CSTA K-12 Standards Revision

Developing the highest quality standards to delineate CS learning outcomes for K-12 students

Sit at a table with at least one person from each grade band team!

Network: CSTA2025

Password: CSTeachersRock!

Day 1 Links

Everything is here: bit.ly/cstafuntimes, which redirects to:�csteachers.org/k12standards/revision/writing-meeting

• Slides
• Counts, Distribution, and Progression Chart
• Shared Google Drive folder (notetaking docs are here)
• Coordinate with folks on Rideshares!

​

Brief Introductions

• CSTA Staff
• Research Partners

New Writing Team Member

Rebekah Collipp

Computer Science Innovation Specialist

New Jersey Department of Education

​

CSTA Staff

Bryan (BT) Twarek

Head of Research �and Innovation

Jake Koressel

K-12 Standards Project Manager

Justine Chavez-Crespin

Professional Learning + Content Manager

Shaina Glass

Director of Education

WestEd Research Partners

Dr. Aleata Hubbard Cheuoua

Senior Research Scientist

ASICS Team

Jean Ryoo

Michael Lachney

Rafi Santo

David Phelps

Logistics

• Wifi - Network: CSTA2025 Password: CSTeachersRock!
• Restrooms - nearby
• Coffee and tea in the room!
• Meeting information/materials at: bit.ly/cstafuntimes
• Use the parking lot to keep us focused on the task at hand
• Shared Google Drive Folder

Goals for our time together

1. Revisit impacts and ethics research and determine writing implications
2. Examine public feedback synthesis and identify needed refinements
3. Identify ways to reduce the overall number of standards
4. Engage in discussions and activities to ensure all necessary input is collected to “finalize” standards content and progressions
5. Determine structure of clarification statements and/or alignment rubrics (as time allows)

Day 1 Overview

• Welcome and introductions
• Networking
• Amplifying Social Impacts of Computing Standards
• Public Comment and Advisor Feedback Review
• Counts and Distributions
• Topic Area Team Time
• Close-out
• Volunteer Leadership Summit (VLS) Reception

Day 2 Overview

• Reflect on Day 1
• Continue Working in Topic Area Teams
• Topic Area Team Peer Review
• Review Across Topic Areas in Grade Band Teams
• Clarifications and Evaluation Rubrics (as time allows)
• CSTA Conference Welcome Reception!

Project Values

Equity-centered

�Promotes broad and equitable access, participation, and experiences in CS education among all high school students.

Community-�generated

Meets the needs of the community, including K-12 educators, postsecondary institutions, students, parents, and industry.

Future-�oriented

Anticipates future needs of current high school learners, and prepares them for a future that is increasingly reliant on computing.

Grounded in research

Reflects the evolving body of knowledge of how students learn CS.

Flexible in implementation

Considers multiple pathways for meeting individual needs of learners, including regional, cultural, ability, social, and economic factors.

Planned Phases

Timeline

Networking Activity

Round 1

1. Form groups of 4 with others that aren’t currently sitting at your table.
2. Take two minutes per person and share:

Brief introductions (as necessary) and

What’s your favorite summertime activity and why?

Networking Activity

Round 2

• Form new groups of 3 or 4 with representation from each grade band (no more than one middle school person in each group).
• Take 90 seconds per person and share:

Brief introductions (as necessary) and

What are your hopes for this writing meeting? What about for the week (if you’re staying for the rest of the conference)?

The Role of Writers

Writers are essential to the CSTA standards revision process and leverage their knowledge, expertise, and collaborative spirit in an effort to develop the highest quality products that can be utilized by states, districts, and teachers. Writers thoughtfully consider research, current practice, and community feedback to refine drafts throughout the process.

• Attend and fully participate in all five two-day, in-person writing meetings:
• September 9-10, 2024 - San Francisco, CA
• November 7-8, 2024 - Crystal City, VA
• March 24-25, 2025 - Chicago, IL
• July 7-8, 2025, co-located with the CSTA Conference - Cleveland, OH
• November 10-11, 2025 - Likely NYC
• January 29-30, 2026 - Likely San Diego
• Attend and fully participate in 90% of regular virtual meetings (about 4 hours / month)
• Complete asynchronous reviews and work (about 4 hours per month)
• Create a safe and inclusive environment by adhering to CSTA's Code of Conduct
• Represent CSTA and the broader CS education community with integrity

Norms for Our Time Together

• Be present.
• Prioritize impact over intention.
• Proactively communicate workloads and priorities.
• Pay attention to self and others.
• Step up and step back.
• Speak your truth.
• Put ideas on the table, and record them.
• Stay focused on the key task.
• Record tangential ideas in parking lot.
• Expect and accept non-closure.

• When you’re here, �be all in. We need you!
• Step out as needed

• Protocols will support equitable participation
• Pause and process
• Invite others to share
• Be mindful of who speaks and when

• Use legible writing
• Ask to clarify and confirm understanding

Expected Outcomes

Refined full draft of standards!

• All necessary inputs to “finalize” standards content and progressions
• Lower priority: Progress toward establishing strategies/templates for clarification statements and alignment rubrics

​

Current Count of Foundational Standards

Current Count of Specialty Standards

The Need to Prioritize

Don’t Worry Too Much About

• precise wording
• descriptive statements (including examples)
• implementation

What is essential for all students?

• What will develop a well-informed citizenry?
• What enables “all students [to be] prepared for a world powered by computing”?

Focus On

• Coherent progressions
• Essential content:�not what’s possible or nice to have, but what’s necessary
• Streamlining toward our target number of standards

What is essential for all students?

• What will develop a well-informed citizenry?
• What enables “all students [to be] prepared for a world powered by computing”?

What This Means for Us

• Now is the time to trim or consolidate to reach our target number of standards.
• It is okay to add new standards to address gaps and complete progressions - but trade-offs will likely be necessary.
• Continue examining if every standard is essential for all students
• Our main goal is to define all essential learning outcomes: �what is important for all students to learn in K-12 computer science?

​

Something to keep in mind: while we will have clarification statements, standards still need to stand on their own to some degree.

​

Reminders

• We’re writing aspirational standards
• We are writing now for implementation in 5-10 years. We are reimagining CS, so we should make changes from current reality.
• Assume the majority of students have a progressive learning experience from elementary to high, like in other disciplines.
• Instructional time is limited
• K-5: about 0.5 - 1 hour per week, or 20 - 40 hours per year
• 6-8: equivalent of one year-long course within the band
• 9-12 foundational: equivalent of one year-long course

This Fall, We Will:

1. Write/refine clarification statements for each standard
• explanation, clarification, and/or context
• examples (and non-examples)
• scope and boundary statements
2. Develop alignment rubrics
• clear criteria for full addressing the standard in curricula
3. Align to practices, pillars, and dispositions; examine trends; and make adjustments to balance the distribution

Review & Reflect on Draft 2

It’s been a while since we’ve been working deeply with specific standards.

Refresh your memory of Draft 2 of our revised CSTA PK-12 Standards by skimming through them and identifying:

• 3 things you’re proud of
• 2 you’re wondering about from the pre-reading
• 1 thing we need to improve

Then, share and compare with a partner.

Computing Impacts and Ethics in the CSTA Standards:

A Synthesis of Expert Perspectives

The Amplifying Social Impacts of Computing Standards initiative is possible through the generous support of the Kapor Foundation.

Quote from Expert Reviewer

There is lots to admire here, but I have been asked to provide a critique ... the authors need to be also congratulated on their outstanding achievement as well!!

“

​

Agenda Overview

Presentation

Rec. Review

Vision Deliberation + Poll

1

2

Q&A

4

3

15 min

15 min

10 min

15 min

Icons from the noun project:

Rusma Ratri Handini, seniman, Vior, ilham handriansyah

Share-out

5 min

5

For reference

50 min

65 min

Find full report at:

csteachers.org/�k12standards/revision/�asics-expert-feedback/

Making Sense of the 17 Recommendations

55 min

16 Experts in the Social Impacts and

Ethics of Computing

What ethics and social impacts content doesn’t receive enough emphasis in the current draft? What can be changed to address these gaps?

​

What do you see as strengths of the standards draft in terms of how it incorporates issues of ethics and social impacts of computing?

​

What are the weaknesses or things missing that you have suggestions for changing, editing, addressing?

​

​

We contacted and coordinated with 16 experts who contribute to CS education and have knowledge about the social impacts and ethics of computing.

​

Methods for Eliciting and

Synthesizing Feedback

Data Collection

• Written Reviews
• In-line Comments
• Survey
• Focus Groups

Data Analysis

• Thematics Analysis
• Triangulation & Corroboration

Results - 17 recommendations in 4 high level themes

​

Praise

“[The content] radiates from the screen with its comprehensive approach to integrating ethics and social impacts...The output of this endeavor is nothing short of remarkable and a huge leap forward for CS education at a critical moment. It was a joy to review!...While I did leave many comments (with suggestions as requested!) I am ultimately heartened, excited.”

​

• Noticeable improvement from earlier CSTA Standards
• Appreciation for efforts to integrate impacts and ethics throughout the standards
• Appreciation for attention to elementary standards and grade

band progressions

High Level Recommendations

Aim for Consistent Application of this Vision Across the Standards (5 recommendations)

​

Elevate student agency through applied ethical and critical practices (4 recommendations)

​

Root in a Coherent Vision of Computing Impacts and Ethics (7 recommendations)

Embrace political courage in taking a clear, uncompromising stance on computing impacts and ethics (1 recommendation)

​

Embrace Political Courage

“If the ethics and social impacts of MEDICAL science were watered down for the sake of adoption, the end result would be a long list of Stanford Prison Experiments and Tuskegee Experiments and we'd all be horrified. Why should we think any differently about the ethics and social impacts of COMPUTER science?”

​

“

​

Embrace political courage in taking a clear, uncompromising stance on computing impacts and ethics

Standards should act as “highest common denominator” and a strong signal to the field.

​

There is a moral cost of self-censorship in that it would represent compromising on core values

​

If the standards do not effectively address issues of impacts and ethics in computing, it invites the question of what are, in fact, the purposes of the standards, and of the field in

general.

​

Limiting, or, at worse, erasing, issues of CS impacts and ethics has real world consequences, and can lead to harms being perpetuated in the long term.

​

There is no such thing as a neutral position.

​

A lack of clarity around CS impacts and ethics will make it difficult for what is likely a majority of educators that actively do want to address these issues.

Coherent Vision of Impacts & Ethics

“The first of these pertains to the document’s use of the word “ethics”. It is used to refer to different things within the document. It can refer to normative evaluation, it can refer to responsible computing use, and it can refer to social good or socially-responsible usage of computing. I feel that this will be a source of confusion for teachers.”

​

​

​

“

​

Root in a Coherent Vision of Computing

Impacts and Ethics

Forgo common sociotechnical myths.

​

Center an expansive view of computational harms and how they come about.

​

Foreground ethical pluralism.

​

Portray possibilities for computing that support human flourishing.

​

​

Elevate student agency via applied practices

“I was struck that the words “imagine” and “imagination” do not appear in the document. What role might–and perhaps should–imagination play in the standards? More specifically, I’m curious if practices like speculative design might be offered as ways to think and create beyond current limitations and invite novel (if not immediately feasible) computing responses/solutions to pressing social problems.”

​

​

​

“

​

Elevate student agency through applied ethical and critical practices

More tightly couple technical and critical inquiry into design practices.

​

Support critical evaluation of data as value-laden.

​

Encourage civic practices—voice, reimagining, and refusal—that respond to impacts of computing at individual and collective levels.

​

Portray a more nuanced and expansive conception of Career Exploration and “Real World” Application of CS.

Consistent Vision Across the Standards

​

“Ideas are often introduced once at some level but rarely revisited and refined at higher levels... That’s a missed opportunity (allowing students to grow and refine their ethics-related skills) and also sends the wrong signal: namely, that ethics-related content is a one-off add-on that doesn’t require a more nuanced treatment which is worth revisiting across the years.”

​

​

​

“

​

Aim for Consistent Application of this Vision Across the Standards

​

Be consistent and clear in use of language and terminology related to impacts and ethics.

​

​

Be consistent and developmentally appropriate in how impacts and ethics are represented across grade bands.

​

​

Be consistent in how impacts and ethics are represented across topic areas and specialty standards.

​

​

​

Wayfinding in the Recommendations Documents

​

Recommendation Map

55 min

Recommendations Document

​

Call out boxes

• Overviews
• Relevant topics and subtopics that the recommendation addresses
• High level suggestions
• Targeted suggestions

​

​

Narratives that unpack recommendations

​

​

In-line Comments and Airtable

​

Time for

Reviewing the Recommendations

(15 min)

Q&A

(10 min)

Vision Deliberation & Poll

(15 min)

Slido Polls

​

Poll options:

• Agree without reservations - this should be a north star for us!
• Agree, but have some issues that I think we need to work out.
• Somewhat agree - there’s parts of it I’d like to modify.
• Disagree, I think there’s another direction we should take.
• Not sure, I need more time to talk together and understand.

Slido Polls

​

Poll 1: The standards should center a vision of understanding computing impacts and ethics that:

(1) forgos common sociotechnical myths

(2) center an expansive view of computational harms and how they come about

(3) foregrounds ethical pluralism

(4) portrays possibilities for computing that support human flourishing.

​

Poll 2: The standards should center a vision of student agency around computing impacts and ethics that:

(1) more tightly couple technical and critical inquiry into design practices

(2) supports critical evaluation of data as value-laden

(3) encourages civic practices—voice, reimagining, and refusal—that respond to impacts of computing at individual and collective levels

(4) portrays a more nuanced and expansive conception of Career Exploration and “Real World” application of CS.

Do not edit

How to change the design

A Coherent Vision of Understanding Computing Impacts and Ethics

Presenting with animations, GIFs or speaker notes? Enable our Chrome extension

Do not edit

How to change the design

A Coherent Vision of Student Agency Around Computing Impacts and Ethics

Presenting with animations, GIFs or speaker notes? Enable our Chrome extension

Share Out

(5 min)

Snack Break

Meet back at your tables in 15 minutes!

Public Comment Feedback

Public Feedback

High-Level Summaries

Summary Tables

Recommendations with

Descriptions

Common Trends in Critical Feedback

• improve clarity and add examples
• carefully select language / terminology
• nuance with impacts and ethics
• coherence across subtopics (clarity of how to bundle/teach together)
• distinguish expectations across levels
• avoid overloading (and examine appropriateness for) elementary
• coherence with specialty standards
• a bit overwhelming: number, organization

Don’t spend too much time on these. Make notes and move on.

Advisor Feedback

Strengths Identified

• Comprehensive and thorough
• General organization
• Easy to navigate and comprehend
• Grade-level standards in elementary
• Iterating in the right direction from the 2017 standards

Things to Work on for the Next Draft

• Streamlining overlaps and redundancies
• Decrease number of standards
• Clearer, more intentional scaffolding of content (especially in K-5)
• Balance what is implementable with what is developmentally appropriate without lowering expectations
• Consistency and intentionality in terminology use
• Are the “big ideas” of computing appropriately surfaced in these standards (e.g., binary)?

Group Processing of Public Comment and Advisor Feedback

Take a moment to review the high-level trends from public feedback, advisor feedback, and any notes you may have taken.

Then, discuss in small groups:

1. Which trends are most important for us to address? �What ideas do you have for addressing them?
2. What should we preserve while making revisions?

​

​

Do not edit

How to change the design

Processing Public and �Advisor Feedback

Presenting with animations, GIFs or speaker notes? Enable our Chrome extension

Target Number of Standards by Level

Current Count of Foundational Standards

Current Count of Specialty Standards

From Standards Comparison Manuscript

grade banded

grade banded

grade level

grade level

Target Number of Standards

How many standards should we aim to write per level?

• PreK/K
• 5th grade
• middle school
• high school foundational

Complete brief Google Form

Target Number of Standards

Current Count of Foundational Standards

Reduction/Consolidation of Standards

Strategies to Reduce/Consolidate

Advisors suggested considering the following strategies/opportunities:

• Remove project management and/or move some of the standards into program development
• How much data investigation and data processing is foundational CS vs. something more interdisciplinary
• Whether career exploration standards should be grade banded or distributed in a different way
• Whether some skills should alternate grade levels (PK/K, 2, 4 vs. 1, 3, 5) to distribute things a bit more.
• The large amount of data content that is currently in the standards
• If all subtopics should really have a kindergarten expectation
• Where there may be overlaps with other content areas
• Whether Testing and Refining Code and Programming Fundamentals should be merged.

Approaches to Reduction/Consolidation

In grade band teams, consider “Target Number of Standards” form results + discussion and consider:

• What’s the delta from where we are and where we think we should be?
• What are the most viable strategies for working toward our target?
• What do we need to keep in mind as we navigate this?

​

Record on your team’s notes slide. Be prepared to share with the whole group in 15-20 mins.

​

Move into grade band teams

Elementary Team

Middle School Team

High School Team

Grade Band Team

Share Out

Balancing Bloom’s Levels and Pillars

Distribution of Bloom’s Verbs - Foundation

Distribution of Bloom’s Verbs - Specialty

Distribution of Pillars - Foundational

Distribution of Pillars - Foundational

Distribution of Pillars - Specialty

Distribution of Pillars - Specialty

Bloom’s and Pillar Distribution

In grade band teams:

1. Reflect on what has been shared related to Bloom’s and Pillar distributions.
2. Discuss the following:
1. What should we target as our ideal balance/distribution?
2. What actions should we prioritize today and tomorrow to move toward our target balance/distribution?

​

Preview of After Lunch

Algorithms and Design

MS-ALG-PS-06

Computational Thinking

5 Evaluating

Problem Solving

Verify whether an algorithm can or cannot help solve a problem.

​

​

​

​

​

Action Taken

• Keep as-is
• Remove
• Minor edit
• Major revision
• Move to a different grade:

____________________

• Move to a different topic area or subtopic: ____________________

Rationale (if applicable):

• Public feedback
• ASICS expert feedback
• Consolidation
• Balancing Bloom’s levels
• Balancing pillars/practices
• Other:

____________________

In Topic Area Teams…

Start with one or two subtopics (depending on how much overlap there may be or how closely related they are).

1. (10-20 mins) Review and discuss public comment and ASICS feedback as a group. Confirm agreement as necessary.
2. (5-10 mins) Individually look at the progression as a whole, taking notes as you go, particularly with regard to:
1. clarity,
2. flow of progression,
3. redundancies,
4. content that may not be foundational, and
5. your reflections from pre-reading
3. (30 mins) Discuss needed revisions to the subtopic(s) and document on the slide printouts.
4. Repeat with additional subtopics.

Target

~1 subtopic per hour

Topic Area Teams

Lunch!

Topic Area Team Time

Topic Area Teams

Talk about high-level recommendations – present back to full group at 2:05 pm

Summary of Reviewer Feedback

Summary of Reviewer Feedback

Navigating the Reviewer Feedback

Skim through these!

Navigating the Reviewer Feedback

High-Level Discussion/Direction

In your topic area teams, think back to our conversations from this morning and discuss each of the following:

1. How will you consolidate?
2. How will you balance Bloom’s levels and pillars?
3. How will you respond to trends from public feedback?
4. How will you respond to trends from ASICS recommendations?

​

Present high-level substantial or potentially controversial recommendations back to the full group at 2:05 pm

Algorithms and Design

​

Recommendation 1:

• Should we come up with consistent verbs to use?
• Improve MS Blooms

Recommendation 2:

• Disagree with 3rd bullet point: Elementary should NOT focus on low-level Blooms (part of recommendation 2)

Can we combine:

• HCD & Impacts of Algorithms
• Algorithms Fundamentals & Problem Solving

​

​

Programming

• Recommendation 1 - Agree with general recommendation of ensuring there is a logical progression of concepts across grade bands
• Recommendation 2 - Review the verbs and statements after reviewing logical progression across grade band to ensure that standards are not developmentally misaligned
• Recommendation 3 - Agree with recommendation to add clarifying statements and explanation in the supplemental materials or directly in the standard; note: the example of how to revise the standard ignores the intentionality we used in picking Bloom’s verbs
• Recommendation 4 - Agree partially - we do think there could be a better way to reorganize the standards within subtopics and subtopic change name to better describe the standards contained; note: the example used for feedback is blatantly wrong
• Recommendation 5 - Reject recommendation; reviewers should be provided with instructional support materials about how children exist
• Recommendation 6 - Agree partially - we agree that we need to have consistent and precise language; reviewers should be provided with a glossary of how we have have intentionally used in words and an idea of the supplemental materials

Data and Analysis

Possible collapse the sub-topics

Redefine the subtopics to see if they still fit with the feedback

Trend - Everyone wants explicit language!

Rec 1 : Redefine subtopics for clarity

Rec 2 : No high level changes

Rec 3 : No high level changes - will need to dig into each feedback to get a better understanding

Rec 4: Look at collapsing and combining subtopic standards to fill the gap rather than it being explicit

Rec 5: Think about how we provide descriptive information or in the supporting documents examples

​

Systems and Security

• we will read from left to right to be sure that the standards stand alone - for example: NW-02 - make sure we said what we mean
• we will read from right to left to be sure that each topic has appropriate support / prerequisite learning
• in impacts of computing, we will incorporate ASICS feedback (decrease focus on individual/techno-solutionism/optimism, increase focus on collective and values)

​

CLARIFICATION: We know we need to cut next - how will we communicate to be sure that is okay?

Computing and Society

OVERALL: No need to consolidate sub-topics or standards

1. PREFACE: Update Preface to include language that balances computing potential harms and positive potential (techno-optimism vs. techno-realism); acknowledge non-western roots of computing historically
2. ACROSS: Review progression K12 of Blooms Taxonomy to ensure rigor (LATER)
3. ACROSS: Identify opps to integrate pillars as needed (LATER)
4. HISTORY OF COMPUTING: Address techno-optimism/techno-solutionism concerns
5. EMERGING TECH: Integrate opps to evaluate and predict in Emerging Tech standards to up the rigor
1. Look to include creativity and reimagination for students to envision the future.
6. CAREER EXPLORATION: include real-world examples beyond big tech (e.g., non-profits, community work, hobbies)

Specialty -FINAL TUESDAY STATUS cross through means done

​

• Critically review large number of recommendation to move to foundational (AI - maybe 2)
• s1_ain_cd_02 (HS: Algs & Design - Problem Solving)
• s2_ain_he_15 (HS: Algs & Design - Impacts of Algs)
• Add professionalism subtopic to all specialties except CS+X - done
• Pillars - not done
• Look at Game Dev for model for others (human-centered, inclusive collaboration)
• Cybersecurity (it was our first specialty)
• Reduce number Specialty 2
• Add subtopics in Specialty 1
• X+CS: (3 Specialty 1 + 4 Specialty 2) - not done
• Can this exist with only 7 standards?
• Emerging CS team - Look at why it should exist?

​

• ​

​

Specialty todo - Tues afternoon

• AI
• Identify (and/or create) professionalism stds - done but incompletely
• Data Science
• Identify (and/or create) professionalism stds -done
• Review all standards to reduce number -done
• Cybersecurity
• Create professionalism stds (don't think any existing should be professional std) - done but incompletely

​

Algorithms and Design

E4-ALG-IM-04

Impacts and Ethics

5 Evaluating

Impacts of Algorithms

Evaluate how different algorithms may affect outcomes, situations, and people with a wide range of needs.

Action Taken

• Keep as-is
• Remove
• Minor edit
• Major revision
• Move to a different grade:

____________________

​

Rationale (if applicable):

• Public feedback
• ASICS expert feedback
• Consolidation
• Balancing Bloom’s levels
• Balancing pillars/practices
• Other:

____________________

In Topic Area Teams…

Start with one or two subtopics (depending on how much overlap there may be or how closely related they are).

• (10-20 mins) Review and discuss public comment and ASICS feedback as a group. Confirm agreement as necessary.
• (5-10 mins) Individually look at the progression as a whole, taking notes as you go, particularly with regard to:
• clarity,
• flow of progression,
• redundancies,
• content that may not be foundational, and
• your reflections from pre-reading
• (30 mins) Discuss needed revisions to the subtopic(s) and document on the slide printouts.
• Repeat with additional subtopics.

Target

~1 subtopic per hour

end at 4:45pm

Snack Break

Meet back in your Topic Area teams in 15 minutes!

Topic Area Team Time Continued

In Topic Area Teams…

Continue your process from before break.

​

You should be starting on your third subtopic soon!

​

Group Norms Pulse Check #1

ⓘ

Click Present with Slido or install our Chrome extension to activate this poll while presenting.

Logistics and Close-out

Review Parking Lot 🚗

VLS Reception

• 6:30 - 8:30 pm
• Grand Ballroom A
• Sponsored by Google and Oracle
• Attire: Casual
• Hosted by CSTA; code of conduct applies

Logistics

Tomorrow

• Breakfast served beginning at 8:00 am
• Meeting activities begin at 8:45 am
• We’ll end around 4:45 pm so that folks can attend the opening keynote at 5

Close-out

• Thank you! You’re amazing!
• Leave your name tag on the table.
• Complete the close-out survey
• When we’re done:
• Help tidy your area
• See you at the VLS Reception!

Day 1 Close-out and ASICS Feedback

ⓘ

Click Present with Slido or install our Chrome extension to activate this poll while presenting.

Day 2

Day 2 Links

Everything is here: bit.ly/cstafuntimes, which redirects to:�csteachers.org/k12standards/revision/writing-meeting

• Slides
• Counts, Distribution, and Progression Chart
• Shared Google Drive folder
• Coordinate with folks on Rideshares!

Yesterday we…

• Got to know each other better
• Learned about research on impacts/ethics
• Reviewed public comment feedback
• Drafted/refined learning outcomes related to AI priorities and impacts/ethics

​

Today, we will…

• Continue working in Topic Area teams
• Review the work of one or more other �Topic Areas
• Conduct Grade Band Team reviews across Topic Areas
• Make revisions based on peer feedback in Topic Area teams
• Share out and plan feedback to collect

2 hours

<1 hour�

1.5 hours�

1.5 hours�

<1 hour�

​

Expected Outcomes

Refined full draft of standards!

• All necessary inputs to “finalize” standards content and progressions
• Lower priority: �Progress toward establishing strategies/templates for clarification statements and alignment rubrics

​

A Recap of Yesterday’s Slidos

Gots

• Felt like we made good progress on our topic area.
• Guidance for moving forward with revisions, feel like I have a better grasp on how to approach feedback and trimming.
• We have incredibly knowledgeable and careful writers approaching this work. I am confident we are creating something awesome!!
• Deep dive into feedback, time to examine alignment.
• I like how we work in a small group, and every voice are heard! I like that we have lot of time to really work on reviewing and revising the standards.

Needs

• More support is needed in understanding the reasoning behind some of the recommendations to delete.
• Grade level time, subgroup time, time to hunt for connections that aren’t obvious like in different subtopics and grade levels
• Opportunity to share our progress with the large group and to hear from the other topic areas what adjustments they are making
• Continued momentum from today. Our afternoon group is ‘in the flow’.
• More time for alignment; a clean copy of everyone’s suggested changes for review/feedback (if possible)

Review Parking Lot 🚗

​

​

​

Project Values

Equity-centered

�Promotes broad and equitable access, participation, and experiences in CS education among all high school students.

Community-�generated

Meets the needs of the community, including K-12 educators, postsecondary institutions, students, parents, and industry.

Future-�oriented

Anticipates future needs of current high school learners, and prepares them for a future that is increasingly reliant on computing.

Grounded in research

Reflects the evolving body of knowledge of how students learn CS.

Flexible in implementation

Considers multiple pathways for meeting individual needs of learners, including regional, cultural, ability, social, and economic factors.

Norms for Our Time Together

• Be present.
• Prioritize impact over intention.
• Proactively communicate workloads and priorities.
• Pay attention to self and others.
• Step up and step back.
• Speak your truth.
• Put ideas on the table, and record them.
• Stay focused on the key task.
• Record tangential ideas in parking lot.
• Expect and accept non-closure.

• When you’re here, �be all in. We need you!
• Step out as needed

• Protocols will support equitable participation
• Pause and process
• Invite others to share
• Be mindful of who speaks and when

• Use legible writing
• Ask to clarify and confirm understanding

Topic Area Team Time

​

​

In Topic Area Teams

​

Continue your process from yesterday. We will have ~2 hours to complete your initial pass at revisions for your Topic Area.

​

Note: Tag additional Pillars or update Pillars as-necessary.

​

​

Snack Break

Topic Area Team Time

Continued

​

​

In Topic Area Teams

• Continue your process.

​

• You should aim to complete your initial pass through all subtopics by 11:15.

​

• Use the last 10 minutes of your work time to identify 2-4 topic areas for focal feedback.

Peer Feedback on Topic Area Revisions

Peer Feedback

• Choose another topic area on which you’d like to be updated and provide targeted feedback on progress.
• Try to distribute evenly (~3 per topic area, including specialty)
• You will rotate through 2 different topic areas of your choice (20 mins each), so keep this in mind as you make your initial selection
• Topic Area Leads will stay at their topic area table and lead a discussion that includes:
• A progress update including highlights of substantive changes
• Individual review and processing
• Targeted questions from the Topic Area Team
• Record feedback: comments in spreadsheet and/or lead takes notes

You can view an updated progression chart here.

Group Picture!

Lunch!

Group Norms Pulse Check #2

ⓘ

Click Present with Slido or install our Chrome extension to activate this poll while presenting.

Grade Band Feedback Across Topic Areas

Use the Progression Chart to See Revisions

Use Filter Views for More Details

Grade Band Team Feedback

In grade band teams…

1. Review and discuss progress across Topic Areas.
2. Come to consensus on feedback to provide to Topic Area teams.�Think about: reviewer feedback, ASICS recs, consolidation, balance.
3. Record feedback: comments in spreadsheet and/or lead takes notes

​

End by 2:30 pm

Break

Topic Area Teams Respond to Peer and Grade Band Team Feedback

In Topic Area Teams…

1. Recap grade band discussions and feedback.
2. Review comments/notes from grade band teams.
3. Make refinements based on feedback.
4. Continue any unfinished work from morning work session.
5. Prep for full group share-out:
1. Celebrations
2. Major adjustments
3. Things you’d like feedback on
4. Things that still need to be done

Wrap-up by 3:45!

​

Topic Area Team

Share Out

Each Topic Area Team Share…

• Celebrations
• Major adjustments
• Things you’d like feedback on
• Things that still need to be done

Topics/Needs for Feedback

Topics/Needs for Feedback

• Choose a group of focus:
• Elementary
• Middle School
• High School
• State CS Supervisors
• Curriculum/PD Providers
• Add ideas for feedback topics/needs on post-its
• Categorize and/or prioritize feedback needs

Close-out

Reminders

• Check slack regularly for updates.
• Asynchronous expectations.
• Reminder that anticipated time commitment shared in application was “about 2 hours per week” in addition to in-person meetings
• Please let me know if you are going to be late or absent.

Upcoming Meeting Schedule

• TBD based on close-out survey responses
• Similar to last year
• ~two 2-hour meetings per month
• ~4 additional hours of asynchronous work per month

Looking down the road

• 5th in-person meeting
• November 9-11 (travel on November 9)
• Likely in NYC
• 6th (and final) in-person meeting
• January 28-30 (travel on January 28)
• Likely in San Diego
• February and beyond
• Final edits to standards and clarifications and review rounds
• Resource preparation
• Launch planning
• July 2026 - Formal launch of updated standards!

Review Parking Lot 🚗

Close-out

Thank you! SO MUCH!

Complete feedback form.

Leave your nametags.

Make sure you have your swag and personal items.

Safe travels home!

Before You Leave

• Complete this feedback survey
• Add photos to the Drive folder
• Coordinate with folks on Rideshares!
• Grab a CSTA Tile if you don’t have one already!

Thank You!

Seriously.