[onion2k]

Most of what she said was obvious, but there was one point that she got badly wrong: You can't really learn to code in a day. You can learn a few bits and pieces, what a variable is, what basic flow control is, displaying something on a screen. But that doesn't make you a coder. By implying that coding is something that can be done with an hour here and there, she's setting children up for failure.

If she wants to really have an effect on education and the digital skills we'll need children to grow up with she should be treating the subject of coding as a serious topic that deserves respect, time and a great deal of support from government and industry alike.

[theknown99]

Disagree. You can learn all you need to know in a day to get "hooked".

As stated elsewhere,

10 print "Hello!" 20 goto 10

Then just variations on that theme, lookup other functions etc.

We don't need schools to teach programming either. Anyone who is interested in it can learn it themselves easily.

My son just made his decisions for GCSE options. He decided against doing IT, because they just play around with spreadsheets. He's learning to code at home, by himself, writing games and apps for his phone. That's the way to do it IMHO...

At school, you're going to be in a class where 50% couldn't care less about programming, and the rest will just slow you down. Self teaching is much better.

[ghaven]

> You can learn all you need to know in a day to get "hooked".

So what? That's not the point, of course you can become strongly interested in something in a short space of time. The problem is you really can't learn to code in that time.

> Then just variations on that theme, lookup other functions etc.

This statement is so broad as to be meaningless. Would you say you know quantum mechanics just because someone wrote down a few axioms for you and the rest is 'just' busywork and maths?

> At school, you're going to be in a class where 50% couldn't care less about programming, and the rest will just slow you down. Self teaching is much better.

If the self teaching environment is available and good, of course it is. However, there's nothing special about computing here, and one reason we have schools in the first place is that the environment is not always otherwise available.

[theknown99]

The crutial thing for people wanting to learn programming is to get "hooked". Once you're hooked, you'll learn everything there is to know about programming as and when you need it.

What is more important than teaching people to program, is showing them how to teach themselves.

Programming doesn't really have any big concepts that need massive amounts of prior knowledge to understand. It's just 1s and 0s. You can't really compare programming (Building stuff), to quantum mechanics.

I'd say pretty much all kids these days have access to a computer, and to the internet - a perfect environment for self teaching.

Just like 25 years ago when I was teaching myself, there is no barrier to anyone who wants to learn.

[aninhumer]

While I agree with the general idea that getting people enthusiastic is an important part of teaching programming, I think you're still underestimating the complexity of some topics.

The initial realisation that everything is just simple conditionals and loops is very empowering, and will probably lead to a burst of creativity in many people. However, the reality is that these tools are not sufficient for many complex tasks, and left to their own devices, students may lose interest before discovering the alternatives.

Having a teacher there to say "This might be easier if you learn about arrays" is very valuable.

[pessimizer]

I think we overestimate the difficulty of some things because of the intense proliferation of useful middleware and macros that we live in.

Variables, loops, branches, I/O (input/print). Did I miss anything?

[aninhumer]

Just because those things are technically sufficient does not make them practically sufficient. Your "proliferation of middleware" (which apparently includes all modern programming languages) isn't just a convenience, it's absolutely essential to developing anything useful.

[dblacc]

You can actually opt out of IT now ?? Was compulsory when i was doing my GCSEs 10years ago. Wow, seems like a step backwards for the education system in my opinion

[polymatter]

I think he was suggesting his son wasn't going to do a GCSE in IT which is eminently sensible. 15 years ago, I don't think many people could do a GCSE in IT. There were a few compulsory computing classes where we got to play with spreadsheets and word. But they didn't count towards anything and didn't distract much from the core curriculum. And we had a computer programming after school club that was very popular but then immediately shut down when a senior teacher discovered we were making games.

[theknown99]

Depends where you are. Sadly, he cannot opt out of R.E which seems like a massive step backwards to me.

His school also allows you to opt out entirely from foreign languages, which he has done, which is a good move IMHO.

I hated having to do French or German 20 years ago...