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.
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.
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.