U.S. & WorldwideSTEM Sentiment
Index

Understanding the direction of STEM education.

Explore research activity, search interest, book attention and media sentiment analysis—with dated evidence and source links.

Research & insights · Provisional releaseResearch refreshed October 5, 2026Method 0.4.0-pilot
Book attention1990–2022Six phrases · two corpus versions
Search interest2004–2026Worldwide + U.S. · monthly
Research activity1990–2026Worldwide + U.S. affiliation
Media sentimentArticle analysisScoring sample building

Explore the evidence

U.S. & Worldwide, side by side.

Research activity refreshes daily. Last successful refresh: October 5, 2026. The headline and default chart show the latest completed month. The current month is shown separately while records are still being indexed. Search interest was captured September 22, 2026 and follows a separate monthly schedule. The current vocabulary is English; this is not an all-language global sentiment measure.

Four perspectives. Each in its own units.

View accessible data table
GeographyPeriodValueStatus

The sources behind the signals

Different perspectives.
One transparent standard.

46sources
in the directory

A diverse mix of research, education reporting and independent perspectives. Every source is subject to the same relevance and evidence standards; each eligible, distinct story receives equal weight in media aggregation. Sources are grouped by their contribution, with their scope and review status explained below.

Open a source for its evidence, coverage and limitations. Newly reviewed sources are identified separately from evidence used in the current Index.

Current release: sources & findings ↓

Research & data23

Studies, evidence reviews, surveys, assessment data and research or attention measures.

Crossref

DOI and metadata cross-check

Retrieved: three era probes; 30 metadata records

query.title is a relevance search, not exact phrase classification. Large total-results counts are unsuitable as a STEM series without screening. Depositor date fields and item types vary.

Source & documentation
Education Endowment Foundation

Evidence reviews and education trials

Review and trial summary inspected; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds evaluated classroom interventions with published methods and limitations, including mixed and inconclusive results.

The England trial summary reports no overall additional attainment progress alongside positive science-attitude findings. Missing attainment data and uncertainty must remain explicit; programme effects are not national sentiment.

Focus4TAPS — second trial

Source & documentation
ERIC / Institute of Education Sciences

Education-literature research activity

Retrieved: 37 annual numerator/denominator pairs and 30 sample records

Index counts include non-journal and non-peer-reviewed material. Selection policy, descriptor assignment and ingestion change over time. Same-year normalization does not remove these changes. Current year is partial.

Source & documentation
Europe PMC / EMBL-EBI

Biomedical subset cross-check

Partially retrieved: 1990 and 2024; 2005 HTTP 503

Strong life-science bias; cannot represent all STEM education. Six candidate records in 1990 and 67 in 2024; only a bounded sample retained. Failed middle-era request is unknown, not zero.

Source & documentation
Frontiers in Education — STEM Education

STEM education journal section

Official section and September 28 original-research listing inspected; article-level evidence admission pending

The section mixes original research with reviews, opinion and editorials; its displayed article total is not an eligible-study count. Verify study context and deduplicate DOI/work IDs before any aggregate.

Source & documentation
Gallup — Voices of Gen Z

Youth STEM interest and career-preparation survey

Publisher findings and survey description inspected; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds direct U.S. youth views on STEM subjects, careers and preparation, complementing adult and student surveys already listed.

The September 2023 survey covers 2,006 U.S. respondents aged 12–26. Check question wording, weighting and subgroup uncertainty. Career interest is distinct from approval of STEM education; sponsor and publisher versions describe one survey.

Voices of Gen Z: perspectives on STEM education and careers

Source & documentation
Google Books Ngram

Book-language attention

Re-verified 2026-09-26; source publication year remains 2022; current unversioned corpus has historical revisions versus the saved diagnostic capture

Pinned corpus supports reproducibility; current unversioned corpus reaches 2022 and is retained separately. OCR, dating and corpus-selection biases remain. Phrase frequencies overlap and must not be summed.

Source & documentation
Google Trends

Search attention

Retrieved: official website CSV

Request-relative 0–100 scaling; sampled results; zeros may indicate insufficient volume. September 2026 is partial. No repeated-export stability test yet.

Source & documentation
Horizon Research — NSSME+

National teacher survey and instructional conditions

Survey report overview inspected; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds teachers’ perspectives on science, mathematics and computer science instruction, preparation, resources and beliefs.

The 2018 survey is historical teacher evidence, not a current public-sentiment reading. Preserve the report’s corrections, sampling weights, uncertainty and subject-specific populations; review full methods before extracting estimates.

Report of the 2018 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education

Source & documentation
IEA TIMSS / Boston College

Student attitudes toward learning science

One official 2015 U.S. grade-eight table extracted and visually verified

Enjoyment is distinct from achievement and adult approval. Percentages total 99 due to rounding. Scale established in 2011; the study's 1995 start does not establish a harmonized attitude series. No cross-wave estimate calculated.

Source & documentation
International Journal of STEM Education

Peer-reviewed STEM education research

Source and example review inspected; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds research focused directly on STEM learning and implementation, including evidence outside the United States.

The inspected review is historical and region-specific, not current worldwide sentiment. Match DOI records across ERIC, OpenAlex and Crossref to avoid counting the same study more than once.

A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: trends, gaps and barriers

Source & documentation
Journal for STEM Education Research

Interdisciplinary STEM education journal

Official September 23 article abstract inspected; full text restricted to subscribers; article-level evidence admission pending

Hybrid access: the example study reports 22 prospective teachers in its abstract, but its full text is subscription-only. Do not infer unreported methods or generalize from this sample; deduplicate its DOI across indexes.

Source & documentation
Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research

Peer-reviewed STEM education journal

Official June 30, 2026 issue and eight article titles/DOIs inspected; article-level evidence admission pending

Issue-date and article metadata are discovery evidence, not an evaluated outcome or September study count. Screen article type, study design, geography and DOI overlap with database records before admission.

Source & documentation
NAEP / The Nation’s Report Card

National assessment and student-context data

Source reviewed; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds direct U.S. science and mathematics assessment evidence alongside existing research databases and attitude surveys.

Achievement is not sentiment. Keep assessment scores separate from attitude measures, preserve sampling uncertainty and do not bridge the science framework break before 2009.

2024 NAEP Science results

Source & documentation
National Academies — Science Education

Research synthesis and consensus studies

Study scope and publication information inspected; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds evidence syntheses on science learning, instructional opportunity and STEM pathways across K–16 education.

A consensus study is an expert synthesis, not a public-opinion sample. Separate recommendations from underlying research, preserve its 2021 evidence context, and deduplicate studies already found through other indexes.

Call to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future (2021)

Source & documentation
NSF NCSES / General Social Survey

Historical context on broad science attitudes

Published table checked; excluded from STEM-education series

1990 table reports 38% with great confidence in scientific-community leaders. This is a different target, not a 1990 STEM-education sentiment reading. Survey transitions and gaps require attention.

Source & documentation
OECD PISA

15-year-old students' science attitudes

Documented candidate; no project values extracted

Enjoyment of science is not public approval of STEM education. Country-specific coverage, weights, replicate weights, item changes and scale comparability need review. Do not use achievement scores as sentiment.

Source & documentation
OpenAlex

Research discovery

Retrieved: annual counts and 50 metadata records

Title search uses stemming. Counts are candidates, not adjudicated relevant works. Database growth, source coverage, duplicates and recent-year lag remain. A broad full-text query was rejected as a definition for the index.

Source & documentation
Pew Research Center

Direct adult attitudes toward K–12 STEM education

Two published survey observations transcribed

2017 KnowledgePanel and 2024 ATP differ; developed/wealthy-country wording differs. No computed time change or media-score conversion. Not a continuous annual series.

Source & documentation
Royal Society — Science Education Tracker

Student experiences and science-attitude surveys

Survey scope and methods inspected; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds direct evidence about young people’s science learning, interest and STEM career aspirations in England.

The 2016, 2019 and 2023 surveys cover different samples and include question changes. Check comparable items, weights and cohort definitions before calculating trends. England is not a worldwide sample; the partner organisations are not separate observations.

Science Education Tracker 2023: survey, reports and technical documentation

Source & documentation
STEM Education (AIMS Press)

International STEM education journal

Official journal scope, ISSN and archive verified; current issue dynamically rendered and not yet article-reviewed

The text-accessible archive did not expose a complete current article listing. No journal count or study outcome is admitted from this first pass; capture dated article metadata from an accessible route before inclusion.

Source & documentation
UNESCO Institute for Statistics

International education statistics

Source reviewed; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds international education coverage and indicator metadata, including mathematics proficiency and STEM graduate measures.

Country coverage, reference years, definitions and missing values vary. Indicator values have not been extracted for this Index. Participation and attainment are context, not public sentiment.

UIS education indicators and metadata

Source & documentation
What Works Clearinghouse

Study reviews and evidence-based teaching guidance

Math evidence collection and review standards inspected; not yet included in Index calculations

Adds structured reviews of mathematics interventions and instructional practices with explicit evidence ratings.

Effectiveness findings are not sentiment scores. Keep study populations, evidence tiers, outcomes and review dates intact. WWC and ERIC share an institutional parent and may describe the same studies; neither should inflate independent-source or study counts.

What Works in Math: intervention reviews and practice guides

Source & documentation

Reporting & perspectives23

Journalism, policy commentary, institutional announcements and article discovery. Each source's role remains explicit.

Brownstone Institute

Publisher commentary and analysis

Publisher identity/education archive inspected; direct archive and listed RSS returned HTTP 403 on 2026-09-28; no article admission

Brownstone states that its content is commentary, analysis, research and interpretation, not a news agency. Individual authors and original origins must be preserved. Education or public-health commentary is not automatically about STEM learning; translated or syndicated versions count once. Public article text may not be republished as a corpus.

Source & documentation
Chalkbeat

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 2 historical · 4 assessed

Classical Learner

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 1 historical · 1 assessed

College of the Ozarks

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

1 current · 1 historical · 5 assessed

Education Next

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 1 historical · 2 assessed

Education Week

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 0 historical · 2 assessed

No eligible findings in this edition. Missing evidence is not a neutral score.

GDELT

Modern article discovery

Blocked in pilot: HTTP 429

No project records retrieved. GKG's 2015 start and older event archives do not prove comparable STEM-target sentiment history. Provider tone cannot replace target-specific classification.

Source & documentation
Goldwater Institute

Education-policy research and organizational commentary

January 12 Carl Paulus UCSD math commentary first pass found provisional STEM scope, but it is outside the September 2–29 current media window; historical article-level assessment pending evidence, voice and origin review; no finding admitted

This institute conducts policy advocacy and litigation; its education commentary is not independent journalism or a direct achievement measure. The January 12 UCSD article has a specific mathematics-preparation target but remains a historical-context hold. Verify paragraph-level claims, primary evidence, quoted voices and source origin before any historical finding; the cited UCSD Academic Senate report does not establish the author's asserted DEI causation. General school-choice, DEI or civics coverage is not automatically eligible. No outcome value or score was imported.

Source & documentation
Grove City College

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 1 historical · 1 assessed

Hillsdale College

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

2 current · 0 historical · 4 assessed

Jamaica Gleaner

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

1 current · 0 historical · 3 assessed

K-12 Dive
Mises Institute

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

1 current · 1 historical · 2 assessed

Patrick Henry College

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 2 historical · 4 assessed

Reality Zone

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 1 historical · 1 assessed

Technocracy News & Trends

Publisher commentary and analysis

Education archive and publisher-listed RSS captured 2026-09-28; article admission pending

Many pages are commentary, and some article bodies are premium-only. Use only accessible publisher context. Attribute Patrick Wood and guest authors accurately, verify source origins and dates, and exclude general AI, politics, public health or technology stories without a specific STEM-education target.

Source & documentation
The 74
The Heartland Institute

Organizational education-policy opinion and commentary

September 29 Larry Sand opinion first-pass scope-excluded for STEM education; article-level assessment pending for other candidate links; no article admitted

Label opinion and organizational claims accurately. The September 29 AI-in-schools piece discusses general classroom AI; its math survey and PISA references are incidental, not a distinct STEM-learning target. A same-title, same-byline American Greatness version has unresolved first-publication order; treat versions as one story if revisited. Do not infer AI-caused math or science score declines from cited summaries or import their values. Other articles still require STEM-specific full context, date, author, primary evidence and origin checks before admission.

Source & documentation
The Hechinger Report
The New American

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

2 current · 0 historical · 6 assessed

The Worcester Guardian

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

2 current · 0 historical · 3 assessed

Thomas Aquinas College

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

0 current · 1 historical · 2 assessed

University at Buffalo

Published article coverage; views attributed within each finding

1 current · 0 historical · 2 assessed

This is a selected source mix, not a representative public-opinion survey. Listing a source does not imply endorsement or inclusion in the current calculations. Original studies and their coverage are checked for duplication; research, survey, search, book and media measures retain their own units and dates.

The measurement standard

A benchmark begins
with a transparent method.

The ambition is a dependable benchmark for STEM education. Each release should make its definition, sources, observation dates and limitations easy to inspect.

Michigan’s consumer sentiment benchmark uses a recurring survey. Our current pilot uses published information. A future survey would measure people’s confidence directly and remain a separate series.

Reference: University of Michigan methodology

Built to be examined

01

Separate the measures

Book attention, search interest, research activity and sentiment retain their own units. There is no arbitrary composite.

02

Preserve the history

No invented sentiment before the evidence begins. No interpolation through missing years. Incomplete periods stay visible.

03

Publish the evidence

Versioned inputs, downloadable observations, explicit coverage and documented revisions make the work reproducible.

The method, at a glance

How media sentiment is calculated

We examine what published coverage says about STEM education. Current conditions, future expectations and support are assessed separately.

  1. Review the evidence

    STEM.org owns the method and editorial review. AI assists with article context, publication dates, relevance, duplicate stories and whose view is being expressed.

  2. Give sources a fair turn

    The review policy applies the same standards across sources, considering each in turn before additional candidates. Eligible, distinct stories receive equal weight; available coverage may differ.

  3. Publish only when ready

    Deduplicated findings are checked against minimum evidence and coverage requirements. If those requirements are not met, the score is withheld.

For each dimension

100 × (favorable − unfavorable) ÷ classifiable story clusters

Range: −100 to +100. Neutral and mixed views remain in the denominator; unclassifiable views are excluded and their share is disclosed.

Evidence requirements & limitations

Before a numerical score is published

  • At least 30 classifiable story clusters from 3 original publisher groups.
  • No publisher above 60% of the classifiable sample for a dimension.
  • No more than 25% unclassifiable views.
  • At least 7 consecutive collection days, with in-window discoveries and source ownership checks resolved.

Older articles retain their original dates and are assessed separately from the current 28-day totals. Targeted research is not a complete daily source scan; the source directory discloses coverage and limitations.

These provisional operating requirements do not guarantee accuracy or representativeness. Article coverage is not a public-opinion survey, and automated consistency checks are not independent human validation. An independently human-validated benchmark remains a separate research objective.

Media method: ai-media-0.2.0-provisional. Historical research and attention method: 0.4.0-pilot. Each release preserves its evidence cutoff, input hashes, source links and scoring status.

What is ready

Real data. An honest starting point.

Media sentiment analysis follows a separate, versioned method. Choose Media sentiment in the measure selector for the latest evidence, coverage checks and scoring status. Research and attention retain their own units.

Download the 1990–2026 coverage matrix ↓

Take the first step: Apply Online

Contact Us

  • What are you interested in?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.