Julie,
The PIs and CoPIs have discussed expansion to new states. It’s great to know that you are interested in the model. For now we are gathering a list of interested states as we consider the possibility of growth. If you haven’t already checked out the ECEP website at http://expandingcomputing.cs.umass.edu/ , please do. There are resources posted that you and your state can take advantage of now.
Where do you see Ohio in the 4 stages of the ECEP model? I’d like to learn a little more about the current CS landscape there.
Feel free to email me directly if you have additional questions.

Ohio does allow computer science to count as a math credit, which helps. However, the most rigorous computer science courses are still only found in schools that serve wealthier populations. It would be nice to expand access to all students.

Identifying leaders and change agents varies in each state. They are likely to be in higher ed, state ed departments, industry and industry associations, CSTA chapters, STEM teacher orgs, superintendent orgs, CUE (computer using educators) orgs, non-profits, etc..Many state-based folks have met at key national meetings: Jan Cuny’s NSF PI meetings (BPC, CE-21, STEM+C), NCWIT, or CSTA.

Organizing them into a leadership group also varies. In some states CSTA chapters have been been the organizing focus (CT). In other states, industry groups (MassCAN in MA, ITology in SC) are the catalysts, in others higher education/industry/government groups (ACCESS in CA, TACSE in TX), and in some groups or individuals with NSF, DoEd, or NASA funding, etc. (AL, NH, UT, MD). In ECEP states, some groups have restructured, combined, etc. e.g., MD, UT, AL started as higher ed grants, but are now statewide with schools and depts of Ed (and code.org in AL and UT). MA and SC started as industry groups but now include higher education, dept of Ed, schools, teachers, etc.). ECEP tries to help match make, by suggesting possible contacts.

The bottom line is someone needs to step up and start organizing.

In Texas, our very first event was a partnership with the Austin Chamber of Commerce to host a small meeting of interested folks from industry, public schools, higher ed and policy to help us first define the problem and quantify the current state of CS education. It didn’t take a ton of $$$ and we had less than 20 people but it resulted in the publication of a white paper that then gave us a framework for future work and discussions. The vast majority of people from all of those fields had no idea how little was being done in CS. The white paper can be found at http://www.thetrc.org/computer-science-resources/

Hi Irene,
We did have a rubric, and it flows from the video. For example, we were looking for states that had a leader (e.g., someone who would participate in the ECEP Cohort, who would reach across sectors) and a cross-sector organizing/advising committee. Our strategy was to focus on states in which ECEP could be a catalyst — that we could help to spur on reform to broaden and improve access to computing education in a state.

One concern is that the “most functional” states will move forward (“rich get richer”) using this strategy. But I realize that a state leader must emerge before you can help a state move forward.

Yes, it is true that we are looking to add the “most functional” states. We only have a small amount of funding so we are trying to make the most of the funding by working with states that are ready to make progress. We can’t do much in a state if there isn’t a group or at least a leader to start work on the problems.

Thank you for the feedback Beverly. With the growth of CS education and CS for All, states are seeking ways to coordinate conversations with K-12, higher education and industry. The current 11 ECEP states and the territory of Puerto Rico are finding the ECEP model helpful. We hope this video, and all of our materials at http://expandingcomputing.cs.umass.edu/ , will help new states to launch their CS education initiatives.

Thanks Dawn.

Hi Katie,

Great question! I know what the end goal looks like: All students have access to high-quality computing education, with teachers and (multiple) classes in every school, and participation in those classes looks much more like the demographics of the general population than CS classes do today. We recently wrote a Blog@CACM post on where the ECEP Cohort states are in progress towards this goal: http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/198790-stat.... I blog regularly on how we’re doing in movement towards these goals, including this post on the latest data from Georgia: https://computinged.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/st...

- Mark

Steve,
We’re glad you found us too. Thank you for the feedback. One of our goals is to make all of our resources and contacts easily accessible. We don’t want people to feel like they need to start at zero. The CA contacts and information about CA can be found at: http://expandingcomputing.cs.umass.edu/california
One of the co-presenters on this video is Vinh Luong. He is a great first contact to reach out to. I will keep you in our database of people interested in learning more about our work.

I just met Vinh at the NCWIT Summit yesterday! We will definitely reach out to him, and to Julie Flapan. We need to better connect our work with state-wide efforts.

Hi Jill,

It was a pleasure #NESTworking with you yesterday at the K-12 Alliance session. I would love to learn more about the Digital NEST and your research on the integration of CS Education in informal settings. Let’s arrange a time to chat, and maybe explore opportunities to collaborate.

Thanks, Evan! We’re trying to figure out how to communicate what is happening with our ECEP cohort. The problem is figuring out what’s the right unit to share — what’s a “practice”? What would we put in the repository? States are so very different from one another. We find that our cohort takes things from each other that we might not have predicted as a useful nugget, e.g., a survey to teachers from this state, a CS teacher incentive program from that state. We might have to document these as case studies.