Although the STEM acronym is now widely used, there is little common understanding of what constitute STEM and STEM-related fields or programs of study. In the taxonomy work, defining STEM was a relatively straight-forward task (i.e. Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics); defining STEM-related fields took some additional thought and research.

After looking to see what others had done to define “STEM-related,” we decided to use the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Policy Committee’s recommended definition of STEM occupations (SOC Policy Committee, 2012). The workgroup that created this list of STEM occupations included members of the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and others. For a full list and explanation of the process used, please visit http://www.bls.gov/soc/Attachment_A_STEM.pdf.

The list identifies two major STEM domains, each of which includes two subdomains:

1. Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Information Technology Domain
   1. Life and Physical Science, Engineering, Mathematics, and Information Technology Occupations
   2. Social Science Occupations

1. Science- and Engineering-Related Domain
   1. Architecture Occupations
   2. Health Occupations

Within each of these sub-domains, the Committee identified five types of STEM occupations:

1. Research, Development, Design, or Practitioner Occupations
2. Technologist and Technician Occupations
3. Postsecondary Teaching Occupations
4. Managerial Occupations
5. Sales Occupations.

A grid showing the four sub-domains by each of the five types of occupations, with corresponding SOC occupation groups or SOC occupations in each cell, can be found at http://www.bls.gov/soc/Attachment_B_STEM.pdf. For the full list of detailed SOC occupations identified as STEM under the SOCPC’s recommended definition, visit http://www.bls.gov/soc/Attachment_C_STEM.pdf.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (n.d.) provides crosswalks between the SOC and other classification systems used by Federal and international statistical agencies. Of particular interest here is the crosswalk between the SOC and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP; 2002). This crosswalk, which can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cipcode/resources.aspx?y=55, allows users to see how the SOC’s defined occupations correspond to the NCES’ defined fields of study. The crosswalk shows the alignment of all occupations to fields of study, not just STEM.

In summary, when the School and Program Taxonomies of Additional Component Definitions refer to STEM or STEM-related courses or classes, they are referring to any field of study found on the CIP that corresponds to a STEM domain as defined by the SOCPC. Where the Taxonomies or Definitions refer to STEM or STEM-related careers or fields, we rely on the SOC definition of STEM occupations.

Citations:

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d). Standard occupational classification. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002, “Classification of Instructional Programs: 2000 Edition,” Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002165.pdf

SOC Policy Committee (2012). Attachment A: Options for defining STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) occupations under the 2010 standard occupational classification (SOC) system. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/soc/Attachment_A_STEM.pdf

The components listed on the Taxonomy under “Additional STEM Components” came from a thorough review of literature and resources as well as conversations with STEM school researchers, leaders, and policy makers. At the outset of this work, we sought out a range of sources describing STEM school components, including peer-reviewed articles, other published works, and district-, state-, or network-level rubrics. A list of these resources can be found here. We included any source that specifically identified components of STEM schools. We excluded sources that referred to STEM education in general.

We looked at all of the STEM school components identified in these resources, then grouped similar components that occurred in at least two separate sources and assigned a name to the category of components they represented. Then, we discussed this list of categories with our research advisors, as well as with a number of STEM school leaders and policy makers from around the country. Through those conversations and much iteration, we refined the list originating from the literature, resulting in the components and definitions now seen in the Additional STEM Components portion of the Taxonomy.

In recent years, a new kind of STEM school has emerged; one that is inclusive, that is, that doesn’t take prior academic achievement into account when considering admission. This comes from a growing national, state, and local commitment to serving students who have been historically underrepresented in STEM subjects - in particular minority students (Means, Confrey, House, & Bhanot, 2008).

Outlier Research & Evaluation conducted a study (LaForce, Noble, King, Holt & Century, 2014) that asked inclusive STEM high school leaders to identify the “critical components” — the most essential parts — of their schools. The findings revealed that the leaders rarely mentioned rigorous STEM content as a key element of the school models. Rather, they tended to describe pedagogical and cultural strategies, such as personalization of learning, problem-based learning and a focus on 21st century skills.

Additionally, in conversations with policy-makers, practitioners, and students in inclusive STEM schools Outlier found that “STEM” takes on a variety of meanings. In some cases, the emphasis on pedagogical and cultural strategies in inclusive STEM high schools seemed to lead to a circular logic that reasoned, “These strategies are STEM because that’s what STEM is.” In other cases, STEM had become equated with problem-based learning, 21st century skills, connections to the real world, and personalization of learning. Although there is some research to support the merits of these strategies (Cordova & Lepper, 1996; Han, Capraro,& Capraro, 2014), they are not inherently science, technology, engineering, or mathematics.

The STEM School and Program Taxonomies are grounded in a view that In order to be true to the critical goal of providing opportunities for all learners to participate in and have a potential future inSTEM fields and STEM-related fields, STEM schools and programs must emphasize those fields. They embrace the commitment to realizing equity for all students by putting science, technology, engineering and mathematics (and related fields) front and center. While the pedagogical and cultural strategies of inclusive STEM high schools may be fundamental and key to achieving their goals for students, STEM must be at the core. It is not enough to simply be a good school with reform-based curricula or innovative teaching strategies. To qualify as “STEM,” a program or school must offer “more” STEM and/or STEM – related content than that of other, non-STEM schools.

Thus, under the STEM School Taxonomy, a school or program that emphasizes problem-based learning and focuses heavily on 21st century skills will not “count” as a STEM school unless it also requires all students to engage with more STEM (and related) content through more STEM courses (or experiences at the elementary level), STEM-related courses (or experiences at the elementary level), and/or integration of STEM within all STEM and other core subject areas.

(For more on “more STEM,” see “How is a STEM school different from a comprehensive school with a lot of STEM offerings?”)

References:

Cordova, D.I., & Lepper, M.R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-730.

Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-25.

LaForce, M., Noble, E., King, H., Holt, S., & Century, J. (2014). The 8 Elements of Inclusive STEM High Schools. Chicago, IL: Outlier Research & Evaluation, CEMSE | The University of Chicago. Retrieved from https://d30clwvkkpiyjx.cloudfront.net/S3/Elements_Findings.pdf

Means, B., Confrey, J., House, A., & Bhanot, R. (2008). STEM High Schools. Specialized Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics Secondary Schools in the U.S. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.

Subotnik, R.F., Tai, R.H., Rickoff, R., & Almarode, J. (2010). Specialized public high schools of science, mathematics, and technology and the STEM Pipeline: What do we know now and what will we know in 5 years? Roeper Review, 32 (1), 7-16.

Young, V. M., House, A., Wang, H., Singleton, C., & Klopfenstein, K. (2011). Inclusive STEM schools: Early promise in Texas and unanswered questions. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Context

Outlier Research & Evaluation created the STEM school taxonomy as part of a National Science Foundation effort to operationalize a set of successful STEM education “indicators.” Outlined in a National Research Council report entitled Monitoring Progress Towards Successful K-12 Education: A Nation Advancing? (NRC, 2013), the indicator set included one focused on STEM schools: “Number of, and enrollment in, different types of STEM schools and programs in each district.” Outlier’s charge in addressing this indicator was to develop an approach to identifying and describing STEM schools and programs that would apply across the entire country.

We set about this task by first establishing one of the current assumptions that undergird the Taxonomies: All students across the nation should have high quality STEM education in their schools, and STEM schools offer “MORE” than that. This approach, however, presents a challenge: there is no single definition of “high quality STEM education” in this country.

The STEM school taxonomy illustrates three ways that STEM schools can provide MORE STEM to students (see the STEM school taxonomy). Identifying the “bar” for STEM schools (i.e. the minimum STEM required for STEM schools to be considered above and beyond high quality STEM education for all students) is challenging.

The first way a school can be a STEM school is by offering MORE STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) learning experiences (courses or classes; research experiences; internships and/or mentorships) AND requiring all students to take or participate in them. In other words, this type of STEM school would require all students to have more STEM learning experiences than would be required with a typical high quality STEM education.

The second way a school can be a STEM school is by offering MORE STEM-related learning experiences AND requiring all students to take them. For an explanation of “STEM-related” see the “What are STEM and STEM-related disciplines and fields?” FAQ. As with the STEM learning experiences, these experiences can include courses or classes; research experiences; and/or internships/mentorships. This type of STEM school then, may require all students to participate in classes and research experiences related to agriculture – which is MORE than would be found with a typical high quality elementary STEM education.

The third way a school can be a STEM school is by integrating STEM and STEM-related disciplines throughout the student experience. In this case, STEM would need to be integrated into all required core courses or classes.

Where is the “bar?”

With the approach of saying that STEM schools provide “more,” the question quickly becomes: “more than what?” Over what level of “high quality STEM education” must a STEM school rise? With no clear external standard for “high quality STEM education,” we sought out proxies that would enable us to determine where, more specifically, the “high quality STEM education” “bar” should be. A natural place to begin was high school graduation requirements. However, it wasn’t long before we confirmed that high school graduation requirements are highly varied not only from state to state, but from district to district within a state, and even within a single high school. Students in the United States can, depending on the state, be awarded different diplomas (e.g. basic diploma, “honors” diploma, STEM diploma) each of which comes with different STEM requirements. Given that the STEM school taxonomy must operate at a national level with the same measure applied across all schools, high school graduation requirements could not be the universal “bar” for high school, and it left us with no guidance at all for elementary.

Then, we turned to college admissions requirements only to confirm that we faced the same problem. Even within higher education type (e.g. public/private) and majors, admission requirements for high school STEM courses varied widely. This could not serve as the “bar” either (and also provided no guidance for elementary).

At the elementary level, we sought out guidelines the amount of time required for STEM subjects and found the same variability across and within states, districts, and schools.

Ultimately, with input from our advisors and from school and district leaders and policy makers, it became clear that the task of determining what “high quality STEM education” is for all students is one for the field to address and far beyond the scope of this project. We then went on to create an alternate strategy.

For the purposes of the STEM school taxonomy, we left “high quality STEM education” undefined and, instead, chose to go with a generic term: “typical.” Thus, the current “ high quality STEM education bar” over which STEM schools and programs must cross for the taxonomy is that it must be MORE THAN “typical state requirements and/or college admissions requirements,” with “typical” to be determined by stakeholders in the STEM education field. This approach assumes that “typical” is (or at least one day will be) a reflection of the “high quality STEM education” that all students should have.

Still, in order operationalize the STEM School Taxonomy, we needed to be practical and create a working “bar” that would enable us to test the Taxonomy in conversations with potential users. With input from advisors, we temporarily set the bar for (for high school) where it appears the nation is currently converging: 3 mathematics courses and 3 science courses. We took this position, however, with the caveat that we are not advocating that this metric be equated with “high quality S.T.E.M. education for all.” The question of what “high quality S.T.E.M. education for all” should be is a critically important and urgent issue that must be addressed by the field. Only then will we be able advance the broader goal of equitable educational opportunities for all learners in the country.

How much more?

We also had to determine HOW MUCH MORE would “count.” There was a sense among the team and advisors that a single experience wasn’t sufficient. We answered this question by using our definition of a STEM program: a planned group (minimum of 2) of learning experiences that build toward an intentional STEM or STEM-related outcome. See the STEM program taxonomy for more explanation. Using this definition, a school can be designated a STEM school under our taxonomy IF it offers a planned group (2 or more) of learning experiences in STEM or STEM-related fields that is MORE than is “typical” and REQUIRES all students to participate.

The U.S. has incorporated career and technical education (CTE) in various manifestations since the country’s birth in 1776 (ACTE, 2015). For the purposes of this work, we use the definition of CTE provided by the US Perkins Collaborative Resource Network. This comes from the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Act of 2006 (Perkins IV),that is “a principal source of federal funding to states and discretionary grantees for the improvement of secondary and postsecondary career and technical education programs across the nation.” (PCRN, 2015). Under Perkins IV, states may receive funding for career and technical education programs that meet the following requirements:

• Incorporate and align secondary and postsecondary education elements;
• Include academic and CTE content in a coordinated, non-duplicative progression of courses;
• Offer the opportunity, where appropriate, for secondary students to acquire postsecondary credits; and
• Lead to an industry-recognized credential or certificate at the postsecondary level, or an associate or baccalaureate degree.

Recognized CTE career clusters include both science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and STEM-related careers as well as non-STEM careers. A complete list of career clusters recognized by the National Association of State Directors of Career and Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc) can be found at http://www.careertech.org/career-clusters.

A CTE program that meets the above Perkins IV conditions would be recognized under our STEM Program Taxonomy if

1. It focuses on a STEM or STEM-related career (See “What are STEM and STEM-Related Careers?”)
2. It meets our definition of a “program.” Our definition of a STEM or STEM-related program is that it must include a planned group (minimum of 2) learning experiences (in STEM or STEM-related areas) that build toward an intentional outcome. In this regard, a CTE program ( a “coordinated, non-duplicative progression of courses” as defined above), if occurring in a STEM or STEM-related field, would likely qualify as a STEM program under the present Taxonomy.

Simply having a CTE program that counts as a STEM program does not enable a school to be designated as a STEM school, unless all students in the school are required to complete the program. If all students in a school are required to participate in a STEM or STEM-related CTE program, then, the school would be designated a STEM school under the taxonomy.

Both the School and Program Taxonomies are intended to apply to all grade levels K-12. We have worked to make the language used throughout the Taxonomies consistent with elementary, middle, and high school contexts (e.g. the use of courses/ classes/minutes in the STEM School Required Attributes and STEM Program Learning Experience Categories). We recognize that some of the additional components, such as Internship or Mentorship Opportunities, may be more likely to occur at a specific school level (e.g. high school, in this case), but that these are optional components and have no bearing on the three criteria for STEM school or program designation.

Many comprehensive schools offer strong STEM and STEM-related courses of study, some with a multitude of rigorous course options. Course or class offerings may, in fact, look quite similar to those seen at STEM schools. However, the difference lies in what the school requires of all students. STEM schools require every attending student to participate in more STEM or STEM-related coursework or class time than typical state requirements and/or college admissions requirements. The Taxonomy illustrates three ways that schools may do this. For example, under the Taxonomy, a school that offers AP Calculus AB, AP Biology, and AP Chemistry, but does not require that all students take them would be considered a comprehensive school, not a STEM school. On the other hand, under the Taxonomy, a school that requires students to take AP Calculus and AP Biology in order to graduate would meet the criteria for a STEM school designation.

Academies, career-focused or otherwise, are typically programs housed within schools that students may choose to attend. STEM-focused academies meeting the criteria outlined on the K-12 STEM Program Taxonomy are considered STEM programs. Similar to schools-within-schools, if an academy awards graduating students a diploma that is distinct from that of the school within which it resides, it may be considered a STEM School (providing it meets the criteria outlined in the K-12 STEM School Taxonomy). Stand-alone academies that are not part of larger high schools, but which meet the STEM School Taxonomy criteria, would also be considered STEM Schools.

Charter schools should be considered similar to regular public schools when it comes to STEM School designation. If a charter school meets the criteria for STEM School designation outlined in the STEM School taxonomy, then it is a STEM School; if not, then it is not. Likewise, a charter school can have a STEM program just as any school can. The very same criteria apply to a program in a charter school that apply to a regular public schools.

The description of computer science below is taken from the LeadCS.org website. As highlighted in this description, computer science is an academic, scientific discipline. Thus, for the purposes of the taxonomy, computer science is considered a STEM-related discipline.

“Computer Science, or CS, is an academic, scientific discipline that includes the study of computers and algorithmic processes (procedures or formulas for solving problems) “including their principles, their hardware and software designs, their applications, and their impact on society” (www.acm.org). The discipline relies on problem solving, design, and logical reasoning, combining human ideas and digital tools in order to create or adapt digital technology, not just use it. While the discipline is often equated with programming, Computer science is not just about programming or coding. Programming is the expression of algorithmic thinking. Algorithmic thinking is fundamental to computer science, so computer science classes typically include a programming component. But programming is just one piece of computer science. Computer Science Terminology 3 Computer science is sometimes referred to as computing, which is an inclusive term used for a broad range of computing fields similar to computer science, like computer engineering, information systems, information technology, etc.”

Under construction.

Under construction.

Under construction.

Under construction.

Under construction.

Under construction.

The NRC’s (2013) indicators target measuring progress in STEM education for the country as a whole. However, state and local education agencies may have an interest in looking at their own STEM education progress as well. The Taxonomies presented have been designed to be usable at both levels. This applies particularly in the “Required Attributes” section of the School Taxonomy, which lays out the three ways in which schools may reach a STEM School designation—by requiring that: all students take a greater number of S.T.E.M. courses or minutes than is typical of state and/or college admissions requirements; all students take a broader scope of S.T.E.M.-related courses than is typical of state and/or college requirements; or all S.T.E.M. and core humanities/language arts courses or classes have S.T.E.M. content integrated throughout.

Each of the first two attributes rely on “typical state requirements and/or college admissions requirements” as the ‘low bar’ over which STEM schools must cross to distinguish themselves from comprehensive or non STEM-focused high schools. Identifying this low bar is a challenge in and of itself, and is further discussed in a separate white paper, which can be found here (link). Briefly, one of the major issues—and the one most relevant here—that makes this so difficult is the variation across states and districts in their requirements for high school graduation.

For example, if the low bar for “typical state requirements” is set at a requirement that students complete three mathematics and three science courses to graduate, any school that requires all students to take four years of mathematics would qualify as a STEM School. While this is not a trivial undertaking for many schools where four years of mathematics exceeds the state or district requirement, we do know that entire states and districts where four years of mathematics are required exist. From a federal perspective, then, all schools in those states or districts would be considered STEM schools. While this may be troubling to some, it is important to remember that: 1) the purpose of this Taxonomy is not to define quality STEM schools, but to identify the number of STEM schools that exist; and 2) we are defining STEM schools as those engage all students in more S.T.E.M. or S.T.E.M.-related content. Identifying all of the schools across the nation that are providing all of their students with increased exposure to S.T.E.M. and/or S.T.E.M.-related disciplines is an important first step in understanding what progress we are making, as a nation, towards providing high quality and successful STEM education for all.

This is also where the idea of local use of the Taxonomy comes in. Individual states or districts might utilize the Taxonomy to identify and understand which schools under their purview are exceeding the local standards for S.T.E.M. and S.T.E.M.-related education. By adjusting the low bar to meet their identified baseline, states and districts can provide STEM school designations that accurately reflect the local context and conditions. They can also use the Taxonomy to understand the variations in STEM schools that do exist (in the same way that this can be done at the federal level) and to think about and plan for what types of STEM schools they would like to see exist in the state or local community.

Having a national baseline for STEM schools is important in understanding our progress as a nation, and where improvements still need to be seen. However, huge amounts of variation in resources and state and local policies and standards across the country exist, and so a qualification which is meaningful at a national level is not necessarily the same as that which seems logical at a state or local level. The two agendas—identifying and counting types of STEM schools at a federal level and doing the same at a more local level—can both be met using the Taxonomy, when slight adjustments are made.

Under construction.

Under construction.