OP comes from a perspective that the goal is for as many students as possible to succeed.
I don't believe in this in the context of high-school (where education is sort of mandatory). From what I've seen, in order to make content more engaging, correctness and coherence are the first to fly out of the window.
I'm not against teaching to program, but I'm against calling that "an introduction to CS", because that confuses students: they might think they've been introduced to CS, but they are usually given a practical skill vaguely related to CS + a number of superstitions about CS instead.
I think that CS can be taught as a bridge between language (especially in the sense how language grammar is taught) and geometry (in the way it's taught in high-school, where it's typically Euclidean geometry with emphasis on proofs). And it can be, and perhaps preferably should be taught w/o exposure to "practical" programming languages. Where "practical" programming languages may be an elective class, similar to how some high-schools have vocational training in say, truck driving, or plumbing etc.
If this were the case, those who find CS interesting would have a better idea of what's to come, should they continue on this path in a college, while those who found vocational training in programming more interesting would see themselves as continuing on a path to a trade school. And, eventually, this would help fix the confusion associated with naming and curriculum context. Present day situation is very confusing because industry needs programmers, but colleges know (sort of) how to make computer scientists, and trade schools teach college curriculum, just watered down. Also, college curriculum is littered with junk like "Intro to programming with Python / Java / etc. 101" that should never have existed, but exists because, in reality, those who went to college want to become programmers, not academics.
I don't believe in this in the context of high-school (where education is sort of mandatory). From what I've seen, in order to make content more engaging, correctness and coherence are the first to fly out of the window.
I'm not against teaching to program, but I'm against calling that "an introduction to CS", because that confuses students: they might think they've been introduced to CS, but they are usually given a practical skill vaguely related to CS + a number of superstitions about CS instead.
I think that CS can be taught as a bridge between language (especially in the sense how language grammar is taught) and geometry (in the way it's taught in high-school, where it's typically Euclidean geometry with emphasis on proofs). And it can be, and perhaps preferably should be taught w/o exposure to "practical" programming languages. Where "practical" programming languages may be an elective class, similar to how some high-schools have vocational training in say, truck driving, or plumbing etc.
If this were the case, those who find CS interesting would have a better idea of what's to come, should they continue on this path in a college, while those who found vocational training in programming more interesting would see themselves as continuing on a path to a trade school. And, eventually, this would help fix the confusion associated with naming and curriculum context. Present day situation is very confusing because industry needs programmers, but colleges know (sort of) how to make computer scientists, and trade schools teach college curriculum, just watered down. Also, college curriculum is littered with junk like "Intro to programming with Python / Java / etc. 101" that should never have existed, but exists because, in reality, those who went to college want to become programmers, not academics.