“Yes, those primitives back in the 20th Century were fiddling around with these gadgets called ‘computers’, but really what they were doing was starting to learn how to formalize intuitions about process.” (Hal Abelson in the recorded SICP intoductory lecture)
As much immediate economic value as there may be in cultivating a generation of people capable of instructing computers to do their bidding (and, perhaps, having some idea of how to recognise and exploit the opportunities to do so), it’s far more likely that greater and longer-lasting benefit will come from some more generalized understanding of the development and direction of process. That’s what “computer science” (for want of a better term) can teach. Process is only incidental to “coding”. Or, I suppose it would be better to say that “coding” is a mere notation for process. Concentrating on the notation is missing the point, really, rather like trying to teach creative writing by actually teaching word processing.