Something I've noticed about CS ed that's different from music ed is that in MuEd, most researchers couch their inquiries in K-12 spaces (and many researchers have been K-12 educators at one point or another). In CSEd, the body of research is really biased toward higher ed.
This makes a lot of sense for historical reasons (K-12 CSEd is a lot younger than HE CSed; K-12 MuEd is a lot more widespread than HE MuEd). There's also an educational philosophy thing here that's also very interesting to me.
MuEd scholars have long acknowledged that K-12 MuEd calls for a different ed. philosophy than HE MuEd. These two ed. contexts have wildly different goals, and so MuEd scholars had a whole movement around the question: "why should we teach music to kids?"
This same question doesn't really apply to HE contexts--why teach music in HE? Because people want to study it so they can do music as a career (at least some of them do). We could have a whole convo about whether or not we are *good* at doing that rn, but that's not the point.
I'm really interested in seeing how the field begins to answer a really important question: "why should we teach CS to kids if most of them won't actually *work* in CS?" And because CS is so entangled with capital, I think the debate will be pretty contentious.
Again--lots of folks are posing answers to this question in a really compelling way. I hope folks' work toward equity-centered CSEd, critical computing education, and many other lines of inquiry start finding themselves at the center of K-12 CSEd.
CSEd hasn't had that philosophical debate yet, at least not at the same level of rigor as other fields like MuEd. People are starting--critical computing in K-12 is part of that process. But most of the field still orients itself around HE paradigms.