By Chris Deng
Throughout human history, education has played an integral role in people’s development.
Its significance to society is “constantly adjusted to changing political, social, economic and global contexts” (Blackley and Howell 102). In the context of American society, the definition of education has undergone several changes since the colonial period. The most recent transformation occurs following the Progressive Education Movement in the 20th century when a combination of political and socioeconomic factors gives rise to the modern STEM-centered curricula. As the world becomes increasingly advanced and globalized, the desire “to remain viable and competitive in a
growing global economy” continues to grow in the United States, thereby raising emphasis placed on STEM (Jolly 50). This trend is also reflected by the rising investments in federal STEM
programs, such as National Defense Education Act (50-51). Overall, the government expects the US to be “the global leader in STEM literacy, innovation, and employment” through these extensive
STEM programs (Adams et al 35). Thus, in contrast to the traditional idea that education should serve to empower the younger generation with knowledge and skills, in a contemporary sense it is redefined as a political tool for developing national competitiveness in STEM, and it should continue for its positive sociopolitical implications on the country.
Historically, the implementation of STEM education is a byproduct of the Progressive
Education Movement and the national STEM crisis in the 20th century. Prior to the Progressive
Education Movement, early colonial education is dominated by the teachings of patriarchal families, communities, and the church (Vinovskis 20). Nevertheless, this family- and church-centered
education slowly weakens within few decades of the colonization period, as a disturbance in unfamiliar soil alters the character of the traditional English family. Meanwhile, as a result of increased geographic mobility, the perception of communities also declines, ultimately leading to an increasing number of formal educational institutions in the New World (21-22). As the concept of formal schooling arises, the system of transmitting established cultural norms and heritages is consequently formalized, developing the early conception of American education. This banking concept of American education, however, encounters challenges during the early 20th century, when John Dewey, a philosopher, educator, and social reformer, proposed the idea of an experience-based progressive education. Dewey’s argument for an educational reform gives rise to the growth of the modern education concept, where students are encouraged to learn progressively through dynamic experience rather than static knowledge. In the same breath, Soviet Union’s technological advancements spark the modern STEM crisis in the US, as the government “[fears] that the Soviet Union was annually producing almost twice as many more scientists and engineers than the United States” (Stevenson 135). This national crisis of STEM-worker shortage is further fueled by the Natural Sciences Narrative of the 1980s, when the National Science Foundation (NSF) projects a considerable shortfall of STEM employees (136). In addition, the failure of many American secondary schools to reach proficiency in math and science concerns the government because the current performance of US students is clearly inconsistent with the nation’s role as a leader in scientific innovation (Kuenzi 1). Hence, the underperformance of US pupils, the projected shortage of STEM workers, and the increasingly competitive politics context altogether contribute to the need for a STEM education reform in the US.
In response to this situation, the US government has implemented numerous different legislative policies that aim to improve STEM education, hoping that extensive STEM programs would improve domestic STEM employment and innovation. At a national scale, for example, the
National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was introduced in 1958 in order to strengthen American education by funding academically proficient students, “particularly [those] in STEM areas” (Jolly 51). Furthermore, at a state level, research conducted by the Education Commission of the States
demonstrates that many states have worked toward improving STEM education through statewide
policies such as “raising graduation requirements in mathematics and science” and “[implementing]
pre-engineering curricula in high schools” (Zinth 1). These legislative efforts toward strengthening
STEM education illustrates the government’s initiative in making the US the leading figure in STEM.
They also significantly influence the public’s perception of a good education. According to a survey by Educational Testing Service (ETS), 72% of Americans now believe that it is important for students to take the most advanced math and science classes they are eligible for, and 40% of the general public regard STEM skills as the most important skills for America in the context of a global economy (“Keeping Our Edge: Americans Speak on Education and Competitiveness”). Thus,
American education in a contemporary sense is redefined as one emphasizing STEM subjects over others, and it serves to prepare students with the skills necessary to compete against other nations.
From a political standpoint, therefore, it can be inferred that the continuation of STEM-focused
curricula are essential and beneficial for the development of the US in a technologically advanced and globalized society.
On the other hand, the current legislative policies still fail to include all ethnic and gender groups in STEM education, resulting in sociopolitical inequality across different groups of people. According to a recent report by ACT, a nonprofit organization that administers a
standardized test for college admissions, there is an apparent democratic and geographic inequality in today’s STEM education, with racial minorities, girls, and students in less developed regions being underserved. These underserved students are 16 times less likely to be ready for STEM coursework in college compared to other students (“STEM Education in the U.S.”). As a matter of fact, Wade Henderson, president of The Leadership Conference On Civil and Human Rights, points out that there is currently a lack of diversity at famous technology companies like Google, with the aforementioned underserved groups being underrepresented. Statistics from the College Board and the Education Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection also show that many minority groups do not participate in AP STEM classes; in fact, in 2013, no African-American students took AP Computer Science exam in 11 different states and no Latino students did so in 7 states (“STEM Education is a Civil-Rights Issue”). These reports suggest that even though STEM education has benefitted the country’s development overall, inequality in access to STEM considerably reduces its effectiveness in achieving the government’s goal to make the US a global leader in science. Therefore, in order for today’s STEM education to succeed, further political actions are still needed to address the lack of diversity in STEM coursework.
In conclusion, the rising STEM education in the US is largely driven by the federal government and aims to make the US leader in scientific innovation and employment. It redefines the concept of education as a political tool for strengthening competitiveness in the global economy. Although further legislative policies are needed to address the current inequality in access to STEM education, a growing emphasis on STEM has effectively contributed to the increase in the number of STEM occupations and technological advancements, making the US an increasingly important participant in STEM areas. Given the positive sociopolitical implications, it is recommended that the US government continues investing more resources in STEM education programs. In order to
maximize the policies’ effectiveness, the government should also provide subsidies and establish a
loan forgiveness program to STEM teachers to improve the quality of teaching.
Works Cited:
Adams, Bernadette, et al. “Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education.” Committee on STEM Education of the National Science & Technology Council. December 2018. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education- Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf.
Blackley, Susan, and Howell, Jennifer. “A STEM Narrative: 15 Years in the Making.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2015. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1069533.pdf.
Dewey, John. Experience and Education. 1938.
Gonzalez, Heather, and Keens, Jeffrey. “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Primer.” Congressional Research Service. November 15, 2012. www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/STEM-Education-Primer.pdf.
Hart, Peter. “Keeping Our Edge: Americans Speak on Education and Competitiveness.” ETS. June 21, 2006. www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/HW_KeepingOurEdge2006.pdf.x
Henderson, Wade. “STEM Education is a Civil-Rights Issue.” The Atlantic. June 10, 2014. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/stem-education-is-a-civil-rights-issue/ 431013/.
Jolly, Jennifer. “The National Defense Education Act, Current STEM Initiative, and the Gifted." Historical Perspectives. Vol 32, no 2, 2009. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ835843.pdf.
Kuenzi, Jeffery. “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action.” Congressional Research Service. March 21, 2008. fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf.
“STEM EDUCATION IN THE U.S.: Where We Are and What We Can Do.” ACT. 2017. www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/STEM/2017/STEM-Education-in- the-US-2017.pdf.
Stevenson, Heidi. “Myths and Motives behind STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Education and the STEM-Worker Shortage Narrative.” 2014, vol. 23, no. 1. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1045838.pdf.
Vinovskis, Maris. “Family and Schooling in Colonial and Nineteenth-Century America.” Journal of Family History. deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/67421/10.1177_03631990 8701200102.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.
Zinth, Kyle. “Recent State STEM Initiatives.” Education Commission of the States. March 2007. www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/70/72/7072.pdf.