Wasn't Papert talking about this stuff in the 1960s and 70s? It seems a little arrogant to celebrate the 10th anniversary of something published in 2006 without reference to the preceeding 50 years.

Papert's approach was, AFAIK, wildly different compared to recent spread of "just teach people to code".

Papert was going more about actual thinking and exploration using new tools, rather than "teaching everyone to code".

I was taught French in elementary school. It didn't take, and as an adult in Lausanne I had to call on Google Translate a lot.

Kids on an extended trip to France reliably learn French. IIRC Papert asked why we can't have a Mathland that works that way, and tried to build one in Logo and the culture around it. This produced at least one awesome, ripping book (Turtle Geometry), some excellent ones like Computer Science Logo Style, and I imagine some local incarnations of Mathland where enough acculturated people got together. I'd guess that schools taking it up too quickly was what smothered it, under school's immense power to turn everything in school into more school. I haven't yet read Papert's later books, though.

We need both let's-make-school-suck-less and ways to learn outside it. I hope someone with experience in these matters will comment.

Also relevant? http://www.htdp.org/2003-09-26/Book/curriculum-Z-H-2.html

Just as there are thing incomprehensible without at understanding of at least the principles of algebra and calculus, there are things that are incomprehensible (magic) without an understanding of what computation entails.

What a shameful article. No Seymour Papert, no Arduino, no Processing, not a single bit of Scratch...

so sad :(

But why.

Children need to learn CS concepts in order to use a computer about the same amount they need to learn mechanical engineering in order to ride on the school bus.

We learn to read and write, when we could just as well get all of our information read aloud to us by a few qualified Literary Scientists. I don't think it's a huge leap to expect that many adults would benefit from having some _computational_ literacy of a level beyond a basic introduction to Microsoft Office.

You're mixing up matters in your analogy. Riding a school bus is a passive task. Using a computer is an active task. You need a Mech. Eng. to design and build a bus. You don't need a Mech. Eng. to maintain a bus. Practically everyone should maintain their own personal computers.

I won't go into why CS concepts are important in school. My coffee has not yet reached my bloodstream.

Perhaps a better analogy would be driving cars vs. designing car engines? At least I vaguely recall something like this from Amazon reviews of SICP.

Time was lots of high schools had 'auto shop' for those who wanted it.

How many people's jobs could be automated or made easier if only they knew how to tweak how a bus works?