The committee introduced its members and reviewed the task of developing the Computer Science curriculum and textbooks for Classes XI and XII. The discussion emphasized beginning with curricular goals and competencies, while keeping computational thinking, abstraction, puzzles, and progression from the existing curriculum in view.

• Use a shared Drive for recordings, source documents, profiles, and committee material.
• Seek a broader NSTC orientation before freezing curricular goals and the syllabus.
• Collect missing contact details and circulate the Drive link separately by email.

The committee reviewed its mandate, acknowledged the compressed timeline, and discussed how much freedom it had to revise existing curricular goals. Members agreed that the work should move in sequence from goals to competencies, syllabus, chapterization, and writing, with room for iteration between stages.

• Collect structured feedback on curricular goals through the shared Google form.
• Map the existing curriculum under broad headings such as systems, networks, databases, programming, data, trends, and ethics.
• Aim to reach chapterization in roughly three weeks and use an in-person meeting for intensive content decisions.

Members discussed the tension between a philosophically ambitious curriculum and what Class XI-XII students can realistically learn within the available hours. A short foundational bridge at the start of Class XI was considered, along with a faster shift from broad goals to concrete textbook content.

• Develop curricular goals and the minimum viable core of the textbook in parallel.
• Prepare a consolidated summary and a pointed agenda for the next meeting.
• Plan an in-person meeting, with online participation available for members who cannot travel.

The committee refined curricular goals and competencies and debated whether visual programming in Snap should precede Python. Members also asked whether the emerging framework over-emphasized AI while giving too little space to databases, complexity, independent problem solving, and computing systems in India.

• Revise the wording and balance of the curricular goals where needed.
• Identify major content areas before the December 19 meeting.
• Form topic-based groups in preparation for the planned end-of-December in-person meeting.

The meeting compared pseudocode, block-based programming, and Python as bridges from algorithmic thinking to executable programs. Snap was valued for reducing syntax and providing immediate visual feedback, while Python benefited from existing teacher experience and wider familiarity.

• Keep the programming-language choice open while evaluating teacher readiness and pedagogical value.
• Use the agreed curricular goals as the structure for members to indicate preferred areas of work.
• Finalize content areas and subgroup participation at the December 23 meeting.

Members continued the programming-language discussion and stressed that students should encounter both clear algorithmic representations and runnable programs. The group agreed that chapterization and sequencing needed more detail before writing groups could work effectively.

• Enter the in-person meeting with a stable set of curricular goals and competencies.
• Use the meeting to draft the syllabus outline, decide chapter order, and then form writing subcommittees.
• Build projects and practical work into the progression rather than treating them as an afterthought.

A first chapter structure and proposed writing-review groups were presented. Members favored introducing problem solving, pseudocode, and executable visual programming together, rather than keeping learners away from the computer through a long theory-only opening.

• Connect early algorithms to later Snap implementations and practical exercises.
• Plan teacher orientation and hand-holding if Snap is adopted.
• Let groups propose agenda items and clarify whether the current large blocks are units, chapters, or chapters with subchapters.

The committee reviewed subgroup responsibilities and the need for a coherent picture of both Class XI and Class XII. To avoid extensive rewrites, each group was asked to agree on a concise chapter outline before investing in full prose.

• Treat the chapter outline as the first checkpoint, followed by syllabus drafting and chapter writing.
• Nominate one point of contact for each subgroup.
• Develop enough of the Class XII structure to validate the progression from Class XI.

Members set a working sequence for draft submission, review, and revision. The Class XI syllabus needed unit-wise topics, learning outcomes, marks, practical work, and suggested resources, while the Class XII outline had to be developed in parallel so students could see the full two-year offering.

• Hold an overall syllabus-draft meeting the following week.
• Target a first chapter draft in mid-March, followed by review and revision.
• Close the Class XII outline by the end of February or early March if possible.

The committee noted that the Class XI textbook rollout had moved to the 2027-28 academic year and worked backward from NCERT's delivery dates. The discussion distinguished the first submitted draft from the later reviewed manuscript.

• March 20: first drafts of all Part I chapters and the complete Class XI syllabus.
• April 20: final draft manuscript of Part I after review.
• May 30: first draft of Part II; use March 10 as the next progress-review meeting.

Writing was under way on the introductory, algorithms and pseudocode, data-centric computing, historical perspective, and Snap material. The chapter drafts were progressing, but the complete Class XI syllabus was not yet in a form ready for submission.

• Derive the full syllabus outline from the chapter work already completed.
• Hold chapter-wise slide presentations on March 17 at 9:00 pm.
• Use that review to prepare for the March 20 submission milestone.

The committee reported that the curriculum had advanced substantially, but textbook implementation had stalled after two key contributors withdrew. Members discussed whether to preserve usable fragments, simplify the plan, or restart the programming portion with new contributors.

• Identify special invitees or replacement contributors with the needed programming and pedagogy expertise.
• Review the existing programming drafts before choosing what can be retained.
• Prepare for the IIT Gandhinagar working meeting and reconvene as a full committee on July 9.

The committee reviewed a chapter-wise Class XI plan spanning computational thinking, puzzles, algorithms, pseudocode and flowcharts, programming, and later applications. The largest unresolved issue remained whether to begin with Python, retain Snap, or compare Snap and Scratch through a small prototype before deciding.

• Keep the already agreed curricular goals and competencies as the foundation for the revised syllabus.
• Prepare a small comparative block-programming example to support the Snap-versus-Scratch decision.
• Use a technical subset meeting followed by a full committee meeting to arrive at a defensible chapter plan before the in-person workshop.