Page 77 - Standards for K-12 Engineering Education

Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?

62 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION?

To the historical justification, one can add contemporary challenges (see, e.g., the NAE
Grand Challenges project, www.engineeringchallenges.org) that include the role of engineering
and innovation in economic recovery, the efficient use of energy resources, the mitigation of
risks from climate change, the creation of green jobs, the reduction in health care costs, an
increase in healthy life styles, improving defense, and the development of new technologies for
national security.
Turning to educational justifications for standards for K–12 engineering education, I
would first note the need for a widely accepted national statement of the goals and purposes of
engineering education. I realize that individual curricula have goals. We can, for example, cite
the historical goal of technological literacy from the 1970s Engineering Concepts Curriculum
Project. Contemporary engineering curricula have similar goals (NAE, 2009). Nevertheless, I
still believe we need a “widely accepted national statement” of the goals, purposes, and policies
of engineering education.
STEM is a popular acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education. We have national standards for science (NRC, 1996), technology (ITEA, 2000), and
mathematics (NCTM, 2000), but not for engineering education. I rest my case.
Finally, we are in an era of standards-based reform. To be recognized and accepted in
education today, a discipline or area of study needs a set of standards.

Opportunities for Developing Standards for Engineering Education
The opportunities for standards for engineering education can be summed up in a short
phrase—the time is right. A convergence of conditions has created a climate conducive to the
emergence of engineering as a viable component of K–12 education.
In a recent editorial in Science, John Holdren, President Obama’s science and technology
advisor, presents four practical challenges for the Obama administration: bringing science and
technology more fully to bear on economic recovery; driving the energy-technology innovation
we need to reduce energy imports and reduce climate-change risks; applying advances in
biomedical science and information technology; and ensuring the nation’s security with needed
intelligence technologies (Holdren, 2009). One can argue that all four challenges have essential
connections to, and reliance on, engineering.
In the same editorial, Holdren introduced what he calls “cross cutting foundations” for
meeting the challenges. One of the foundations was “strengthening STEM education at every
level, from precollege to postgraduate to lifelong learning.” (Holdren, 2009, p. 567). Since the
National Science Foundation (NSF) introduced the term STEM as an acronym for science,
∗
technology, engineering, and mathematics, it has become widely used to refer to STEM
education. But the truth is, the acronym usually refers to either science or mathematics, or both.
It seldom refers to technology and almost never includes engineering. So, although the nation is
concerned about STEM education, the T is only slightly visible and the E is invisible. A major
opportunity for standards in engineering education is to make the E in STEM education visible.
Standards for K–12 engineering education would define the knowledge and abilities for
the E in STEM education and clarify ambiguities in the use of the acronym. However, unless
engineering education standards are developed with tact and care, they could perpetuate the
politics and territorial disputes among the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
disciplines. Given the history of the sovereignty of educational territory, I suggest that standards

∗
NSF actually began using the acronym SMET and later changed to STEM.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.