (and adults, for that matter) to computing; kids declare that when they aren’t in front of a screen, they feel as if they aren’t being productive.
This alone shows that there is an alarming, ongoing problem with how society deals with this new medium. Sure, computers are a tool but please, do not roll them out in classes from the tender age of pre-teen years, where they will serve as instant gratification servants.
Funny that you mentioned that it’s ridiculous to teach things that can be instantly accessible. The loss of any interaction among students and teachers, other than with the ‘almighty machine’, can be catastrophic. The trend to want results instantly, to get audio-visual gratification at the speed of fiber, leads to other problems as well: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/porn-induced-sexual-dysfunction-growing-problem
Promoting ‘coding’ as the panacea for everything in life, by reducing everything else as ‘backwards’ and obsolete, is a terrible socioeconomic mistake. The tender psyche of youth has already been eroded enough.
You make a good point about social interaction. Unfortunately this a trend that I think will continue for a number of reasons. http://www.nextdoor.com is an example of though trying to reverse this trend in ways.
However I don’t see a computer/internet as the evil porn machine. I see it as a tool that contains 95% of the worlds knowledge accessible instantly at your finger tips. I think that there was some value gained when a person would have to search and sort through books, sorting valued information from the rest. That process like most processes does have a value. However that time save and spend on the actual material and applying it has a greater overall value I think.
As for learning at a young age, I don’t think the basic ideas have changed. When I was young I remember I had an abacus. It was sort of like a toy I guess. Computers are the same. Different ages, different filters and appropriate content. Like anything else. A parent sorts thought books, movies toys finding out which are best suited for their child at any age. Computer is no different except it continues to evolve as the user understanding of it grows.
I know when I look at schools now if they dont have a dedicated computer lab with dedicated lab time I won’t even consider it and my daughter is age 3 🙂
Bill – There is a reason why specialized schools exist, so that parents who won’t consider schools without ‘dedicated computer labs with dedicated lab time’ can consciously choose these. Nothing wrong with Montessori education either; the schools for the ‘gifted’ exist for those that want to plan their kids’ lives well in advance.
Computerization of human interaction and its ‘shrinking’ into a de-facto, faceless screen & keyboard combo, won’t be reversible. Certain values worked for hundreds and thousands of years, including the abacus that you played with as a kid. Your daughter should not tap on an abacus ‘app’.
I’m a programmer, a coder, a digital media advocate; and yet, I don’t believe that by supporting a hyperbolic introduction of coding, programming or computerization to schools, solves any issues related to learning. On the contrary, it creates plenty.
I think I only had an abacus, because the toy I really wanted was 400 bucks at the time….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KxVpWDfN2E
Good post though Theo!