Elementary computer science education legislation: an ECEP state analysis for broadening participation in computing

Abstract

Research indicates that early exposure to elementary computer science (CS) is foundational for developing computational thinking and acts as a critical equity strategy to mitigate stereotypes in CS. Despite these benefits, the U.S. state policy landscape remains varied and frequently secondary-focused. This study presents a systematic legislative scan and qualitative content analysis of 61 CS education items (2013–2024) across 30 Expanding Computing Education Pathways (ECEP) states, supplemented by survey results from 14 ECEP leaders. Using a coding framework of eight policy domains, we characterized how states enacted elementary-relevant requirements. Findings reveal a structured imbalance where secondary-centric policies often leave elementary provisions vague and under-resourced; notably, most surveyed leaders reported no formal accountability system to ensure elementary CS instruction occurs. We recommend specialized teacher qualification pathways, targeted funding for under-resourced districts, and disaggregated reporting to align policy intent with equitable practice.

Introduction

Introducing computer science (CS) education in elementary school is increasingly recognized as crucial for preparing students for the future, offering a multitude of benefits. Early exposure helps children develop computational thinking (CT), a critical skillset involving breaking down problems, finding patterns, abstracting details, and designing steps to solve them, which are valuable for problem-solving across all academic subjects and in daily life (Grover and Pea, 2013; Wing, 2006). This foundational knowledge is essential not just for potential careers in technology, but for navigating an increasingly digitized world, enabling students to become creators of technology, not just consumers (Blikstein and Moghadam, 2019). Beyond problem-solving, elementary CS fosters creativity and innovation by empowering students to design and build their own programs and projects (e.g., Bers, 2010). It also promotes logic, persistence, and confidence as students work through complex challenges (Prottsman, 2014). Furthermore, research suggests that early CS education can help address underrepresentation in STEM fields and positively influence students’ interest in computing disciplines, highlighting the need for equitable access for all students from a young age (Garcia et al., 2023).

Focusing on early CS education is a critical strategy for broadening participation in computing, particularly among groups historically underrepresented in the field (Childs et al., 2024). Research indicates that stereotypes about who is good at CS and engineering can form as early as age six (Sullivan and Bers, 2016), leading girls and some students of color to disengage before they even reach middle or high school where CS courses are traditionally offered (Master et al., 2021). Introducing CS concepts and activities in elementary school provides an opportunity to pique interest and build confidence before these stereotypes become entrenched, helping students develop a positive identity related to computing (Cheryan et al., 2015; Master et al., 2021). Early exposure also helps to ensure that all students, regardless of their background or socioeconomic status, develop foundational CS skills. This can counteract potential inequities in access and opportunity that can emerge later in their educational pathways (Liao et al., 2025).

Policy plays a crucial role in determining whether or not a school, district, or state will have the capacity, knowledge, and resources to focus on CS education at any grade level, including elementary (Zarch et al., 2020; Goode et al., 2020; Mak, 2024). State policy typically informs whether or not CS standards exist, whether funding is available to support K–12 CS education, and what CS courses should be offered, and when those courses should be offered (Code.org et al., 2024). Overall, state policy can either support or hinder the implementation of elementary CS education, particularly for classrooms, schools, and districts looking to effectively and sustainably support broadening participation efforts (Zarch et al., 2020; Goode et al., 2020). Based on the importance of early exposure to CS and the impact policy has on a state’s CS landscape, the following research questions guided this study:

• 1. What policies have states adopted to implement CS in elementary school?

•   1.1 How do state-level policies address equity and broadening participation in elementary CS education?

• 2. How do state CS education stakeholders respond to their state policies?

Early exposure to CS in elementary schools

Students can begin developing computational literacies as early as elementary school (Kafai and Proctor, 2022; Bers et al., 2022). These literacies include not only cognitive knowledge, but also the creativity, problem-solving, and reasoning skills needed to express ideas and solutions to complex problems, all while reflecting on the social impacts of computing (Kafai et al., 2019). Researchers also argue that elementary CS is best understood as a way to cultivate computational thinking (CT), defined as a set of transferable practices (e.g., problem decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithmic design) that support learning across disciplines, rather than “just coding” (Grover and Pea, 2013). Within K–5 classrooms, CT can be expressed through CS standard-aligned data practices, modeling and simulation, and systems thinking embedded in science, mathematics, and literacy (Shute et al., 2017; Weintrop et al., 2016). We use the term elementary CS education to define state-endorsed or mandated learning opportunities (standards, integration requirements, or dedicated instruction) in K–5, with CT/CS as a central outcome [Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), 2017].

A complementary and equally vital rationale for elementary CS education is identity development. Research indicates that “genius” and/or “brilliance” stereotypes emerge by age six and can depress girls’ interest in fields perceived as requiring innate genius (Bian et al., 2017). Similarly, gendered interest stereotypes account for a portion of the participation gap in CS and engineering throughout the K–12 pipeline (Master et al., 2021). These participation gaps connected to early stereotypes can also impact students based on race, ability, language, and other identity characteristics as well (Jacob et al., 2024; Jacob et al., 2022) Consequently, reaching students with positive and engaging CS experiences before middle school is an equity strategy as much as a pedagogical one. This early exposure serves as a proactive approach to broadening participation in computing among historically underrepresented student populations.

National landscape: access, participation, and the policy problem

Over the past decade, states have shifted from exploring CS as elective enrichment to positioning CS as part of core K–12 opportunity structures. Nearly all states have now established or adopted K–12 CS standards, which include guidelines for introducing CS in early grades to facilitate integration into elementary education (Code.org et al., 2024). More recently, governors have reinforced this momentum through roadmaps that align AI literacy with CS, highlighting a statewide expectation that foundational computing begin in the earliest grades (Code.org et al., 2024). With the rapid growth of AI, states and national organizations have embedded AI literacy within CS education agendas, recognizing that its core knowledge and skills, such as data representation, algorithmic thinking, and understanding data privacy and biases, overlap with essential CS competencies (Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), 2024; TeachAI and CSTA, 2025). Viewed through the CAPE equity lens (Capacity for, Access to, Participation in, and Experience of CS education), (Fletcher and Warner, 2021), these legislative and institutional moves raise the floor on Access and Participation and set conditions for equitable Experience. However, this is only effective if elementary capacity, including teacher professional development (PD), credentialing, and instructional materials, keeps pace with policy mandates (Fletcher and Warner, 2021; McGill et al., 2023).

Despite meaningful policy progress, national data reveal persistent disparities in K–12 CS education. While most states have adopted CS policies and standards, access and participation remain stratified by school resources, geography, gender, and race/ethnicity (Code.org et al., 2024). States are deploying K–5 standards-based integration and elementary-appropriate credentialing. Yet gaps persist, particularly in districts with limited capacity and where monitoring and accountability systems disproportionately focus on high school rather than on K–5 (Code.org et al., 2024). Even with collective state investment in policies and funding, a lack of targeted support and limited elementary-specific indicators (e.g., the number of PD seats per K–5 teacher, disaggregated participation data, etc.) blunt the impact of these efforts. This current landscape underscores common implementation insights: policy instruments must be paired with capacity-building and system-changing supports to effectively reach every classroom (Adrion et al., 2020; Honig, 2006; Mak et al., 2025).

State policy impact on elementary CS implementation

In general, approaches vary by state in terms of how state policies support and/or hinder elementary CS adoption and implementation. However, several general trends emerged from the literature when looking across states in terms of the types of policies being implemented. First, standards-based integration where states create, adopt, and/or align CS/CT standards that articulate grade-band progressions and encourage integration into core subjects [e.g., Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), 2017]. This policy approach signals the state-level importance of CS but also relies on local leadership and capacity (curriculum, time, materials, teacher knowledge, etc.) to translate this policy-level decision into classroom action (Honig, 2006; Mak et al., 2025).

Second, states may rely on explicit K–8 delivery requirements where policy mandates specific CS instruction must occur (e.g., Code.org et al., 2022). Often these delivery requirements are aligned with the aforementioned standards, and while such mandates can help clarify expectations and timelines for CS instruction, they also heighten the need for staffing, PD support, and scheduling solutions.

Third, states may adopt high school “floor” policies where either all statewide high schools are required to offer CS or have specific CS graduation requirements. Despite being secondary-focused, these types of policies can have the effect of driving K–8 pipeline development, and can be leveraged to support vertical articulation and prerequisite exposure requirements (e.g., Code.org et al., 2024).

Across all three of these common policy approaches, implementation capacity in the form of teacher expertise, instructional time, approved curricula, and leadership buy-in determines whether policy becomes practice (Honig, 2006; Mak et al., 2025). As a result, our analysis codes each state’s elementary-relevant policies by instrument type and attends to whether mandates are paired with capacity-building (e.g., PD, funding, credentialing and endorsements, etc.) and system-change elements (e.g., disaggregated reporting).

CS pathways and practices to address equity

In terms of the specific research-suggested practices and pathways for addressing equity in CS education, evidence indicates that access to CS courses alone is insufficient. Instead, structural factors like course tracking, informed guidance counseling, administrator buy-in, highly qualified teacher staffing, and equity-oriented PD shape participation even when course offerings exist (Margolis et al., 2017b).

At the elementary level, equity-oriented pathway strategies can include: (1) Culturally-Responsive/Relevant Pedagogies that center students’ communities, backgrounds, voices, and lived experiences (e.g., Madkins et al., 2020); (2) Targeted funding for under-resourced and rural districts (e.g., grants, regional coaching) to offset infrastructure and staffing constraints (Bean et al., 2025); (3) Transparent reporting on enrollment, participation, and staffing, disaggregated by student demographics to better surface opportunity gaps and guide resource allocation (Code.org et al., 2024); and (4) CS Teacher pipeline development that helps diversify who teaches CS, with clear K–5 certification and/or endorsement routes, micro-credentials, and preservice teacher exposure (Code.org et al., 2024).

Importantly, since stereotypes and interest gaps are documented to appear early in students’ lives (Bian et al., 2017; Master et al., 2021), policies requiring the integration of developmentally appropriate CS taught by highly qualified teachers in K–5 classrooms are more likely to broaden participation than high school only policy approaches.

Effective approaches for broadening CS participation

Research suggests two primary recommendations to broaden CS participation among underrepresented students at the elementary level: providing sustained and high-quality PD opportunities to teachers, and establishing reliable accountability and measurement systems for their teaching. Sustained, contextualized high-quality PD has been consistently linked to changes in instruction, including content focus, active learning, coherence with standards, extended duration, and collective participation (Mak, 2024; Mason and Rich, 2019; Mouza et al., 2021; Mouza et al., 2022). Research on elementary CS education indicated that many elementary teachers enter the profession with limited CS content knowledge and receive minimal preparation on teaching CS during their teacher education program. Therefore, many elementary teachers reported facing intrinsic barriers such as a lack of beliefs and buy-in (Thigpen and McGill, 2024) and challenges such as insufficient knowledge, skills, time, and support in effectively integrating CT/CS into core subject areas (Israel et al., 2022; Sentance and Csizmadia, 2017). States that combine elementary CS mandates alongside funded PD, accessible endorsement pathways, and high-quality instructional materials are often better positioned to ensure all students have opportunities to engage with CS content (Code.org et al., 2024; Santo et al., 2020).

Beyond sustained high-quality PD, establishing a robust system of accountability and measurement for teaching CS is equally critical for expanding CS participation among underrepresented elementary students. While clearly defined standards articulate grade-band expectations and provide curricular coherence [Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), 2017], the effective assessment and measurement of CS and CT at the elementary level remains in a developmental stage. However, scholars have developed frameworks and instruments to assess students’ CS and CT learning even at the elementary level (e.g., Brennan and Resnick, 2012). These tools are crucial because they provide a basis for measuring student learning and, in turn, for holding schools and districts accountable for equitable student learning experiences and outcomes in CS. For example, Brennan and Resnick (2012) introduced a widely cited framework that conceptualizes CT through three interrelated dimensions: CT concepts, CT practices, and CT perspectives. Additionally, Román-González et al. (2017) designed assessment instruments, such as the competent CT test (cCTt), Beginners’ CT test (BCTt), and Computational Thinking test (CTt), to measure students’ CS and CT skills, though these instruments still required further validation to ensure the reliability (Tang et al., 2020; Shute et al., 2017). To address these issues in the short term, state policy can play a constructive role by mandating participation in data collection and accountability processes, while simultaneously staffing data collection roles and supporting assessment pilots to address these issues in the short term (Code.org et al., 2024).

Summary and contribution

Research on elementary CS education emphasizes the importance of early exposure to CS to develop students’ knowledge and skills, including problem-solving, creativity, reasoning, and awareness of the social impacts of CS, as well as CT practices such as algorithmic design, decomposition, and interdisciplinary connections beyond coding. Policy efforts have led to many states adopting K–12 CS standards, creating CS curricula, clarifying pathways for CS teacher preparation, and expanding CS participation at the elementary level. This elementary participation in CS is particularly important for equity and broadening participation efforts, especially when teachers are provided with high-quality PD and training. Building on this national foundation, this study conducted an analysis of the Expanding Computing Education Pathways (ECEP) Alliance member states and coded various policy instruments that addressed how state policies support the implementation of CS education with the goal of broadening elementary CS participation.

The Expanding Computing Education Pathways (ECEP) Alliance is a national, NSF-supported network of state-level teams working to broaden participation in computing through coordinated policy and systems change efforts. Participating states form cross-sector coalitions that include state education agencies, higher education institutions, and nonprofit partners. Because ECEP states have explicitly committed to expanding equitable computing pathways, they provide a meaningful policy sample for examining how states operationalize elementary computer science within broader K–12 legislation.

Methods

To identify and explore state legislation that targeted elementary CS education, we used comprehensive policy document analysis (Cardno, 2018) of electronic versions of legislative documents from LegiScan, state legislative websites, and web searches. We also used a systematic policy scan across 30 ECEP states (Levin, 2008) and qualitative content analysis procedures (Schreier, 2012) to examine the themes of education policies and legislation as it related to elementary CS education. In addition, generative AI tools were used in two distinct ways. Google Gemini was used during the initial discovery phase to identify potentially relevant enacted legislation across state repositories. Microsoft Copilot was then used in document-specific sessions to extract structured information aligned with our predefined coding prompts. All AI-generated outputs were verified through direct review of the statutory text, and coding decisions were finalized by the research team.

Researcher positionality

As Cardno (2018) emphasized, policy document analysis is not a neutral exercise. As researchers, we brought interpretive lenses that shaped how legislative documents were read and understood. Our team approached this study from the standpoint of long-standing expertise in broadening participation in computing (BPC) and direct involvement in the ECEP Alliance, where we have collaborated with state leaders, policymakers, and educators on equity-focused computing education initiatives for more than a decade. This positionality informed both the design of our coding framework and our interpretive judgments. For example, when analyzing legislation for equity provisions, we attended not only to the presence or absence of explicit language but also to how equity was framed (e.g., universal access, targeted support for underrepresented groups, or omitted entirely). We acknowledge that our equity commitments may have sensitized us to these dimensions of the text, and we sought to mitigate potential interpretive bias through member checking with ECEP state leaders, who reviewed preliminary analyses and provided contextual feedback. By situating our interpretive stance explicitly, we aim to enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of our findings.

Data collection

Legislative documents

We conducted a systematic legislative scan of elementary CS education policies across 30 states participating in the ECEP Alliance (Cardno, 2018). Following Cardno’s (2018) guidance that policy document analysis requires systematic and transparent retrieval, we employed a two-stage process. First, generative AI tools (Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot) were used as augmented search engines to surface relevant legislative texts. We used standardized queries (e.g., “Find enacted legislation in [state name] related to computer science education”). This step was designed to increase efficiency and reduce the likelihood of missing relevant legislation across diverse state repositories.

Second, the results of these searches were then verified against LegiScan, a comprehensive legislative database, to ensure completeness and accuracy. In addition, we added additional relevant legislation identified through LegiScan, which was incorporated into the dataset by searching the terms “computer science” and “education” for each state. No specific time frame was referenced. Some legislative items were redirected to state websites. The final dataset included 61 enacted legislative items spanning 2013–2024 which were located online and downloaded to our dataset (see Appendix A). Massachusetts, Oregon, Wisconsin, and the territory of Puerto Rico currently lack enacted legislation regarding CS in public education, instead implementing CS curriculum and standards through efforts at the county level and the state department of education.

Legislation was coded as elementary-relevant if it (a) explicitly referenced kindergarten through grade 5 (or equivalent grade bands), or (b) mandated K–12 implementation without restricting provisions to secondary grades. In cases where statutes used broad “K–12” language without specifying grade bands, documents were coded as elementary-inclusive but noted as lacking elementary-specific implementation detail. Legislation that applied exclusively to high school was not coded as elementary-relevant.

Survey

To complement the policy document analysis, we conducted a survey of ECEP Alliance state leaders to gather practitioner perspectives on the implementation of elementary CS education. The survey instrument (see Appendix B) was distributed via Google Forms and included both closed- and open-ended questions. The items were designed to elicit information on state-level challenges, support, and policy recommendations related to elementary CS education. Specifically, participants were asked to identify challenges, describe how their state or district addressed teacher PD and curriculum resources, and report on mechanisms for tracking implementation (e.g., SCED codes, assessments, reporting structures). Additional items asked respondents to reflect on ongoing initiatives and to propose “pie in the sky” policy recommendations. The survey was open for 4 weeks and distributed to ECEP representatives across all 30 participating states.

Data analysis

Using Cardno’s (2018) argument, we examined the legislative documents for both explicit and latent meanings. Our primary coding focused on explicit features of the legislation (e.g., mandates, funding, reporting). However, we also engaged in interpretive coding of latent features such as how equity was framed (universal vs. targeted), how CS education was positioned (workforce development vs. foundational literacy), and what assumptions were embedded in funding mechanisms. While not exhaustive, this latent analysis enabled us to move beyond identifying provisions to interrogating how states construct the purpose and beneficiaries of elementary CS education.

To assist with the analysis of the collected legislative documents for the 30 ECEP states, we used Microsoft Copilot to help identify categories. The categories, prompts, and objectives used in our initial analysis were derived from a combination of prior research, national CS education policy frameworks, and our team’s expertise in broadening participation in computing. Building on established literature identifying funding, teacher preparation, curriculum authority, accountability, and equity as central policy levers in CS education, we developed a coding framework that operationalized these domains for systematic comparison across states. Structured AI prompts were created to query each legislative document on these domains (e.g., funding sources, equity language, reporting mechanisms), serving as an extraction tool that made the coding process consistent and replicable. The purpose of this design was to ensure comparability across the 61 pieces of legislation, highlight how equity was constructed or omitted in policy discourse, and provide both a wide-angle quantitative overview and deeper qualitative insight into state approaches.

For each legislative document, we analyzed the text in isolation by initiating a new session with Copilot. This procedure effectively bound the conversation to a single document, preventing cross-document contamination and ensuring that the outputs reflected only the content of the legislation under review. The prompts were intended to extract detailed information from each legislation, and we asked follow-up questions for clarification as well as asked for verbatim quotations for verification. If outputs were incomplete or inaccurate, we verified and corrected them through direct examination of the legislative document itself, ensuring accuracy in the final analysis.

Table 1 presents the structured prompts used to query each legislative document and the analytical objectives tied to each prompt. These prompts functioned as an extraction layer or skimming, surfacing relevant provisions in consistent ways across all 61 documents, consistent with “skimming” facet of Bowen’s (2009) three-faceted approach to document analysis. However, the extracted responses did not constitute the final analysis. Instead, they were systematically coded into a framework of eight policy domains to enable cross-state comparison and synthesis. The coding framework (see Table 2) translates the extracted responses into categorical codes. This framework is conceptually aligned with Code.org’s nine policy priorities but tailored to emphasize elementary-level CS education. Each category captures a distinct policy lever (e.g., funding, teacher training, equity), with codes applied to indicate the presence and nature of provisions within each legislative document. Two researchers coded the 61 legislative items together using the coding framework. Consistent with collaborative coding procedures in qualitative research (Saldaña, 2021), each legislative item was discussed until agreement was reached to ensure the trustworthiness of the coding results (Creswell and Poth, 2018).

Each enacted legislative item was treated as a separate unit of analysis. Documents were coded across all applicable policy domains, and multiple codes could be assigned within a domain where relevant (e.g., funding through both general appropriations and competitive grants). When states had multiple enactments over time, each enactment was coded independently to capture policy layering and evolution.

To verify this analysis and ensure we had gathered all relevant legislation, the results were member checked and presented to ECEP members of all 30 states. They were given options to provide feedback by directly commenting on the analysis document or sending the researchers an email. We received feedback from 10 states which has been incorporated into the findings.

Survey data analysis

The unit of analysis for the survey data was the state, with each state’s responses treated as representing that state’s policy context and implementation experiences. Closed-ended responses were tabulated to provide descriptive counts and percentages (e.g., proportion of states using SCED codes, proportion providing PD). Open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012). We first conducted an initial round of inductive coding to identify emergent themes (e.g., resource shortages, teacher preparation, accountability mechanisms). These themes were then organized into higher-level categories aligned with our policy framework from the legislative analysis (funding, curriculum, teacher PD, equity and access, and accountability). In the case where multiple responses were received from one state, responses were consolidated by aggregating responses thematically to maintain the state as the unit of analysis. This analytic process allowed us to compare legislative mandates with state leaders’ perceptions of implementation challenges and opportunities. The survey findings served both to validate and extend the legislative analysis, offering practitioner insight into the real-world impact and feasibility of policy provisions.

Limitations

We acknowledge several constraints inherent to this study. Regarding the policy document analysis, while the 61 legislative items represent formal state-level enactment, policy text may not always reflect the practical realities of school-level implementation. Additionally, the use of AI-assisted tools aided our document analysis, yet, some edge cases or legislative updated beyond our review window may have been missed. A potential limitation of the survey data is nonresponse bias. As respondents were ECEP state leaders already engaged in CS education advocacy, findings may over-represent states with more established CS policy and infrastructure and likely underestimate the broader lack of elementary accountability and reporting mechanisms nationwide.

Findings

The legislative analysis offered a wide-angle, comparative view of CS education legislation across 30 ECEP states. By systematically categorizing diverse policies, such as funding mechanisms, accountability measures, and PD mandates, this dataset allows for the identification of broad trends and structural patterns.

Document analysis results

Mandatory computer science courses

This policy domain captures whether legislation mandates the creation of CS courses at certain levels or requires instruction across all K–12 grades. Out of the 61 pieces of legislation reviewed, 38 (62.3%) included provisions related to mandatory CS courses. These fell into two distinct categories High School Courses (legislation that requires high schools to offer at least one CS course) or K–12 Mandates (legislation that requires CS to be taught across all grades, including elementary).

Seven states had “mandatory courses” legislation only at the high school level. Twenty states had K–12 mandates which explicitly included elementary schools. For example, Indiana SEA 172 (2018) required every public and charter school to integrate CS instruction from kindergarten through grade 12: “each public school, including each charter school, shall include computer science in the public school’s curriculum for students in kindergarten through grade 12.” [S.E.A. 172, § 3(b)]. In another example, Mississippi House Bill (HB) 633 (2021)’s Computer Science and Cyber Education Equality Act required implementation of a comprehensive K–12 CS curriculum by 2024–25, explicitly naming elementary grades: “implement a mandatory K–12 computer science curriculum … to prescribe minimum components of the curriculum at each grade level; and to provide for teacher training as needed at all grade levels.” (H.B. 633, 2021, Preamble).

While most states include K–12 language, we found that elementary-specific implementation was often less explicit than the high school provisions. In contrast to high school clauses that mandated a course and timeline, many K–12 statutes simply required inclusion in the curriculum without specifying elementary frequency, time, or accountability. Hawai‘i and Mississippi are exceptions that set elementary targets (coverage thresholds, grade-band components), whereas statutes like Indiana’s pair a concrete HS course mandate with a more general K–12 inclusion.

For example, Hawai‘i Public Act 158 clarified the numbers and the types of school that should offer CS courses or content in their yearly plan: “Beginning with the 2022-2023 school year, at least one public elementary school and one public middle or intermediate school in each complex area shall offer computer science courses or computer science content” [HI Act 158, 2021, § 3(b)]. Mississippi Computer Science and Cyber Education Equality Act (2021) even provided detailed hour limitation: “Each local school district shall provide that all elementary schools in its school system offer a minimum of one (1) hour of instruction in exploratory computer science each week” [H.B. 633, 2021, § 4(4)(b)].

Teacher training and certification

While course mandates establish the requirement for instruction, the Teacher Training and Certification domain captures the primary mechanisms for preparing the school system to meet those requirements. Nineteen states included provisions related to teacher PD and certification. These provisions fell into three categories: PD for in-service teachers, certification or endorsement pathways to build a qualified workforce, or a combination of both.

Seven states focused primarily on PD. Alabama HB 216 (2019) funded training for teachers and created scholarships for pre-service teachers, while Georgia SB 108 (2019) allocated grants to support PD during the phased rollout of CS in middle and high schools. Hawai‘i Act 158 (2021) similarly expanded earlier mandates by requiring PD to prepare teachers as elementary and middle schools phased in CS instruction. These states emphasize training existing educators, often through workshops, grants, or regional specialists, to expand instructional capacity.

Six states emphasized certification and endorsement pathways. Connecticut Public Act 19-128 (2019) required teacher preparation programs to incorporate CS and established both an endorsement and an adjunct permit for CS teachers. Nevada SB 313 (2019) created funding mechanisms for endorsement reimbursements and invested in pre-service teacher programs. These approaches signal a long-term strategy to professionalize the CS teaching workforce by ensuring that new entrants to the profession are formally credentialed.

Another six states combined both PD and certification measures in their legislation. Illinois Public Act 101-0654 (2021) required the adoption of state standards while also creating avenues to expand certification and support PD. Maryland HB 281 (2018) established the Maryland Center for Computing Education, which was tasked with leading both PD programs and efforts to grow the number of certified CS teachers across the state. By addressing both the immediate needs of current teachers and the pipeline of new teachers, these states took a more comprehensive approach.

As with mandatory courses, elementary education is often implied rather than explicitly addressed. Mississippi HB 633 (2021) stands out as a rare exception, requiring PD “as needed at all grade levels,” (H.B. 633, 2021, Preamble), language that explicitly includes elementary teachers. Hawai‘i Act 158 (2021) also extended training to elementary and middle schools as part of its phased implementation. In most other states, legislation uses broad terms such as “teachers” or “educators,” which leaves it to districts to decide whether elementary teachers are prioritized. This pattern underscores a recurring gap: high school and secondary educators receive detailed legislative attention, while elementary teacher preparation is often assumed rather than mandated.

Funding and resources

The sustainability of teacher training and course requirements relies on financial support. The Funding and Resources domain identifies whether mandates are financially supported through general state appropriations, competitive grant programs, or a combination of both. Thirteen states included provisions related to funding and resources to support CS education.

Seven states relied primarily on general appropriations to fund their CS initiatives. For instance, Hawai‘i Act 158 (2021) provided state funding to support the expansion of CS into elementary and middle schools as part of the 2024–25 mandate. Mississippi HB 633 (2021) allocated $1 million in state funding, matched by an additional $1 million in private investment, to develop and implement a comprehensive K–12 CS curriculum that explicitly included elementary grades. These examples show that some states have taken a proactive approach to ensuring resources flow directly into implementation.

Four states emphasized competitive grants as their funding mechanism. Georgia SB 108 (2019), for example, created grants to support teacher PD and implementation as part of its phased rollout of CS in high schools and middle schools. Pennsylvania’s PAsmart initiative, while broader in scope, provided competitive grants that districts could use for K–12 CS programs, though access to these funds meant elementary CS competed with other district priorities. Competitive funding approaches often spark innovation but risk uneven distribution, as wealthier or better-staffed districts are more likely to succeed in competitive grant processes.

Two states employed both appropriations and grants. Indiana SEA 172 (2018) allocated general funds to support the Next Level Computer Science Program while also establishing a grant system that allowed districts to apply for additional resources. Alabama HB 216 (2019) similarly blended direct appropriations with targeted support, including scholarships for pre-service teachers and funds to develop regional PD capacity. This dual approach combined broad coverage with incentives for local innovation.

As with teacher training, elementary education was often less explicitly referenced in funding statutes than high school. Mississippi’s HB 633 (2021) was a notable exception, since its funding was tied to the creation of a comprehensive curriculum that specifies grade-band components, including elementary. Hawai‘i Act 158 (2021) similarly channels state resources toward meeting explicit elementary school requirements. In most other cases, legislation established funding streams broadly for schools or districts, leaving it up to local leaders to determine whether and how resources reach elementary classrooms. This creates a pattern in which high school programs often receive clear financial support, while elementary implementation may depend more on local initiative or discretionary use of broader funding streams.

Curriculum standards and development

This domain analyzes the locus of control for standards and curriculum, distinguishing between single stateside curricula and statewide standards that allow for district choice. Most ECEP states had some form of statewide direction on what CS education should look like in K–12.

Twelve states were coded as state-developed curriculum where the state adopts a course of study or prescribes curriculum components to be used statewide. States with state-developed curriculum typically anchored CS in a state course or prescribed grade-band components. Mississippi’s Computer Science and Cyber Education Equality Act directed the state to “implement a mandatory K–12 computer science curriculum… “prescribe minimum components of the curriculum at each grade level; and provide for teacher training as needed at all grade levels” (H.B. 633, 2021, Preamble). The language in this legislative act explicitly included elementary grades (H.B. 633, 2021). These models gave elementary schools clear, grade-band expectations rather than leaving curriculum entirely to local choice.

Eight states were coded statewide standards with district choice where the state sets standards but leaves curriculum selection to districts. Texas HB 2984 (2019) required the State Board of Education to adopt K–8 technology applications standards (TEKS) “including coding, computer programming, computational thinking, and cybersecurity,” (H.B. 2984, 2019, § 1), with districts selecting or developing aligned materials.

Four states showed both approaches across different enactments or instruments (e.g., statute and state course frameworks) to mix statewide prescriptions with district discretion. Indiana is a good example of this layering with SEA 172 (2018) imposing clear system-level expectations [e.g., “each public school… shall include computer science in the school’s K–12 curriculum” (§ 4)] while the state simultaneously maintains grade-level CS standards and local discretion over materials. Washington and Nevada exhibit similar combinations through statutes and subsequent state guidance.

From an elementary perspective, the clearest statutory expectations appear where the state prescribed grade-band components or adopted a formal, statewide course of study. Mississippi’s law is explicit about “each grade level,” and Alabama’s Course of Study functions as a statewide baseline for K–5. In statewide standards with district choice designs (e.g., Texas TEKS; Pennsylvania STEELS; Minnesota’s CSTA-aligned language), elementary grades were included at the standard level, but curricular specificity and materials selection are delegated to districts, which can lead to uneven implementation across schools serving young learners.

In short, most states now articulate statewide expectations for CS, but elementary clarity varies by policy design. Where the state prescribed a course of study or grade-band components, elementary implementation guidance is explicit; where the state sets standards and defers curriculum to districts, elementary provision is more contingent on local capacity and priorities.

Equity and access

Equity and Access domain evaluates which student population is being reached by examining if legislation explicitly targets underrepresented groups or emphasizes universal access for all students. Twenty-three states addressed equity and access in their CS legislation. Of these, 13 states explicitly targeted historically underrepresented groups, and 18 states articulated universal access aims. Consistent with other domains, most statutes spoke broadly to “all K–12 students,” while a smaller subset paired that goal with specific mechanisms (e.g., disaggregated data reporting, targeted grant priorities) that make equity actionable. From an elementary perspective, the strongest examples were those that name elementary grades and bind equity to implementation requirements.

Several states embedded explicit equity mandates along with elementary inclusion. Maryland’s HB 281 (2018) coupled a high-school course requirement with an elementary charge: county boards “shall make efforts to incorporate instruction in computer science in each public elementary and middle school…[and] make efforts to increase the enrollment” (H.B. 281, §1) of female students, students with disabilities, and students from underrepresented demographic groups (as identified by the U.S. EEOC). The law also established the Maryland Center for Computing Education and required it to prioritize districts “with high poverty and large rural areas…[and] large minority or diverse student populations” (H.B. 281, §4) in grantmaking, tying funding criteria to equity targeting and capacity-building for PreK–12.

Other states operationalized equity through data transparency and monitoring. Washington’s HB 1577 (2019) required OSPI to publish annual K–12 CS data, including the number and percentage of students enrolled in CS courses disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, English-learner status, free/reduced-price lunch eligibility, and grade level, and the number of CS teachers disaggregated by certification, gender, and highest degree. This statute did not mandate elementary coursework, but it created the visibility needed to detect access and participation gaps at the elementary level and beyond.

Some states framed equity as universal access and paired it with K–12 scope, with varying specificity for elementary. California’s AB 2329 (2016) declared that “all pupils in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, have access to computer science education, with a strong focus on pupils underrepresented in computer science, including girls, low-income and underserved school districts, and rural and urban school districts” [A.B. 2329, 2016, § 9(b)].

It also directed the state’s strategic implementation plan to include actions for broadening the pool of teachers and increasing the participation of pupils traditionally underrepresented in CS, including grant options that prioritize high-need districts. While the statute was planning-oriented, it named K–12, foregrounds underrepresentation, and explicitly included elementary in its access statement.

While a majority of states signaled equity goals in statute, only a subset coupled those goals with elementary-specific provisions or hard levers (e.g., targeted grant priorities, disaggregated reporting by grade, or implementation requirements that bind districts to action in K–5). Maryland exemplified the focus on elementary, specifically mentioning elementary inclusion, targeted groups, and prioritized funding, while Washington showed how public, disaggregated data can drive equity work across grade bands. California’s approach codifies K–12 access with an explicit equity focus and directs the state to build the infrastructure (standards, teacher pipeline, grants) that makes that focus actionable. For elementary CS, these levers matter: naming elementary and tying equity aims to concrete mechanisms (funding criteria, reporting, grade-band requirements) are what move equity language from aspiration to accountable practice.

Reporting and accountability

To ensure equity goals translate into practice, states use reporting and accountability mechanism to track implementation progress. Twenty-one states included reporting or accountability provisions in their CS legislation, though the specificity and frequency varied. Twenty states required annual reporting, one state required both annual and biannual reporting, and five states had no identifiable accountability mechanism in the laws we analyzed.

Most statutes established annual reporting requirements tied to implementation progress, but the specific requirements varied. Hawai‘i’s Act 158 (2021), which extended CS mandates into elementary and middle schools, required the Department of Education to provide an annual report to the Board of Education and the Legislature on the status of CS implementation. This ensured the state tracks whether elementary schools are meeting the law’s phased requirements, making it one of the clearer accountability models that includes elementary explicitly. Similarly, Georgia SB 108 (2019) required annual reports documenting the expansion of CS courses in middle and high schools, though it does not specify elementary, reflecting a broader pattern of stronger monitoring at secondary levels.

A smaller subset of states adopted biannual or hybrid approaches. For example, Indiana’s House Enrolled Act 1243 (2024) was coded with a biannual reporting element, requiring a regular review of CS implementation statewide. Such provisions can create longer feedback loops, which may delay interventions where elementary implementation lags. Five states had no legislative requirement for reporting or accountability. In these contexts, implementation often relies on district initiatives, and without mandated data collection, it is difficult to know whether elementary schools are providing CS instruction as intended.

From an elementary perspective, the pattern continues with greater focus on accountability for high school mandates (course offerings, graduation requirements), while elementary inclusion is often assumed under K–12 language but not explicitly disaggregated in reporting. Hawai‘i stood out as a model, since its legislation required annual public reporting on progress toward elementary CS targets, demonstrating how reporting structures can elevate elementary implementation to a level of transparency and oversight comparable to secondary.

Integration with other subjects

This was the least frequently coded policy area examining how CS is valued within the broader curriculum, specifically whether CS courses can substitute for other graduation credits. Only five states included provisions for integration or substitution of CS with other academic subjects. In most of the five cases, the integration took the form of credit substitution at the secondary level, allowing a high school CS course to count toward graduation requirements in math, science, or foreign language. For example, California AB 1764 (2014) authorized local districts to award mathematics credit for CS, provided the course met UC/CSU (statewide university systems) admission standards. Similarly, Texas HB 728 (2017) permitted certain advanced CS courses to substitute for math or science graduation credits. While these provisions are important for secondary pathways, they do little to advance CS integration into the elementary curriculum, where credit systems are not relevant. Beyond substitution, some states have articulated cross-disciplinary goals without specifying elementary implementation. Kentucky’s academic standards, for instance, frame CS as a set of practices to be integrated across multiple content areas, but the enabling legislation did not include mandates or accountability mechanisms for elementary classrooms.

From an elementary perspective, the findings underscore how integration remains a largely secondary-focused policy tool. Credit substitution policies reinforce CS’s status as an optional equivalent to math or science at the high school level, but do not expand the subject’s footprint in elementary classrooms. The absence of clear integration strategies in most states highlights a missed opportunity to leverage CS concepts to support problem solving and computational thinking in core elementary subjects like math, science, and literacy. Overall, integration with other subjects is the least developed area of CS education legislation. Where present, it primarily advances high school flexibility rather than embedding CS across the elementary curriculum.

Survey results

To supplement the legislative analysis, we surveyed ECEP state leaders about the implementation of elementary CS education. The survey received 14 responses representing nine states (see Figure 1). Five responses were submitted by state leaders from Maryland; these were consolidated and treated as a single state-level response for analysis. The responses provided insight into how state agencies and districts are addressing or struggling with issues of curriculum, funding, accountability, professional development, leadership, and equity. Only two states (22%) reported that their state uses SCED codes to track CS implementation in elementary schools, while seven (78%) indicated they do not. Most of the states (89%) reported that there was no accountability system (such as statewide testing or reporting on report cards) to ensure CS is taught at the elementary level: “Currently, there is no accountability model in place to ensure that CS is being taught at the elementary level.”

Figure 1

Open-ended themes

Using qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012), open-ended responses were coded into thematic categories aligned with the legislative framework. Six major themes emerged: curriculum, accountability, teacher professional development, leadership/policy, funding/resources, and equity/access.

Curriculum

The most frequently discussed issue (n = 22) concerned the lack of readily available curricula that integrate CS. States described both progress and challenges around this topic. For example, Texas reported progress at the district level integrating CS-based learning opportunities into existing curriculum, while Georgia highlighted an online repository for sharing curriculum with both teachers and paid curriculum designers contributing resources. However, Alabama noted constraints, stating “We cannot fund curriculum development through our CS budget.” Overall, while some states were advancing with curriculum integration and resource-sharing systems, others face structural barriers in resourcing curriculum development.

Responses highlighted both the presence and absence of financial support for CS initiatives (n = 12). Several states reported dedicated budgets or funding mechanisms: Alabama noted a “large state-wide budget for PD,” and Texas cited “funding through the CS Pipeline fund.” At the same time, challenges were raised where curriculum development could not be funded directly from CS budgets, and states expressed interest in providing stipends and grants to incentivize teachers. One respondent recommended, “Provide stipends for teachers to learn and implement CS.” Overall, funding was recognized as a critical enabler, but its application is uneven across states, with gaps especially around curriculum support.

Accountability

Mechanisms to track and ensure CS implementation were frequently mentioned (n = 19), though they varied widely across states. Alabama requires “yearly data reports that all schools/districts must submit,” while Texas relies on an “opt-in Google Form.” Georgia created “ES courses with course numbers (not SCED),” and Connecticut attempted surveys but faced “low response rates.” Across states, most reported not using SCED codes, with only Georgia and Maryland indicating “Yes.” Maryland stated “As there is no accountability via standardized testing for CS, administrators and teachers often place it as a much lower priority than other content areas. It then gets squeezed out of instructional minutes due to prioritization of other subjects.” The absence of standardized assessments or reporting mechanisms was seen as reducing the perceived importance of CS in elementary schools, as accountability structures range from formal reporting systems to informal, voluntary mechanisms, with limited consistency across states.

Teacher professional development

Teacher preparation and PD was widely cited as both a need and a current area of investment (n = 17), though responses reflected uneven progress across states. Texas described efforts to expand “teacher training and capacity,” while Georgia reported partnerships with “ES-focused providers like GaPBS.” In contrast, Connecticut acknowledged that “there has been little done in this area,” and Kentucky responded “No, not really” when asked about PD support. Overall, teacher PD is central to implementation, but disparities remain in access, availability, and the extent of support provided by state leadership.

Leadership and policy

Responses revealed mixed experiences with administrator and leadership support for elementary CS education (n = 13). In some states, leaders are actively engaged, for example, Alabama reported “meeting with principals and district leaders to let them know what is required and what resources are available,” and North Carolina described a program with statewide consultants supporting integration. At the same time, respondents also noted significant challenges. Maryland highlighted “administrator buy-in” as a barrier, and North Carolina reported that some administrators “actively discourage CS” because the focus should be on reading and math. One Maryland response explained that without accountability, “administrators and teachers often place [CS] as a much lower priority than other content areas.” These findings suggest that while leadership engagement can be a powerful enabler, lack of buy-in or competing priorities at the school and district levels continue to hinder implementation.

Equity and access

Fewer responses explicitly referenced equity (n = 5), though important concerns were raised. Georgia noted issues of “teacher willingness to engage in CS” while Kentucky highlighted the perception that CS “isn’t important for all students and teachers” One recommendation emphasized equity directly, stating, “I firmly believe that all students should learn CS.” Overall, equity appears to be an underdeveloped theme in state policy actions, though respondents recognize the importance of universal access and the need to combat perceptions that CS is optional.

Cross-cutting themes

Across domains and findings, three broad patterns emerge. First, mandate-heavy states (e.g., Mississippi, Indiana) articulate clearer elementary expectations but vary in capacity supports. Second, capacity-building states (e.g., Maryland) invest in infrastructure without imposing elementary mandates. Third, states with explicit reporting and disaggregated data requirements (e.g., Washington) create stronger equity visibility mechanisms than states relying on broad K–12 language without monitoring structures. Overall, these contrasts highlight how policy design choices shape elementary implementation specificity (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Discussion

Together, the findings show that while states have made substantial progress in formalizing K–12 computer science (CS) education, elementary implementation remains uneven and weakly specified. Most policies elevate CS through standards, mandates, or equity language, yet concrete requirements for elementary instruction, capacity-building, and accountability are far more common at the secondary level. Survey responses from state leaders underscore this gap, pointing to limited professional development, minimal tracking, and low prioritization of CS in elementary schools. The discussion that follows examines how these policy patterns shape implementation, equity, and early participation in computing, and what they imply for strengthening elementary CS systems.

Limitations of current state approaches

Despite recent progress, current state-level approaches to CS education still exhibit limitations. First, state policies place substantial emphasis on secondary education, with explicit goals and implementation guidelines, whereas expectations for elementary CS education remain vague and inconsistent. A key challenge has been the persistent gap in implementation consistency at the elementary level, particularly in states relying on voluntary adoption or loosely integrated standards. Without clear mandates or robust support structures in state policy, the quality and availability of elementary CS varied dramatically across districts and schools, ultimately undermining state-level broadening participation in computing (BPC) goals. For example, California Education Code § 60605.4 created CS standards, but they were not mandatory, meaning that the decision to teach computer science lies with each individual elementary school. As a result, elementary CS implementation was contingent on local capacity and priorities, leading to uneven access, inconsistent instructional time, and limited accountability for whether CS standards were enacted in K–5 classrooms across districts.

Second, CS education at the secondary level received greater resources and support, creating a structured imbalance that disadvantages elementary CS implementation. Secondary education was specifically mentioned in 24 state legislative items, whereas elementary education was only mentioned in 20 states, and in most of those cases, it was described as a broader K–12 framing as opposed to an explicit elementary target. At the secondary level, states provided well-defined course pathways, established curricula, and codified integration strategies that teachers can adopt directly. Substantial funding was also directed toward secondary CS curriculum development and teacher professional development, including state-funded centers and grant programs such as Maryland HB 281, which established the Maryland Center for Computing Education, and statewide funding and partnership models embedded in Minnesota’s Computer Science Education Advancement Act (House File 2497) and Indiana’s SEA 172 through the Next Level Computer Science program. At the elementary level, teachers are responsible for teaching multiple subjects and have fewer opportunities to develop specialized CS pedagogical expertise. This imbalance limits program quality at the elementary levels and also shapes perceptions of CS as primarily a secondary subject rather than a foundational skill that should be cultivated from the early grades. As a result, students’ exposure to CS is often delayed, reducing opportunities to build early confidence and interest that are linked to long-term participation and persistence in computing (Chen et al., 2024; El-Hamamsy et al., 2023).

Third, reporting mechanisms for elementary CS education varied widely across states, leading to inconsistent monitoring and limited accountability. Nine states required schools to report on CS at the elementary levels; however, our survey results indicated that this often took the form of informal or ad hoc mechanisms, such as voluntary surveys, opt-in Google Forms, or locally developed course codes, rather than standardized, statewide reporting systems.

Few states have dedicated, statewide assessments or reporting systems for elementary CS, making it difficult to track student learning, evaluate program effectiveness, or identify gaps in implementation. In the absence of formal accountability structures, elementary CS will often be deprioritized in favor of tested subjects within an already crowded elementary curriculum.

Finally, issues of equity and access at the elementary level remained insufficiently addressed, raising concerns among practitioners in our surveys. States lacking comprehensive policies or targeted equity strategies missed opportunities to systematically address the underrepresentation in computing. Only 21 states had requirements focused on equity with Alabama requiring professional development entities with funding only if they include a strategy for reaching teachers who serve “students who are underrepresented in computer science” and Hawai’i requiring a yearly report on the gender, race and ethnicities of students enrolled in CS. Moreover, recent reports still show that equitable representation in CS across the U.S. has not been achieved, underscoring the urgency of early and equitable interventions (Code.org et al., 2024). Without a concerted effort to build the data infrastructure described in Stage 5 of the ECEP model, states are unable to accurately identify or support underserved populations at the elementary level. This will limit their ability to address the root causes of the participation gap and advance meaningful progress toward BPC goals.

Policy and practice interaction

Taken together, these limitations point to a central issue not of policy presence, but of policy enactment. The following section examines how different state policy designs interact with local capacity, leadership, and instructional practice to shape whether elementary computer science becomes a sustained classroom reality or remains largely aspirational. The interactions between state-level policy and classroom practice fundamentally shape the landscape of elementary CS education (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2022). Indiana’s mandatory K–12 policy (Indiana S.E.A. 172, 2018) directly compels universal “Practice” of CS instruction in all public schools. This interaction was reinforced by the integration of K–8 standards into the ILEARN science assessment, creating a feedback loop where state accountability measures directly influence teaching priorities and resource allocation at the local level.

In another example, Pennsylvania initially started with voluntary CS standards adoption, which led to a fragmented and uneven practice of CS implementation across districts. The new policy of integrating CT-aligned concepts into mandatory Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental Literacy, and Sustainability (STEELS) standards represents a stronger interaction. However, the effectiveness of Pennsylvania’s model depends on local capacity, including teacher preparation and PD and curriculum selection, to translate state CS standards into coherent classroom instruction (Honig, 2006; Mak et al., 2025).

Maryland interaction between policy and practices focused on enablement rather than compulsion. The state’s policy created the Maryland Center for Computing Education (MCCE), a central institution designed to build capacity and provide resources. This policy enables and supports practice by offering free, high-quality PD and extensive curricular materials, creating an environment where high-quality practice can flourish even without a direct elementary-level mandate. These three illustrative examples showcase a portion of the varied approaches employed when addressing CS education.

Based on the findings from the analysis of ECEP state policies and a deeper review of academic literature and exemplar state models, the following recommendations are proposed to build more robust, effective, and equitable elementary CS education systems. These implications are categorized under two broader categories: Enhancing professional development; and strengthening curriculum and integration.

Implications for policies and practices 1: enhancing professional development

States should move beyond recommended trainings and develop clear pathways for elementary CS educators, such as endorsements, micro-credentials, or specializations. If all elementary teachers are required to teach CS, states should require the inclusion of CS/CT content and pedagogy into all pre-service elementary teacher education programs and ensure that all teachers have foundational CS knowledge. This aligns with similar recommendations from the literature that suggest building coherent qualification pathways (i.e., licensure, endorsements, and/or certification) and embedding CS learning opportunities in pre-service preparation successfully supports the development of future teachers’ CS/CT knowledge, pedagogy, and self-efficacy (e.g., Ozogul et al., 2018; DeLyser et al., 2018; Mason and Rich, 2019; Rich et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2014).

Policymakers must allocate sustained, dedicated funding for elementary CS professional development. Teachers in states with structured CS PD report greater instructional confidence and preparedness after sustained professional learning (e.g., Code.org et al., 2022). This PD should be designed based on effective, research-based models like the TLO (Teacher-Learner-Observer) process, which is hands-on, collaborative, and documented to build teacher confidence and pedagogical skills (Margolis et al., 2017b). PD must also explicitly address equity, training teachers in culturally responsive pedagogy and strategies for creating inclusive classrooms (e.g., Madkins et al., 2020).

A distinctive approach that was demonstrated in this analysis was the development of partnerships with non-profits and universities. State departments of education should foster partnerships with universities, non-profits (like Code.org), and institutions like Maryland’s MCCE to create a rich, statewide ecosystem of PD opportunities. Partnership-based CS PD models have been shown to build implementation capacity and provide ongoing instructional support for teachers by combining curriculum, sustained PD, and multi-stakeholder infrastructure (Goode et al., 2014; Mouza et al., 2016). Research on the Exploring Computer Science model demonstrated how sustained, collaborative PD supports teachers beyond “one-shot” training as programs scale (Goode et al., 2014). Additionally, research on a university-district partnership model for CS Principles showed that combining workshops with ongoing partner support led to improved teacher learning and classroom implementation (Mouza et al., 2016).

Maryland provides a strong example of how states can enhance professional development through centralized capacity-building. Through HB 281 (2018), Maryland established the MCCE, a statewide hub that delivers free, sustained professional development, curricular resources, and implementation support across PreK–12. By institutionalizing PD rather than relying on short-term grants or voluntary workshops, Maryland reduces dependence on local capacity and improves the likelihood that elementary CS instruction is both consistent and equitable.

Implications for policies and practices 2: strengthening curriculum and integration

Our analysis found that while 42 states have adopted K–12 CS/CT standards (including early grades), many of these states do not yet define discrete, standalone K–5 standards, and several lack any explicit CS/CT standards at the elementary level. If standards are integrated into other subjects (e.g., Pennsylvania), the CS/CT concepts must be explicitly labeled and defined to ensure they are taught with intention and are not lost in the broader curriculum (K-12 Computer Science Standards Comparison Report, 2024).

States should fund and support the creation of resource repositories and lesson-sharing networks, similar to Maryland’s ECSNet Lesson Repository. These resources should provide models for authentically integrating CS/CT into core elementary subjects while making the computational concepts clear and explicit. The curriculum should be culturally responsive (e.g., Davis et al., 2021) and offer opportunities for creative choice and personalization to maximize student engagement. Research showed that shared curricular resources and teacher-facing repositories can support instructional coherence, improve implementation quality, and reduce barriers for teachers who are new to CS (Ni et al., 2023). When coupled with professional learning communities, these resource networks also function as ongoing supports that help teachers adapt lessons to local contexts while maintaining fidelity to core CS concepts (Ni et al., 2023).

Mississippi illustrates how states can strengthen curriculum and integration by specifying elementary expectations directly in statute. The Computer Science and Cyber Education Equality Act (HB 633, 2021) requires a comprehensive K–12 CS curriculum with minimum components at each grade level and mandates at least 1 h of exploratory CS instruction per week in elementary schools. By clarifying instructional time and grade-band content, Mississippi reduces ambiguity that often undermines elementary CS implementation.

Equity and broadening participation

The various policy approaches have direct implications for equity, as a state’s legislative framework can either mitigate or exacerbate existing disparities in student access and opportunity. Although many states express an intent to provide universal access to CS, the absence of elementary-specific implementation structures means that access is uneven in practice and closely tied to local capacity rather than statewide equity goals. Twenty states passed K–12 CS mandates that explicitly include elementary grades, but the provisions for elementary instruction were often stated less explicitly than those for secondary education. This could result in increased Access without a corresponding commitment to building Capacity, securing Participation, or ensuring high-quality Experience for young learners. Yet, as emphasized in the CAPE framework (McGill et al., 2023), all these four components should be systemically considered and addressed in the landscape of elementary CS education to ensure the true equitable CS education.

Early exposure as a proactive strategy for broadening participation

CS education research underscored that early access is imperative for equitable CS (e.g., Master et al., 2017, 2021). Students’ early perceptions are linked to later participation gaps across the CS pipeline. Thus, reaching students with engaging, identity-affirming CS experiences before middle school serves as a proactive strategy for broadening participation among historically underrepresented student populations (Master et al., 2017, 2021; Richard and Kayumova, 2022).

Our legislative analysis showed that universal K–12 mandates that explicitly include elementary grades is an effective way to establish a baseline of early CS exposure. For instance, Mississippi’s HB 633 prescribes minimum instructional time, at least 1 h of exploratory CS per week in elementary grades, reducing ambiguity about frequency and duration of instruction and creating an equity of early exposure by ensuring that all students are exposed to CS, especially during the critical years when interests and identities are forming. Furthermore, how teachers establish the CS classroom environment is a critical factor in broadening student participation (Karlin et al., 2024). Implementing non-stereotypical cues and inclusive pedagogical practices are essential to promote a sense of belonging necessary for attracting and retaining underrepresented students (Cheryan et al., 2015). State mandates have increased access to elementary CS, but access alone has not translated into equitable participation. Across states, girls, students of color, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and students from low-income communities remain underrepresented, even where CS opportunities are available (Margolis et al., 2017a). To minimize the gap, several strategies can help shape and increase student participation patterns including tracking data and providing funding toward targeted student groups, reinforcing administrator priorities, building capacity of prepared teachers, and providing equity-focused PD (Goode et al., 2020; Margolis et al., 2017b). Especially at the elementary level, students are more likely to enroll, participate, and receive positive learning experience when exposed to CS through culturally responsive and identity-affirming pedagogies that position them as capable creators and problem-solvers (Madkins et al., 2020).

Implications for early exposure in elementary CS education

By making CS required at the elementary levels rather than optional, policies have established participation baselines not contingent on local resources or priorities. However, mandates proved insufficient without capacity-building support. Policy instruments must be paired with teacher PD, instructional materials, and leadership development to translate intent into equitable practice (Honig, 2006; Mak et al., 2025). States should explicitly specify expectations and targeted groups (e.g., Mississippi’s HB 633 prescribes minimum grade-level curriculum components and requiring teacher training at all levels).

Our analysis results also showed that the equity impact of early exposure policies depends heavily on how they are resourced and implemented. Targeted funding functioned as a key mechanism for aligning universal access goals with equitable outcomes. Maryland’s HB 281 provides a strong equity-focused example, directing new state funding toward districts with high poverty, large rural populations, and racially diverse student bodies, and historically underserved communities. This funding design may strategically close systemic gaps, ensuring that students who are least likely to have access to and participate in CS can benefit from early CS exposure. By contrast, competitive grant structures like Pennsylvania’s PAsmart initiative may advantage districts with greater capacity and infrastructure. When designing funding structures, we recommend incorporating a dual approach (e.g., Indiana SEA 172, Alabama HB 216) that allows broad coverage with additional incentives as needed to support early exposure for equitable CS education.

Improving accountability and tracking for equity

Our analysis results revealed that mandates alone do not guarantee equitable implementation, particularly at the elementary level where capacity and accountability infrastructures are comparatively weak. In the stakeholder survey, 89% of respondents reported that their states lacked an accountability system (e.g., standardized testing, mandated reporting) to ensure elementary students’ CS participation and experience. In many cases, CS was not as prioritized as other tested subjects (e.g., reading, math), especially in under-resourced schools where instructional time is usually constrained and limited PD is provided for teachers (Code.org et al., 2024). These CS implementation challenges indicate that universal mandates may raise the floor of access without systematic infrastructure to fully reach all students, including those underserved and underrepresented.

States must develop accountability mechanisms appropriate to elementary contexts, where CS is frequently integrated into other core curriculum rather than offered as standalone courses (Weintrop et al., 2016; Shute et al., 2017). However, tracking integrated implementation is challenging. Only two of nine responding states reported using SCED codes to track elementary CS, and most indicated absence of any accountability system. Without robust data infrastructure, implementation remains invisible, making it difficult to identify disparities or measure progress. Indiana’s approach, embedding CS concepts within ILEARN science assessments at grades 4 and 6, demonstrates how accountability mechanisms can elevate elementary CS transparency to levels comparable with secondary offerings, though such models remain rare.

Beyond data tracking, equity accountability requires transparency mechanisms that make participation patterns visible for continuous improvement. Twenty-one states included reporting requirements, though specificity and frequency varied. States with the strongest equity of accountability coupled reporting mandates with disaggregated data requirements. For example, Washington’s HB 1577 (2019) provides the most comprehensive model in the dataset, requiring annual K–12 CS data publication disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, English learner status, free/reduced-price lunch eligibility, and grade level, plus teacher workforce data disaggregated by certification, gender, and degree. Similarly, Indiana’s HEA 1243 (2024) mandates annual reporting with extensive demographic disaggregation and embeds CS into elementary Science assessments to mirror secondary-level transparency. Maryland’s HB 281 (2018) further institutionalizes accountability by requiring MCCE to track and report enrollment increases for underrepresented groups in an annual progress report. While these states track a wide range of data, for most other states, demographics fields such as socioeconomic status, disability status, and multilingual learner status are frequently absent from elementary reporting mandates. Having transparency in data system creates conditions for evidence-based policy adjustment and public accountability (Code.org et al., 2024).

Implications for strengthening accountability in equitable elementary CS education

States must invest in data infrastructure to track progress and monitor equity across all four dimensions (i.e., Capacity for, Access to, Participate in, and Experience of CS education) of the CAPE framework (McGill et al., 2023). This requires moving beyond Access metrics (e.g., whether a school offers CS instruction) to capture nuances of participation opportunities and student experience quality. Data on student participation must be disaggregated by demographics to identify and address equity gaps. For elementary grades specifically, states may need to develop novel metrics appropriate to integrated instructional models, potentially including teacher self-report surveys, integration audits within core subject assessments, or portfolio-based documentation of student learning (Code.org et al., 2024). Importantly, data infrastructure must be designed not merely to document gaps but to drive continuous improvement through iterative cycles of data collection, analysis, and policy and practice refinement.

Implications for enhancing transparency and equity-oriented data practices

Beyond internal state data systems, public-facing dashboards can not only enhance data transparency for stakeholders (e.g., educators, policymakers, researchers) but also create accountability for districts to address identified disparities. California’s CSforCA dashboard, Georgia’s Insights platform, and Texas’s EPIC CS Data Dashboard exemplify models that make CS participation patterns visible at state, district, and school levels. Effective dashboards should highlight gaps between student group participation rates and their representation in the overall population and track longitudinal trends. These indicators can help assess whether equity gaps are narrowing over time. In elementary contexts, where standardized CS assessments are rare, dashboards should initially focus on opportunity indicators such as which schools/districts provide CS instruction, teacher PD opportunities, and curriculum adoption patterns. Critically, dashboards must make visible not only aggregate participation, but also the distribution of access and quality across demographic groups and community contexts (Code.org et al., 2024). This visibility can reinforce advocacy, inform resource allocation, and support continuous improvement as stakeholders identify and address persistent disparities in elementary CS education.

Conclusion

The methodology employed a structured and detailed approach to gather comprehensive information on elementary CS legislation. By using targeted prompts, the research ensured that all relevant aspects of CS education policies were covered, providing a robust foundation for comparing the legislative efforts among the 30 states partnered with ECEP. This systematic approach facilitated a thorough understanding of the current landscape of CS education and its implementation across various states.

Getting more people from different backgrounds into CS is a long-term goal, and this study shows that we must start in elementary school. Teaching CS early is not just an option; it’s the most important time to make it a basic skill for all students. This is when we can get children interested and feeling like they belong before they decide that CS is not for them. Giving every elementary student a great and fair chance to learn CS is the best way to break down barriers and create a path for everyone into the field.

This study looked at the laws and policies in 30 states and found that while there is a strong push to make K–12 CS official, states are doing it in very different ways. For example, Indiana requires it and tests students on it. Maryland created a center to support schools and teachers. Pennsylvania is mixing it into its science standards. These different approaches show that states have different ideas about how to get this done. Our research also makes it clear that ongoing, high-quality teacher training and good systems for checking progress are essential, but often missing. By comparing these different state plans, this paper gives leaders a way to see what is working and what is not in elementary CS education.

This study showed what states are doing now, but it also pointed to what needs to be studied next. The long-term effects of these different CS policies are unexplored. There is a pressing need for longitudinal research to track student cohorts, determining how early exposure to CS influences long-term confidence and persistence in the field. Beyond legislative analysis, investigation into actual classroom practices is essential to bridge the gap between policy and implementation. Comparative studies across states with varying policy frameworks, such as mandatory versus support-focused models, would provide valuable insights into systemic efficacy. Furthermore, research must prioritize scalable PD models, culturally responsive pedagogy, and the creation of equitable assessment tools for elementary learners. While significant gaps remain, a deeper understanding of the intersection between policy, pedagogy, and student engagement will refine strategic planning and ensure every student has the opportunity to become a creator of technology.

References

• 1

  AdrionW. R.DuntonS. T.EricsonB.FallR.FletcherC.GuzdialM. (2020). US states must broaden participation while expanding access to computer science education. Communications of the ACM, 63, 22–25. doi: 10.1145/3430375

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  BeanN. H.WeeseJ. L.FeldhausenR.AllenD. S.FriendM. (2025). “Building the cyber pipeline: providing CS education for rural K-12 schools,” in Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Association for Computing Machinery. vol. 1 (102–108). doi: 10.1145/3641554.3701840

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BersM. U. (2010). The tangiblek robotics program: applied computational thinking for young children. Early Child. Res. Pract.12:n2.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BersM. U.GovindM.RelkinE. (2022). “Coding as another language: computational thinking, robotics and literacy in first and second grade,” in Computational Thinking in PreK-5: Empirical Evidence for Integration and Future Directions, (New York.: Association for Computing Machinery) (30–38). doi: 10.1145/3507951.3519285

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BianL.LeslieS.-J.CimpianA. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science355, 389–391. doi: 10.1126/science.aah6524,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BliksteinP.MoghadamS. H. (2019). “Computing education,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 56–78.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BowenG. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J.9, 27–40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012). “New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking,” in Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada: American Educational Research Association (AERA).

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  CardnoC. (2018). Policy document analysis: a practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educ. Adm. Theory Pract.24, 623–640.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ChenC.RothwellJ.Maynard-ZhangP. (2024). In-school and/or out-of-school computer science learning influence on CS career interests, mediated by having role models. Comput. Sci. Educ.34, 753–777. doi: 10.1080/08993408.2023.2290435

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  CheryanS.MasterA.MeltzoffA. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Front. Psychol.6:49. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ChildsJ.ZarchR.DuntonS.MadkinsT. C.TrautmannK.TaylorZ. W.et al. (2024). Advancing Equity and Access: Addressing the Side Effects of Broadening Participation in Computer Science K–12 Education. Review of Research in Education, 48, 121–153. doi: 10.3102/0091732X241286475

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Code.org, Computer Science Teachers Association, & Expanding Computing Education Pathways Alliance. (2022). State of computer science education 2022: understanding our national imperative. Available online at: https://advocacy.code.org (Accessed November 10, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Code.org, Computer Science Teachers Association, & Expanding Computing Education Pathways Alliance. (2024). State of computer science education: 2024. Available online at: https://advocacy.code.org (Accessed November 10, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA). (2017). K–12 computer science standards (revised 2017). Available online at: https://csteachers.org (Accessed November 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA). (2024). CSTA K–12 computer science standards. Available online at: https://www.csteachers.org/page/standards

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DavisK.WhiteS. V.DinahB. C.ScottA. (2021). Culturally responsive-sustaining computer science education: a framework. Tech. Rep. Available online at: https://www.kaporcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/KC21004_ECS-Framework-Report_final.pdf (Accessed December 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DelyserL. A.GoodeJ.GuzdialM.KafaiY.YadavA. (2018). Priming the computer science teacher pump: integrating computer science education into schools of education. CSforALL. Available online at: https://www.csfored.org/report2018 (Accessed December 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  El-HamamsyL.BrunoB.AudrinC.ChevalierM.AvryS.ZuffereyJ. D.et al. (2023). How are primary school computer science curricular reforms contributing to equity? Impact on student learning, perception of the discipline, and gender gaps. Int. J. STEM Educ.10:60. doi: 10.1186/s40594-023-00438-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  FletcherC. L.WarnerJ. R. (2021). CAPE: A framework for assessing equity throughout the computer science education ecosystem. Communications of the ACM, 64, 23–25. doi: 10.1145/3442373

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GarciaL. Y.ParkerM. C.Ojeda-RamirezS.WarschauerM. (2023). “Confidence is the key: unlocking predictive factors of Latinx elementary students on a computational thinking measure,” in Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, (Toronto, Canada: Association for Computing Machinery), vol. 1 (326–332). doi: 10.1145/3545945.3569856

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  GoodeJ.MargolisJ.ChapmanG. (2014). “Curriculum is not enough: the educational theory and research foundation of the exploring computer science professional development model,” in Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14), (Atlanta, Georgia: Association for Computing Machinery), 493–498. doi: 10.1145/2538862.2538948

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GoodeJ.SkorodinskyM.HubbardJ.HookJ. (2020). Computer science for equity: teacher education, agency, and statewide reform. Front. Educ.4:162. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00162

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  GroverS.PeaR. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educ. Res.42, 38–43. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12463051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HonigM. I. (2006). “Complexity and policy implementation: challenges and opportunities for the field,” in New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity, ed. HonigM. I. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), 1–23.

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  IsraelM.LiuR.YanW.SherwoodH.MartinW.FancsaliC.et al. (2022). “Understanding barriers to school-wide computational thinking integration at the elementary grades: lessons from three schools,” in Computational Thinking in PreK-5: Empirical Evidence for Integration and Future Directions, (New York: Association for Computing Machinery) (64–71). doi: 10.1145/3507951.3519289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  JacobS.GillenB.Ojeda-RamirezS.BaekC.BarreraC.FranklinD.et al. (2024). “Intersectional factors that influence K-2 students' computer science learning,” in Proceedings of the 2024 on RESPECT Annual Conference, Atlanta. (New York: Association for Computing Machinery) (21–29). doi: 10.1145/3653666.3656091

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  JacobS.MontoyaJ.WarschauerM. (2022). Exploring the intersectional development of computer science identities in young Latinas. Teach. Coll. Rec.124, 166–185. doi: 10.1177/01614681221103932

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  K-12 Computer Science Standards Comparison Report. (2024). Standards comparison for U.S. K-12 computer science education. Reimagining computer science. Available online at: https://reimaginingcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Standards-Comparison.pdf (Accessed December 1, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  KafaiY. B.ProctorC. (2022). A revaluation of computational thinking in K–12 education: moving toward computational literacies. Educ. Res.51, 146–151. doi: 10.3102/0013189X211057904

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  KafaiY. B.ProctorC.LuiD. A. (2019). “Framing computational thinking for computational literacies in K-12 education,” in Weizenbaum Conference, (Berlin, Germany: DEU), 1–6. doi: 10.34669/wi.cp/2.21

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  KarlinM.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA.LiaoY. C. J. (2024). Teacher and Student Experiences in a Gender-Inclusive Secondary Computer Science Program. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools6:n3. doi: 10.21585/ijcses.v6i3.191,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  LevinB. (2008). How to Change 5000 Schools: A Practical and Positive Approach for Leading Change at Every Level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  LiaoY. C.KimJ.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T.KarlinM.GuoM. (2025). Voices of elementary computer science teachers: Computer science integration rationales and practices. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 24, 1–26. doi: 10.1145/3688854

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  MadkinsT. C.HowardN. R.FreedN. (2020). Engaging equity pedagogies in computer science learning environments. J. Comput. Sci. Integr.3:1. doi: 10.26716/jcsi.2020.03.2.1,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  MakJ. (2024). Navigating systemic access to computer science learning: real advances to broaden participation in K-12 computing will come when state boards take a 360-degree view. State Educ. Stand.24. Available online at: https://www.nasbe.org/navigating-systemic-access-to-computer-science-learning/

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  MakJ.CapurroC. T.CastellanaM.GarvinM. (2025). A landscape study: Computer science (CS) education state supervisors and their role in developing equitable CS pathways. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 33, 109–145. doi: 10.70725/578128olxpti

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  MargolisJ.EstrellaR.GoodeJ.HolmeJ. J.NaoK. (2017a). Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Updated Edn. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  MargolisJ.RyooJ.GoodeJ. (2017b). Seeing myself through someone else's eyes: the value of in-classroom coaching for computer science teaching and learning. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE)17, 1–18. doi: 10.1145/2967616

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  MasonS. L.RichP. J. (2019). Preparing elementary school teachers to teach computing, coding, and computational thinking. Contemp. Iss. Technol. Teach. Educ.19, 790–824.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  MasterA.CheryanS.MeltzoffA. N. (2021). Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118:e2100030118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2100030118,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  MasterA.CheryanS.MoscatelliA.MeltzoffA. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. J. Exp. Child Psychol.160, 92–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  McGillM. M.ThompsonA.GransburyI.HeckmanS.RosatoJ.DelyserL. A. (2023). “Building upon the cape framework for broader understanding of capacity in k-12 cs education,” in Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, (New York: Association for Computing Machinery) vol. 1 (577–582). doi: 10.1145/3545945.3569799

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MouzaC.CoddingD.PollockL. (2022). Investigating the impact of research-based professional development on teacher learning and classroom practice: findings from computer science education. Comput. Educ.186:104530. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104530

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MouzaC.PollockL. L.PuseckerK. L.GuidryK. R.YehC.-Y.AtlasJ.et al. (2016). “Implementation and outcomes of a three-pronged approach to professional development for CS principles,” in Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16), (Memphis, Tennessee: Association for Computing Machinery), 66–71. doi: 10.1145/2839509.2844585

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MouzaC.YadavA.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. (2021). Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Teach Computer Science: Models, Practices, and Policies. Charlotte, North Carolina: IAP.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  NiL.BauschG.BenjaminR. (2023). Computer science teacher professional development and professional learning communities: a review of the research literature. Comput. Sci. Educ.33, 29–60. doi: 10.1080/08993408.2021.1993666

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. T.DuntonS.FletcherC.ChildsJ.JeonM.BiggersM.et al. (2022). How to change a state: Broadening participation in K-12 computer science education. Policy Futures in Education, 14782103221123363. doi: 10.1177/14782103221123363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  OzogulG.KarlinM.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. (2018). Preservice teacher computer science preparation: A case study of an undergraduate computer education licensure program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26, 375–409.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ProttsmanK. (2014). Computer science for the elementary classroom. ACM Inroads5, 60–63. doi: 10.1145/2684721.2684735

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  RichP. J.JonesB.BelikovO.YoshikawaE.PerkinsM. (2017). Computing and engineering in elementary school: the effect of year-long training on elementary teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about teaching computing and engineering. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Educ. Schools1, 1–20. doi: 10.21585/ijcses.v1i1.6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  RichardE.KayumovaS. (2022). Examining early elementary computer science identity repertoires within a curriculum: implications for epistemologically pluralistic identities. J. Comput. Sci. Integr.5:2. doi: 10.26716/jcsi.2022.12.30.36

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Román-GonzálezM.Moreno-LeónJ.RoblesG. (2017). “Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment,” in Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (CTE 2017), (Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong), 154–159.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  SaldañaJ. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  SantoR.DeLyserL. A.AhnJ. (2020). Negotiating equity priorities within systems change: a case study of a district-level initiative to implement K12 computer science education. Comput. Sci. Eng.22, 7–19. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2020.3008434

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SchreierM. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London, UK: SAGE.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  SentanceS.CsizmadiaA. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol.22, 469–495. doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  ShuteV. J.SunC.Asbell-ClarkeJ. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educ. Res. Rev.22, 142–158. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  SullivanA.BersM. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ.26, 3–20. doi: 10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  TangX.YinY.LinQ.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: a systematic review of empirical studies. Comput. Educ.148:103798. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  TeachAI and CSTA. (2025). Guidance on the future of computer science education in an age of AI. Available online at: teachai.org/cs (Accessed January 10, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  ThigpenL.McGillM. (2024). “Intrinsic barriers to supporting the integration of computer science into elementary school subject areas,” in International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence, (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 12–28.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  WeintropD.BeheshtiE.HornM.OrtonK.JonaK.TrouilleL.et al. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.25, 127–147. doi: 10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  WingJ. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Commun. ACM49, 33–35. doi: 10.1145/1118178.1118215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  YadavA.MayfieldC.ZhouN.HambruschS.KorbJ. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ.14, 1–16. doi: 10.1145/2576872

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  ZarchR.DuntonS.ChildsJ.LeftwichA. (2020, March). Through the looking glass: Computer science education and the unintended consequences of broadening participation policy efforts. In 2020 research on equity and sustained participation in engineering, computing, and technology (RESPECT) (Vol. 1, pp. 1–4). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/RESPECT49803.2020.9272480

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar