“Well, coding is obsolete. Why teach it? ”

My professor sighed as she reclined in her seat. With hands clasped behind her head, she looked over at our faces. Waiting to hear us clamor in agreement. She got what she wanted. The classroom instantly responded enthusiastically, agreeing as if they had always had that same opinion.

Encouraged by the clamor, she continued: “I mean, I used to know C++. Haven’t even used it once since college. And now there are websites that make websites for you. Really…is there a real need to teach coding within the curriculum?”

As an honors student in Political Science with a minor in educational psychology, I am certainly not an expert on computer science. Given my overzealous passion for educational reform, I was, however, aware of the movement to teaching coding within the classrooms.

Educational reformers are obsessed with this debate of introducing coding within the curriculum. There is a mad dash by key stakeholders in education to develop young programmers. Teaching programming skills to children is seen as a way to address the “skills gap”— the discrepancy between the demand for workers with computing skills and the supply of potential workers qualified to fill those spots. There is even a worldwide movement called “Hour of Code” that hosts tens of thousands of events that span across the globe where students spend an hour learning just that: how to code. From there, students get “hooked” on the excitement of coding.

This debate has a polarizing effect on educators and employers alike. Which leads us to the following question: who is right on this issue?

I would argue that both views are right, but for the wrong reasons.

The idea that coding is somehow obsolete conflates the process of coding with programming language. The latter refers to the formal constructed language designed to provide instructions to the computer, such as C++, Java and Python. Coding, on the other hand, indicates the “ability to read and write computer language” (Belshaw 2013). Coding is dynamic learning. Much like learning a human language, students develop the skills to break apart the language and rebuild it to express themselves. Coding teaches students how to be resourceful and determined when encountering a program failure. Coding teaches students how to think differently, logically and deliberately working through their code. Coding allows students to not only develop problem-solving skills but also to create and express. Coding empowers students to embrace failure and relish their successes.

Those same teachers worry about how coding instruction will affect the rest of the curriculum. Hundreds of articles on the internet outline their concerns that teaching coding should not be done at the expense of other subjects. While resources are scarce and every subject must compete for space on the educational agenda, there is no reason to assume that time spent on teaching coding to students will detract from the time spent on other subjects. In fact, learning coding skills will enhance student learning in other areas; according to the Dennis Van Roekel, President of the National Education Association: “Learning to code unlocks creativity and builds confidence in students regardless of age, gender, or race. Computer programming can also be a teaching tool for other subjects, from physics to French. With today’s technology, learning to code is more fun and more accessible than ever, and America’s teachers welcome it into our schools and classrooms.” It can serve as a conduit for learning other topics. In light of Finland’s recent proposal to abolish “subjects” in school altogether, American educators should not fear that coding will take over the curriculum. Rather, it can be used as a dynamic tool for student projects across different disciplines.

The opposing view does recognize the distinction between programming language and programming itself. It does not, however, appreciate the inherent value of teaching coding skills to students over content. It still frames learning as an “input, output” model where students are expected to learn the necessary knowledge to participate in the job market.

Yet educational reformers are adopting this mindset without realizing it is that same mindset adopted by those coming up with these outdated and ineffective public school systems in the first place.

Historically, public education has been treated as preparation for the work force. Frederick Taylor’s (the father of scientific management) protégés in education championed using industrial, factory floor methodologies to “produce” students who would become obedient, compliant workers, not critical thinkers who might question authority. Public education itself, according to Sir Ken Robinson, was created to meet the demands of industrialism.

The strong emphasis on preparing youth for the work force pervades the school system today. The advent of new and advanced technology has changed the workplace. It has revolutionized workplace rules, where individual workers are credited with more flexibility and autonomy than the former traditional workplace model. Employees can telecommute, working from whenever and wherever. Careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics have grown in popularity to meet the growing demand for new technology. Furthermore, technology has a huge impact on globalization; it enables companies of all sizes to do business with customers from around the world. The former job model— where workers progress vertically in one company, specializing in one area, being promoted for expertise and seniority— is no longer viable. Today, workers are able to leverage multiple skills for multiple careers that cross borders and boundaries of “specialties.”

Yet, modern day teachers are confronted with the challenging task of preparing students for the “boundaryless career” in an ever-changing, unpredictable job market. It is important to empower the student with technology. DeFillippi & Arthur state that learners must develop a broad and flexible skill base which is transportable across organizational boundaries. The development of these skills is enhanced when individuals are oriented toward skill-based and creative learning (qtd. by Eby et. al. 1996). Sir Ken Robinson describes creative learning as the following:

“We think about the world in all the ways that we experience it. We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms, we think in movement…If you look at the interactions of a human brain, intelligence is wonderfully interactive. The brain isn’t divided into compartments. In fact, creativity — which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value — more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.”

The problem is that our schools today do not use technology in a way that encourages students to be creative and to see things differently. Even with the obvious and significant impact that technology has made on the job market, the classroom structure has not really changed. Worse, the introduction of technology within the classroom has not had the largely intended effect of progressivism and reform. Instead, technology, despite its potential to revolutionize the classroom setting, instead conforms to this traditional model— the one created with the intent to produce workers ready to work within Taylor’s industrial-line approach.If we emphasize that students must know coding in order to participate in the job market, we are limiting their potential as learners. Inevitably, we teach to what they must know. Coding is no longer the means to empower students to develop skills to learn and be creative. It becomes an end itself— and a dead one at that. The “skills gap” will remain; workers will have the necessary programming knowledge for their work but still be unskilled in the sense that they can be adaptive, flexible and resourceful innovators.

The learner must be actively engaged in process-oriented learning in order to develop skills and become creative problem-solvers. We are creating innovative and adaptive digital “citizens” rather than simply training compliant workers with programming knowledge.

This debate gets at the crux of the issues in educational reform: educational stakeholders are too focused on increasing student’s knowledge of programming, whether it is necessary and whether it will be enough to meet the demands of the workforce. Rather, we should look at coding as a way to implement process-oriented learning within the curriculum in a way that encourages students to develop tools and skills necessary to be critical thinkers.