Charting a Path Towards An Equitable Future for Computer Science Education: The Culturally Responsive-Sustaining CS Education Framework

For the past decade, the Kapor Center has conducted research on disparities in CS, tested interventions, and developed initiatives, all intended to address the complex barriers that contribute to racial and gender disparities in K-12 computer science education. We have worked alongside educators, advocates, policymakers, and organizations dedicated to broadening participation in computing, as rapid technological changes occur across our society and the globe. And while we have seen some incremental progress, despite the importance of computational literacies for all students, access to computer science education continues to remain unequally distributed by race, gender, socioeconomic status, and geography.

• Just 47% of high schools in the U.S. offer computer science courses.
• Black, Latinx, and Native American students and schools serving low-income communities are significantly less likely to offer CS courses
• Black, Latinx, and Native American students comprise 43% of U.S. K-12 enrollment, but just 23% of students enrolled in AP CS.
• Despite representing half of the K-12 population, girls represent just 29% of students taking AP CS courses, and Black, Latinx, and Native girls are even more underrepresented

We know that computer science education exists within a context of racial and socioeconomic inequality in education broadly and across all of our institutions. We believe that to create a more equitable future for computer science education, a multi-pronged approach centering racial justice must address foundational educational disparities, create equitable policies at the federal, state, and local levels, and invest deeply in the development of teachers, pedagogical practices, and curriculum that reflect and sustain students’ cultures, experiences, and interests.

As part of this future vision for computer science, we are excited to release the Culturally Responsive-Sustaining CS Education Framework, created to help CS educators design and implement inclusive educational practices to increase participation of Black, Latinx, Native populations, girls, and gender non-binary students in K-12 computing education, college, and careers.

We start with a definition:

Culturally responsive-sustaining computer science pedagogy ensures that students’ interests, identities, and cultures are embraced and validated, students develop knowledge of computing content and its utility in the world, strong CS identities are developed, and students engage in larger socio-political critiques about technology’s purpose, potential, and impact.

Culturally responsive-sustaining computer science pedagogy then has six core components, which directly inform instructional practices, curriculum development, teacher preparation and professional development, and approaches to implementing equitable K-12 computer science education.

The six core components are:

1. Acknowledge Racism in CS and Enact Anti-Racist Practices
2. Create Inclusive and Equitable Classroom Cultures
3. Pedagogy and Curriculum are Rigorous, Relevant, and Encourage Socio-political Critiques
4. Student Voice, Agency, and Self-Determination are Prioritized in CS Classrooms
5. Family and Community Cultural Assets are Incorporated into CS Classrooms
6. Diverse Professionals and Role Models Provide Exposure to a Range of CS/Tech Careers

“[I like] when a teacher is vulnerable, but also sees students as real people, jokes around with students, talks to them one on one, and talks about issues in the community. Those are effective CS teachers.”

The framework provides a roadmap for the adoption of culturally responsive-sustaining practices within computer science classrooms, closing equity gaps, and improving the outcomes of historically marginalized students in computer science education. This resource pushes the field to move beyond simply focusing on providing access to CS courses, focusing on “why” “how” and “to whom” computer science education is taught, and encouraging social, ethical, and political critiques of technology’s promise and purpose in society.

Over the next weeks, months, and years, we will partner with teachers, students, districts, nonprofit organizations, curriculum developers, and other CS education advocates to bring this framework to life and chart a path forward towards equity in computer science education. We believe that culturally responsive-sustaining computer science education can be a tool for liberation and justice.

“No longer can we approach the teaching of computer science as an apolitical practice, or conceptualize issues of power, ethics, and equity as separate from computer science teaching and learning.” -Dr. Allison Scott

• DOWNLOAD: Click here to download this new publication and learn about the core practices and components of the framework
• WATCH: Click here to watch the previously recorded June 24th National Webinar featuring our team, Dr. Yolanda Sealy-Ruiz and Dr. Aman Yadav, highlighting the key elements of this framework and its potential to drive change.
• ENGAGE: If you know an educator that may be interested in participating in a year-long professional development opportunity to implement the CRCS framework (with veteran CS teacher and facilitator, Shana V. White, who will support and guide the PD) — please share this opportunity to apply to be a part of the inaugural cohort.
• SHARE: Share the framework with your colleagues and join the conversation about how this effort relates to your work on social media using #KaporCRCS.
• LEARN MORE: Follow the Equitable CS Initiative by signing up for the newsletter, or to reach out with potential collaboration opportunities, email: Kalisha.Davis@kaporcenter.org

____

Acknowledgments: The project team greatly appreciates the national advisory boards and framework reviewers who contributed their expertise to this project and extend our gratitude to the distinguished scholars for the decades of work that this framework builds upon. This initiative is generously supported by Code With Google and Google.org through the Equitable Computer Science Curriculum Initiative and the Kapor Foundation.

Charting a Path Towards An Equitable Future for Computer Science Education: The Culturally… was originally published in The Bridge on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

It has been less than a year since the world witnessed the brutal murder of George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin. Despite the guilty verdict, there is no justice for George Floyd, an innocent man who should have never been brutally murdered in broad daylight with nine minutes and twenty nine seconds of suffering shown to the world. To George Floyd’s family and friends, we extend our deepest condolences to you for your grieving and pain.

Since George Floyd was murdered, we have seen heartwarming images of people from all walks of life protesting racial injustice, a massive mobilization of voters fighting for change, the election of diverse political representatives, and a Vice President that is a Black and South Asian woman.

And we have seen terrifying images of white supremacists and insurrectionists storming the Nation’s capitol in an effort to overturn the democratic process, a record number of voter suppression laws being enacted across the country to restrict the participation of Black and Brown voters, increasing violence targeting AAPI communities, and elected representatives openly embracing replacement theory and the preservation of white supremacy.

We know this struggle for liberation is far from over as we continue to witness Black and Brown people unjustly killed or assaulted by police. The number of lives lost continues to grow with the most recent including 13-year old Adam Toledo in Chicago, and 20-year old Daunte Wright, who was murdered just miles from where George Floyd took his last breath. And we still haven’t seen justice for Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, Philando Castile, Tamir Rice, and the many more names of humans whose lives mattered, but were taken by bigotry costumed in law enforcement.

These contradictory events demonstrate how deeply ingrained racism and racial inequality is across all systems in this country, and how far we have to go. The fight to confront the systemic racism embedded in every American institution, from policing to criminal justice, to education, healthcare, and the economy, is far from over. We must continue to mobilize towards one common mission: racial justice.

As we work at the intersection of racial justice and technology, we are acutely aware of the systems of racism and inequality that plague this country. Through our work, we will continue to double-down in the fight for racial justice and ensure technology includes diverse perspectives, is harnessed to address societal challenges, and is used as a tool to collectively transform future opportunities for Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other communities of color.

We will continue to use our resources, our programs, our investments, and our voices to fight for change. We recognize and deeply appreciate the work of our community partners and organizers working tirelessly to advocate voting rights, criminal justice reform, climate justice, immigrants rights, and LGBTQIA rights. We must continue to build a movement, show solidarity against racism and police violence, develop multi-racial coalitions, and dismantle the dangerous chokehold white supremacy has on our society. We owe this to our children and our future generations.

Organizations to support in solidarity:

• Black Lives Matter https://blacklivesmatter.com/
• Movement for Black Lives https://m4bl.org/
• NAACP Pushing #Forward to eradicate racism: https://naacp.org
• ACLU https://action.aclu.org/
• Lawyers Committee for Criminal Justice Project: https://www.lawyerscommittee.org
• Color of Change: https://colorofchange.org

With radical optimism + relentless fight,

Kapor Center, SMASH, and Kapor Capital

The Fight For Justice Continues was originally published in The Bridge on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

But another equally important narrative surfaced in the questioning of Zuckerberg, one that has received much less attention: Why are women and people of color just a tiny proportion of Facebook’s workforce and leadership? Why have the numbers barely budged in 4 years? And perhaps most importantly, what is the CEO of Facebook willing to do to change these numbers?

(If you are wondering why a line of questioning about Facebook’s lack of diversity belongs in Congressional testimony about data privacy, Cambridge Analytica, and Russian hacking of the 2016 election, read more here and here).

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-New York) asked whether Facebook’s lack of diversity may have impacted the company’s response to propaganda targeting people of color and stoking racial tensions, saying, “I’m concerned that there are not eyes that are culturally competent looking at these things and being able to see how this would impact civil society,” she said. “If everyone within the organization is monolithic, then you can miss these things very easily.”

Research continues to confirm the business case for diversity, by demonstrating the positive correlation between diversity revenue, profitability, innovation, and employee satisfaction. And Rep. Clarke is right — numerous examples demonstrate how the lack of diversity on teams can negatively affect product ideation, algorithm development, and marketing and enable discrimination and harassment (See examples from Google, Snapchat, AirBnb, NextDoor, Microsoft, and Facebook). So, why aren’t we seeing any real progress on tech’s diversity?

Companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on initiatives to increase diversity, yet their diversity numbers have barely budged. In Silicon Valley, the percentage of Black and Latinx tech professionals has actually decreased.

Rep. Butterfield (D-NC) cited Facebook’s lack of diversity in its C-Suite and miniscule progress on racial diversity, and asked Zuckerberg for a firm commitment to hosting a meeting of CEO’s to make REAL change in tech.

“CEO leadership… on issues of diversity is the only way that the technology industry will change, so will you commit, sir, to convene a meeting of CEOs in your sector…to develop a strategy to increase diversity in the technology industry?” she asked.

“Congressman, I think that’s a good idea and we should follow up on it,” Zuckerberg said. “We care about this not just from the justice angle, but because we know that having diverse viewpoints is what will help us serve our community better, which is ultimately what we’re here to do.” A hollow response, lacking a strong and firm commitment.

When Rep. Butterfield asked about a commitment to publishing disaggregated retention data to provide transparency about workplace culture and turnover?

“I will discuss that with my team,” Zuckerberg said.

These vague statements are indicative of a larger problem we are seeing in tech. And Mark Zuckerberg is far from the only one to blame. Four years after the Silicon Valley giants began releasing their employee data, and reluctantly revealing the vast racial and gender disparities in their workforce, a great deal of attention has been paid to the lack of diversity in tech. Companies have spent a lot of time talking about the problem, making commitments, hiring D&I directors, implementing initiatives like unconscious bias training, and focusing on developing the pipeline (because they blame the pipeline for the lack of diversity rather than their unwelcoming cultures and biased practices). And unsurprisingly, little actual progress has been made.

Worse yet, a new study of tech employees by Atlassian reveals that “diversity fatigue” is setting in and despite the belief in the importance of diversity, individual and company actions towards increasing diversity are stalled (and in some cases declining).

Two findings from a study of 1,900 tech employees in the U.S. really stand out:

• In 2018, fewer companies are implementing programs to increase diversity and inclusion than in 2017. Less than 45% of tech employees work in companies that have a formal D&I program.
• In 2018, fewer tech employees are taking individual action to engage their leaders, learn about diversity and engage with diverse colleagues than in 2017.

These findings are consistent with our view that Silicon Valley has, for too long, viewed the problem of racial and gender disparities in tech in overly-simplistic ways and looked for easy fixes by applying window dressing to complex, large-scale problems. We have been caught up in arguments about whether the lack of diversity in tech is a pipeline problem OR a tech culture problem — each of which present a partial and incomplete framing of the problem. And without a correct framing of the problem, we see quick and easy one-off solutions being implemented, rather than the comprehensive, complicated, and long-term structural changes that are needed. The one-off solutions have been (surprise!) unsuccessful, creating the weariness and fatigue we are beginning to see across tech.

Instead, all the data show that a comprehensive and shared framework must be adopted across the ecosystem. The Leaky Tech Pipeline framework describes disparities in tech as the result of a complex set of interrelated and cumulative biases and barriers that occur across the tech ecosystem, from PreK-12 education through the workforce, entrepreneurship, and venture capital. We know that when comprehensive strategies are implemented, starting with a commitment from the CEO and including a multi-pronged strategy to improve recruitment, hiring, promotion, pay, culture, employee satisfaction and retention increases, and so does innovation and productivity. When local and state government officials, policymakers, educators, and private philanthropy work together make large, long-term investments in computer science education, more students of color and girls have the opportunity to enter into the computing pipeline. The exorbitant wealth of tech should be used to create systemic change, invest in education and workforce development, expand the pipeline, and break down barriers so women and people of color can enter and succeed in tech.

Armed with this framework and understanding, we can push for meaningful change. But how many tech CEO’s and venture capitalists are ready and willing to do the hard work? Do they actually want to implement long-term, comprehensive commitments to changing the demographics of the workforce, or are they simply content with a “trophy for participation”? While a comprehensive approach may be expensive, it certainly doesn’t cost more than the $16 billion annual pricetag of unwanted turnover due to being treated unfairly or the roughly $1.2 billion dollars tech giants have invested in diversity in the last 5 years.

The data from Atlassian’s study should be alarming and eye-opening: Not only are we not making progress, but fewer individuals and companies are committing to doing the hard work to drive this much-needed change.

Having a homogenous tech sector cannot be the acceptable norm. Tech leaders might not feel the palpable urgency in the same way that communities of color and other marginalized segments of our population do. As their profits continue to rise, Black-White and Latinx-White wealth gaps grow even wider. In tech’s wealth centers, like the SF Bay Area, tech employees (largely White, Asian, and male) are driving the economy, while gentrification, poverty, underemployment, a housing crisis, and homelessness are affecting everyone else. As new millionaires are created overnight (largely White, male millionaires), their technology is being used to widen gaps, increase discrimination and harassment, suppress voters, and undermine our democracy. While this wasn’t the original intent of the technology, it’s nevertheless a result of the shortsightedness of the tech leaders who allowed it to happen and remain comfortable with the status quo.

So yes, Mr. Zuckerberg, please do follow up with your team, and with your fellow CEO’s. You say that diversity is a business and social imperative, so here is your opportunity to use your platform and power to lead for positive change in tech.

What will it take to REALLY transform tech? was originally published in The Bridge on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Earlier this week, First Daughter Ivanka Trump announced that the President will direct the Department of Education to invest $200 million of grant funding annually to expand access to STEM and computer science education in public schools. Tech companies followed immediately with an additional $300 million pledge to do the same. As an advocate for STEM and CS education, I’m thrilled that there is a commitment coming from the highest levels of the federal government. But given this administration’s track record on race, poverty, education, and human rights, the announcement should be viewed with skepticism.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of computer science education, both to building a future workforce and to providing economic opportunities for all. Technology is a massive driver of the U.S. economy and computing knowledge is becoming foundational knowledge needed across occupations and sectors. When groups of students are shut out of pathways to the fastest growing, wealth-generating occupations, it becomes a civil rights issue and an equity issue. So clearly, increasing access to CS courses in public schools is an important first step. But if we are committed to training the diverse future STEM and computing workforce that is critical to our economy, we’ve got to take a holistic approach.

First, the good news:

• The White House is on the record acknowledging that lack of access to STEM and CS education is real. This is good — and somewhat surprising. There is indeed a gaping lack of access to STEM and CS courses in public schools, a lack of trained STEM/CS teachers, and severe underrepresentation by race and gender in access and participation in STEM and CS in K-12 education and beyond.
• The fact that STEM and CS education is now a priority for the Department of Education and that there are public dollars invested in computing education is also good news. While the proposed level of investment is a far cry from the $4 billion investment that the Obama White House sought (that effort was blocked by a resistant Congress), and undoubtedly not substantial enough to transform inequities in access, it is nonetheless an important initial investment.

The publicly available details of the initiative remain murky. But here is the $200 Million dollar question: Will this investment actually benefit underrepresented students of color? To get to the bottom of that — and before applauding this announcement — we should be asking several critical questions:

Where will the money come from?

This White House memo isn’t creating a new source of funding; it reallocates funds from the existing budget. We need to understand whether existing grant programs will be cut in order to fund this initiative — specifically if it will affect existing grant programs that provide resources to Title I school districts, improve teacher preparation to narrow gaps in access to quality teaching, or address achievement gaps facing students of color.

How will underrepresentation be addressed?

In her teleconference, Ms. Trump signaled that gender would be prioritized under this initiative, but did not give even passing mention to racial disparities, leaving us to assume that she was only talking about white women:

I’ve been working closely with the Department of Education, Department of Labor, business leaders, educators, non-profit, and governors since the beginning of the administration with the goal of increasing access to high-quality STEM and computer science education in our schools and inspiring participation in STEM fields, especially in underrepresented populations. To give you one example, the female share of the computer science workforce has declined over time from 35.3 percent in 1990 to 22.2 percent in 2016, even though women represent 47 percent of the overall U.S. labor force.

Sure, this was just “one example,” but it was the only one offered. Here are some important and relevant stats:

• Over 40% of K-12 students in the United States are Black or Latinx, but combined, they take just 15% of all AP CS exams.
• Of the Black and Latinx students who earn degrees in CS, over 70% are male.
• High-income public schools are 12x more likely to offer AP CS A than low-income schools.

History shows that too often diversity efforts focus almost exclusively on gender, promising women and men of color that we’ll get to them later — but we never do.

Will education experts have a say?

The specifics of the program have yet to be concretized. That’s fine and understandable. Department of Education grant projects are normally subject to a public comment period, allowing for crucial input from experts and stakeholders, but we’re talking about the Trump White House here; it’s unclear if past norms will guide this administration’s processes.

What do the private sector investments entail?

Three hundred million dollars is a significant investment. But we need to know what the K-12 computer science education strategy is and what activities will be prioritized. It’s unclear how much of this funding will be in the form of new investments or grants, as opposed to simply quantifying existing grants to school districts, software donations, volunteer staff-hours, and technical support. Beyond the investment in K-12 education, the tech industry must also address its own culture. Until biases and disparities in recruitment, hiring, promotion, leadership, and pay are addressed, no amount of investment in the pipeline will make the tech workforce less male and White. And without clear pathways into tech jobs, the rest of the workforce will continue to lose out on economic opportunities and wealth creation, simply based on the color of their skin, their gender, or their zip code.

Beyond Access

Achieving access for every student, regardless of gender, race, income, school, or zip code, is an important first step in expanding opportunities in STEM and computing education. To achieve this though, we’ve got to pay close attention to closing the racial and socioeconomic gaps in course availability, and focusing on the schools, teachers, and students with the greatest need.

Yet, simply making courses “available” to all students is actually only the first step — students must also have the opportunity to benefit from these courses. This means that initiatives must specifically aim to increase enrollment of underrepresented groups in the courses, provide adequate introductory preparation to ensure students’ success in the courses, and provide the courses and curriculum that would allow students to persist into rigorous classes — including Advanced Placement courses — that lead to success in higher education and in the workforce.

For more than 14 years, our non-profit Summer Math and Science Honors (SMASH) Academy, has run research-based STEM and CS programs for low-income, underrepresented high school students of color. We’ve observed and documented the barriers, and rigorously experimented with the factors that lead to persistence in STEM and CS education among SMASH scholars. Access is hugely important, but there are many other factors impacting student outcomes, ranging from access to technology, to stereotypes about computing, exposure to role models, and income inequality. Here are a number of insights about effective strategies for preparing SMASH students for success in STEM and computing:

• Students need multiple opportunities to engage with computer science. Participating in hack-a-thons, coding camps, and other exposure activities can help spur interest in computing, but they need to be followed up with a rigorous computer science course sequence. Introductory courses are not enough; students have to have access to Advanced Placement courses as well.
• Computing courses and teaching style must also be culturally relevant. That means actually engaging students by allowing them to explore creative challenges, work collaboratively, demystify the field of computing, and make connections between computing, their community and culture, and their interests across subject areas.
• Students thrive when exposed to instructors and professionals who look like them. These professionals act as role models and counter negative stereotypes about who succeeds in computing. More importantly, they allow students to connect with someone from their neighborhood, who speaks their native language, and looks like them, allowing students to realize their potential for success in the same field. Students are also able to develop networks with people who can open doors to internships, be mentors, and advise them on career paths. As we invest in access to STEM courses, we must also invest in a diverse pipeline of teachers, mentors and advisors.
• A network of diverse peers from different cultural, educational, and social backgrounds helps to develop networks of support and combat isolation to ensure persistence in college. Simply having a friend from a similar background, going through the challenges with you, can be enough to prevent young people from giving up on a STEM major when the going gets tough. The bonds that SMASH scholars form are as significant a factor in future success as the coursework itself.

All this is to say that the path to preparing all students, particularly underrepresented students, to succeed and persist in STEM and CS is very complicated, very nuanced, and very important. The funding must be utilized in effective ways or it will be meaningless at best and harmful at worst.

We also cannot separate this announcement from the political context. In a better world, STEM and CS education could be a non-partisan issue, but SMASH scholars — and all underrepresented students — are directly impacted by the Trump Administration’s policies. They and their families are affected by the Muslim ban; they live in fear of deportation; they are traumatized by the administration condoning White supremacists; they are terrorized in their schools and their communities by the rise in hate crimes; and they are left without recourse by the changes in guidance in campus sexual assault.

Computer science access funding can never compensate for the destructive and divisive impact of these policies. As Reshma Saujani noted in her vital New York Times piece,

“Federal funding for increasing inclusion means little when coupled with policies like (the travel ban) and others that trample on the rights of immigrants, women, and LGBTQ Americans… to work with this administration in any capacity is to normalize it and all of the hate and bigotry it represents.”

This White House’s Computer Science announcement doesn’t begin to address the real challenges in creating STEM and CS pathways for all students. It doesn’t come close to countering the inequities facing students and communities of color. And it certainly doesn’t compensate for the fear and terror that this administration’s policies have inflicted on those it now purports to help.

Students’ lives aren’t lived in a vacuum. If this administration is interested in helping create real STEM and computer science opportunities for all students, and building a diverse future workforce, there is a lot more work to be done. Call us, Ivanka, we’ve been at this for a while.

Is the Trump Administration’s Computer Science Announcement Good for America? was originally published in The Bridge on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We’ve all read the statistics about the lack of diversity in the tech sector. The underrepresentation of women, Black, Latinx, and Native American tech professionals in both technical and non-technical positions. The even smaller percentages of women and underrepresented racial groups in leadership positions at top companies and small startups alike. The near invisibility of venture-backed CEOs who are not male or White (or, occasionally, Asian).

In addition to the statistics, a steady stream of blog posts, articles, and stories shared in close circles have detailed the unwelcoming, hostile, and even toxic environments which are driving out tech workers from diverse backgrounds. But there has been limited data on how widespread these experiences are and how they might be related to retention across tech companies.

At the Kapor Center for Social Impact, we wanted to investigate whether tech company culture is driving turnover, creating a revolving door for underrepresented groups, and contributing to the lack of diversity in tech.

Between December 2016 and January 2017, we collaborated with Harris Poll to conduct a survey with a nationally-representative sample of over 2,000 professionals who had left a job in a technology-related industry or function within the last 3 years. The Tech Leavers Study is a first-of-its-kind national study examining why people voluntarily left their tech jobs.

Here is what we found:

So what can companies do? Here are 3 recommendations based on our study findings for ways companies can address unfairness:

1. Implement Comprehensive Diversity and Inclusion Strategies. Starting with unequivocal leadership from the CEO and executive team, implement strategies for achieving diversity and inclusion across the entire company, from product development and marketing to internal culture, staffing and leadership.

2. Create Inclusive Cultures. Define core values, develop a code of conduct, and strive to continuously evaluate and improve the culture by conducting regular employee surveys, examining data by demographic groups, and swiftly addressing areas of concern.

3. Develop Effective and Fair Management Processes. Audit performance management and compensation practices for potential biases and implement management training and bias-mitigating strategies (including people operations technology tools) across all stages of the employment lifecycle.

To download the full report, read subgroup reports, and view the press release, check out the website at: kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers.

@kaporcenter #techleavers

This report was sponsored in part by a grant from the Ford Foundation, and was conducted in collaboration with Harris Poll. We would like to thank the participants for sharing their stories and experiences to contribute to this important research.

What Causes Voluntary Turnover in Tech? Unfairness was originally published in The Bridge on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.