This Is Why Kids Should Learn How To Code

At 14, I landed my first summer job teaching coding to kids.

I hopped on the bus for the half-hour ride to my school, where I taught elementary school children how to write very simple programs using Logo, a computer language developed to teach kids basic programming concepts. (Logo is the predecessor to Scratch, a language used widely today by schools to introduce students to coding.)

While I took several computer science courses in high school and one more in college, my attention quickly shifted to Asian languages, history and politics, and eventually to business. I didn’t major in computer science and I never became a coder.

I’m a communications and marketing guy. I do publishing, PR, and digital marketing. But while I may not be a coder, the work I do has been impacted significantly by the code that quietly runs the applications I rely on each day.

The software technologies deployed today are far more advanced than what I learned as a student three decades ago. But the grounding in coding that I gained back then has given me a level of understanding of technology and comfort using it that I may not otherwise have.

Which brings me to the ongoing debate around teaching kids to code. I’ve read the arguments for and against. And here’s where I stand on the issue:

1. Kids should learn to code.
2. They should start early, if possible.
3. They should develop their skills as far as they can while they are at school.

Why kids should learn to code

A number of reasons have been put forth for why kids should learn to code. Here’s my take:

Coding helps develop logical thinking and problem-solving skills. Coding teaches how to break complex problems into smaller chunks and solve them, and then integrate them back into a unified solution: the application. It goes without saying that this is a highly transferable skill. Every job in every industry needs better problem-solvers.

Coding requires understanding what users want and crafting solutions to their needs. Again, a skill that is in demand in just about any industry one can think of.

Coding requires working in teams. While there will always be a need for solo coders, complex coding projects require working in teams, sometimes very large ones. Transferable skill? Check.

Learning to code opens the door to job opportunities. Hadi Partovi, co-founder of Code.org, estimates that 1.4 million programming jobs will be needed over the next decade while current projections are for only 400,000 graduates in the field.

A study by Payscale.com ranks computer science as the “third most valuable college major”, with median starting pay of $53,000.

Learning to code gives non-coders confidence with technology. The fact is, most students won’t go on to become professional coders. But whatever occupation they pursue, learning the basics of coding can give them a sense of confidence with technology. MIT Professor Seymour Papert, known as the “father of educational computing” and one of the developers of Logo, once said,

children should be programming the computer rather than being programmed by it.

Google Wants Kids to Search the Darndest Things

Kids say the darndest things — and what they do say may make Google's search engine something of a mind reader.

Search engines already finish your sentences. Start typing "president" into Google or Bing or Yahoo and you're immediately presented choices you may have been thinking of. But, as you see from the examples below, the choices vary widely:

They also assume some pretty non-obvious things, like I am interested in politics, or in a particular president — or, as in the case of Bing, that I am a Turkish national?

Also, that I am probably an adult.

What if Google knew more about me before I touched a key?

A newly-revealed initiative by Google may be an important building block for an enhanced search engine that could further zero in on what I really want to know. In a lengthy interview with USA Today, Google VP of Engineering Pavni Diwanji talks about a "Google for Kids" initiative that would tailor some products for the under-13 set.

While she talks about protecting and serving kids (and their parents) it's not hard to connect some dots. This is a powerful way to achieve something it failed to do with Google+ — learn who its users are.

Diwanji recounts a story involving her own daughter, who pointed out the biggest flaw in the world's most-used search engine. It happened when she Googled 'trains.' "She came to me and said, 'Mommy, you should tell Google about Thomas the Tank Engine, because Google obviously doesn't know about him.'"

The secret to robust search is context, but greatness in search is requiring the searcher to provide as little ad hoc context as possible. It's a good first guess that you might be searching for something others are — hence those predictive type ahead suggestions.

But with more implied context, search can serve up better results. And nobody wants to craft Boolean sentences to refine the yield. We all want to live by the motto: "Do what I mean — not what I say."

Children are a great focus group. Kids searching the darndest things could inform other customizations that will yield results based on the data about me and only me: that I am a fireman, don't eat meat, or own a classic car. Relevant things that I wouldn't even think to mention in any given search session.

Backchannel Editor in Chief Steven Levy, author of "Inside the Plex," sees this as a natural fit. "What Google seems to want to do for children is very much in the spirit of what it wants to do for all of us — show us personalized results," he wrote in reply to an email.

Sure, there are privacy concerns (which Diwanji acknowledges), especially when it comes to targeting children. Google's entire business model is about looking over our shoulders to profile us for marketers, which is why special care and special laws are required when children are involved.

But I think this is a right-headed effort that doesn't exploit children. It leverages their unique thought processes to come up with answers for questions we wouldn't know to ask without them. The array of Google products tailored for children (not clear yet what they will all be) will be controlled by a parental dashboard, not by little Billy and Mary.

Is this right-track / wrong track? Will — should — the other search engines do something similar?