A Review of U.S. Education Policy on Integrating Science and Mathematics Teaching and Learning

Abstract

Current calls to integrate science and mathematics in PK-16 education build on decades of prior initiatives, yet the United States still lacks consensus on what integration entails and consistent policies to support it. This study systematically reviews current U.S. policies to identify guidance on the preparation of teachers to integrate science and mathematics. Given that teacher preparation is inherently connected to PK-12 policy, we also review PK-12 policy guidance focused on dual or integrated teacher endorsements, school designations, and PK-12 science and mathematics learning standards. Drawing on an established framework that defines meaningful integration as authentic problem solving supported by the use of multiple STEM disciplines, we examine the degree to which current policies enable such practice. Our findings reveal recommendations for integrating science and mathematics, yet policies overwhelmingly reinforce a siloed approach. We argue that misalignment between teacher preparation policy and PK-12 policy creates a circular problem: teachers cannot be expected to implement integrated science and mathematics instruction without adequate preparation, yet preparation programs have little incentive to design coursework for an instructional approach not systematically supported in PK-12 settings. Clarifying and aligning these policies is therefore essential for advancing coherent, scalable integration across the PK-16 system.

1. Introduction

Calls to integrate science and mathematics in PK-16 education have circulated for decades, yet U.S. policy development has lagged. While integration is widely promoted as a way to increase student engagement, strengthen problem-solving skills, and prepare learners for a complex workforce, there remains little consensus on what integration entails or how to enact it at scale (NCTM, 2024; NGSS, 2013; NRC, 2012). Six iterations of the National Survey of Science, Mathematics, Computer Science, and Engineering Education (NSSME+) have been released, but the most recent was in 2018, leaving a nearly decade-long gap until the next iteration is released in 2027 (Horizon Research, n.d.). The NSSME+ is a periodic, national survey funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation that collects data on K-12 STEM education in the U.S. The survey examines the characteristics of the teaching force, instructional practices, and curriculum to inform practitioners, researchers, and policymakers about the state of science, mathematics, computer science, and engineering education and emerging issues. Given the lapse of time between the previous and next NSSME+, we argue that there is an urgent need for an updated review of policy on integrating science and mathematics education. In contrast, the European Commission recently issued a policy guide outlining evidence-based recommendations for integrating STEM through policy, curriculum, teacher development, and learning goals (Mazzeo Ortolani, 2025), and the European Schoolnet, a network of Ministries of Education, published a practitioner policy framework to guide integration across the European Union (Tasiopoulou et al., 2022). These international efforts serve as one model for how coordinated policy can support both teacher preparation and classroom practice in a diverse system with enormous variation in educational approaches, highlighting the fragmented approach in the United States. In this review, we are defining educational policy as the standards, professional recommendations, government arrangements, laws, and principles that govern the operation of education systems, influencing all levels of education from early childhood to professional training (Zainudin et al., 2021). This review responds to the absence of a single PK-16 U.S. policy on integrating science and mathematics education by systematically analyzing how integration appears in documents pertaining to teacher preparation, state and national licensure endorsements, school designations, and PK-12 standards.

Although STEM education encompasses science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, we focus intentionally on the integration of science and mathematics because these are the two core disciplinary content areas named in STEM; they have the most established PK-12 policy infrastructures, and they represent required coursework for all U.S. students. Moreover, unlike technology, which is now embedded across all subject areas due to the digitization of curriculum and instructional tools, and engineering, which is not a required course of study for most students, the science and mathematics pairing is where integration is most consistently expected to occur within current U.S. standards and graduation requirements. Thus, a focused policy review of science and mathematics integration is analytically justified even as it contributes to broader STEM integration conversations.

To guide this analysis, we draw on contemporary conceptual work in integrated STEM education, particularly Kelley and Knowles’ (2016) framework, which conceptualizes integration as the purposeful coordination of disciplinary practices, scientific inquiry, engineering design, mathematical thinking, and technological literacy, within authentic, situated learning contexts. Their model emphasizes that meaningful integration is not merely the co-location of content, but the strategic linking of disciplinary practices to support students in making sense of complex problems. This framework provides an analytical lens for examining whether and how U.S. policies create conditions for teachers to engage learners in these interconnected STEM practices. By articulating this grounding at the outset, we clarify the assumptions about integration that inform our policy interpretations.

Prior reviews of integrated science and mathematics education policy in the U.S. are limited. Existing syntheses have examined STEM education more broadly, often emphasizing workforce development, equity, or disciplinary reform (CBMS, 2012; NCTM, 2020; NRC, 2001). However, these reviews have not focused specifically on how science and mathematics are integrated in policy pertaining to teacher preparation, licensure structures, school designations, and PK-12 standards.

More recently, several literature reviews have examined integrated STEM teacher education, but these reviews have focused on research and program designs rather than policy. For example, Portillo-Blanco et al. (2024) synthesized empirical studies of integrated STEM instruction and identified common pedagogical features and challenges teachers face when enacting integration. Additionally, Rodríguez et al. (2024) reviewed STEM teacher education programs and highlighted the variability in how programs conceptualize and operationalize integration, noting that most efforts are program-level rather than policy-driven. Also, Burrows et al. (2021) reviewed integrated STEM professional development (PD) initiatives, finding that successful models often rely on local partnerships and teacher-led design rather than systemic policy supports. Finally, Eckman et al. (2016) characterized early integrated STEM programs and identified persistent structural barriers, including disciplinary certification and scheduling constraints, which limit teachers’ ability to teach integrated science and mathematics. Across these reviews, scholars describe a range of integrated science and mathematics program designs, including instructional routines, teacher education models, and PD structures, that illuminate how integration is operationalized in practice. Together, these literature reviews document what integrated STEM looks like in practice or in teacher education programs, but they do not examine the policy landscape that shapes the conditions for integration.

Moreover, while international policy frameworks (COMAP & SIAM, 2016; Mazzeo Ortolani, 2025) position modeling and application as inherently integrated, U.S. standards tend to present modeling as a mathematical practice with possible integrated connections, but without explicit policy guidance for preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics using an integrated approach (AMTE, 2017). This gap leaves questions about whether U.S. teachers are being prepared to teach science and mathematics together, or whether policy continues to reinforce disciplinary silos. By clarifying why this review centers on science and mathematics, rather than all four STEM domains, we aim to surface the most consequential policy levers affecting the forms of integration that are currently required for all learners and central to U.S. accountability systems.

Thus, although the research literature has increasingly documented how integrated science and mathematics teaching is enacted and supported through teacher preparation programs and PD, we are not aware of any existing review that has systemically examined U.S. policy governing teacher preparation, licensure endorsements, school designations, and PK-12 standards as they relate specifically to integrated science and mathematics. This policy-focused review addresses this gap.

Since terminology surrounding integration varies widely across policies, it is essential to first define the key terms to ensure clarity and consistency in interpretation. Stember (1991) described a five-stage typology including intradisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary, where each level requires more collaboration and synthesis. Inspired by this, Choi and Pak (2006) similarly distinguished between multidisciplinary work as distinct but combined, interdisciplinary work as blended with visible disciplinary parts, and transdisciplinary work as producing wholly new outcomes. Jensenius (2012) and Bailey (2025) have illustrated the different disciplinarities (intra, cross, multi, inter, trans). In addition, Scholz and Steiner (2015) and Rigolot (2020) describe “Mode 2” transdisciplinarity, in which knowledge is co-produced with non-academic stakeholders to address real-world problems. In this review, we use “integration” as an umbrella term that includes all initiatives aimed at teaching both science and mathematics topics. Clarifying this terminology provides a foundation for analyzing the ways integration is framed within policy documents. In Section 2, we specify the terms we included in our reviews of policy documents.

This review is guided by two research questions: (1) What policy exists regarding preparing teachers to teach integrated science and mathematics? And (2) What PK-12 policy exists regarding the teaching of science and mathematics using an integrated approach, (2a) Which states offer dual or integrated teacher endorsements? (2b) Which states designate integrated PK-12 schools? (2c) In what ways do national standards for PK-12 curricula promote or impede integration? Together, these questions illuminate the policy landscape shaping how integration is conceptualized, enacted, and supported in U.S. teacher preparation and PK-12 education. By identifying the current state of U.S. integrated science and mathematics policy, this review seeks to inform ongoing policy development, highlight areas where the U.S. may lag behind international efforts, and contribute to conversations about the future of integrating science and mathematics education.

2. Methods

Education policy in the U.S. is primarily determined by individual states. Except where federal laws (e.g., the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA] or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) or U.S. Department of Education regulations (e.g., assessment requirements), often tied to federal funding, apply, each state establishes its own policy at both the state and local levels. This design of the educational landscape complicates nationwide inquiries such as ours. Consequently, we could not rely on a single data source or uniform method to address our research questions. Instead, our approach involved reviewing multiple sources, including policies published by professional organizations and official federal and state Department of Education websites. The following section describes the specific data collection and analysis methods we used to investigate each of our research questions.

Our analysis of Question 1 focused on the inclusion of guidance on integrated science and mathematics teacher preparation in policy. In the United States, several professional organizations and accrediting bodies set standards and provide guidelines for preparing teachers. These policies drive the design of teacher preparation programs and courses. Therefore, the content of these policies was critical to answering our first research question.

A systematic review of policy pertaining to the preparation of science and mathematics teachers was undertaken. We selected policies that are widely recognized as authoritative, either because they establish accreditation requirements, articulate professional teaching standards, or provide national guidance on teacher preparation. The authors have written and reviewed accreditation reports for science and mathematics teacher preparation programs. Therefore, we included the policies with which teacher preparation programs are required to align their programs and courses. The review period was limited from 2010 to 2025. Table 1 summarizes the six documents included in this review.

Table 1. Teacher Preparation Policy Documents Reviewed.

Year	Organization	Policy Document	Focus Area
2022	Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP)	Initial Teacher Preparation Standards	Accreditation standards for teacher preparation
2011	Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)	InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards	Professional standards for teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions
2020	National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) & Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE)	Standards for Science Teacher Preparation	Science teacher preparation
2020	National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)	Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics	Mathematics teacher preparation
2017	Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE)	Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics	Mathematics teacher preparation
2012	Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS)	Mathematical Education of Teachers II (MET II)	Recommendations for mathematics teacher education

To be included in the review, the keywords “science and mathematics,” “integrate,” “transdisciplinary,” “interdisciplinary,” “STEM,” “STEAM,” or “application” needed to be evident in the policy. If a keyword appeared in the document, we read the surrounding text to see if it pertained to guidance on preparing teachers to teach integrated science and mathematics. Two researchers independently reviewed each policy document and kept detailed memos to record their findings. They then met to synthesize results, resolving any discrepancies through discussion until consensus was reached.

Our initial analysis for research Question 2 included a systematic review of official policy published by national professional organizations and official education websites that were focused on the implementation of integrated science and mathematics education in PK-12 schools. For sub-question 2a, concerning which states offer dual or integrated endorsements, we conducted Google searches to locate the official website of each state’s department of education (DOE). We used the embedded search tool to identify the page(s) pertaining to teacher endorsements. When no direct list of endorsements was available, we reviewed licensure areas for supplemental or equivalent options. In states that did not use the term “endorsement,” we noted comparable terms such as “additional subject-specific pathways.” After searching each state’s DOE official website, we used ChatGPT (standard free version 5.2) to compile a list of states with STEM and STEAM endorsements to cross-reference the Google search in case there was a missing link not covered by the initial Google search. The prompt was “Will you look through each of the US States’ department of education websites and put their information in a chart for me with links on STEM and STEAM endorsements? Compile a list with states listed a-z in one table with links to their respective websites with the endorsement information.”

Subquestion 2b focuses on the states that designate PK-12 schools as integrated STEM or STEAM. To analyze this question, a review of the official state DOE websites was conducted. The keywords “STEM schools,” “STEAM schools,” “STEM curriculum,” “STEAM curriculum,” “STEM standards,” and “STEAM standards” were searched to locate specific information about state-driven STEM/STEAM programs within the state, assuming information is not located behind restricted portions of the website. We reviewed the information, specifically looking for requirements for being officially recognized as a STEM and or STEAM school or school district by the state. We also searched for the state name for each state combined with keywords “STEM Designation,” “STEAM Designation,” “STEM Endorsement,” and “STEAM Endorsement.”

To address subquestion 2c, we searched national PK-12 science and mathematics standards. Although no universally adopted national curricula exist, 41 states and the District of Columbia initially adopted the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M) (NGA, 2010), and 24 states later developed their own state’s version of the CCSS-M (Education Commission, 2020). We analyzed CCSS-M by the following keywords “STEM”, “STEAM”, “science”, “technology”, “art”, “integrate”, and “application”. To date, 39 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) or similar standards (Achieve, 2018). These two documents, along with the National Research Council’s 2012 Framework for K-12 Science Education, which is the foundational document for the NGSS, were analyzed by keyword search (NRC, 2012). The keywords “science and mathematics,” “integrate,” “transdisciplinary,” “interdisciplinary,” “STEM,” “STEAM,” or “application” were searched and analyzed for context. Next, we analyzed state standards to understand if/how these mentions of integration were impacting STEM education in PK-12 schools.

3. Findings

3.1. Standards for Preparing Teachers

Question 1 focused on policy guidance on preparing teachers to teach integrated science and mathematics. We reviewed six policy documents written in English and published by state or national policymakers or professional organizations in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Across all six policy documents, we found consistent emphasis on preparing teachers with deep disciplinary knowledge in science or mathematics and, in some cases, applications within those disciplines. However, there was little to no policy guidance on preparing teachers to integrate science and mathematics. Across documents, we saw a clear pattern. Policies construct integration as optional, peripheral, or implied rather than as a defined area of teacher expertise. As a result, teacher preparation programs receive strong guidance on disciplinary depth but little systemic direction on how or whether integration should be embedded in coursework, clinical experiences, or assessments. Below, we present findings from each policy document.

3.1.1. CAEP Initial Teacher Preparation Standards

CAEP serves as the primary accreditor for teacher preparation programs. We reviewed the CAEP standards for initial teacher preparation (CAEP, 2022). No mentions were found of the keywords science and mathematics, transdisciplinary, STEM, or STEAM. We found three mentions of “integrate,” all of which referred to the integration of technology rather than science and mathematics. For example, Standard R3.2: Monitoring and Supporting Candidate Progression emphasizes candidates’ ability to integrate technology into practice. The ability to integrate technology was also listed as a key concept for Standards R3.2 and R3.3: Competency at Completion (CAEP, 2022).

The keyword “application” appeared 10 times in the initial standards. However, only two instances pertained to STEM, and both referred specifically to technology. The first mention was in the quality evidence for Standard R1.3: Instructional Practice, which referenced applications of technology to enhance P-12 learning. The second was in the guiding question for Standard R2.3: Clinical Experiences, which asked, “What applications of technology have prepared completers for their responsibilities on the job?” (CAEP, 2022, p. 22). Collectively, these absences suggest that CAEP establishes the structural conditions under which preparation occurs but does not signal that integrated science and mathematics instruction is valued, assessed, or even recognized within national accreditation. This silence can have a downward cascading effect on programs that may not prioritize integration without accreditation pressure or incentives.

3.1.2. CCSSO InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards

The CCSSO created the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards to provide leadership and guidance on major educational issues (CCSSO, 2011). Our review found no mentions of the keywords science and mathematics, transdisciplinary, STEM, or STEAM. However, the standards define content knowledge as including “connections to other disciplines and the development of new, interdisciplinary areas of focus such as civic literacy, environmental literacy, and global awareness” (p. 20).

The keywords integrate, interdisciplinary, and application appeared extensively in Standard 5: Application of Content. We identified seven components of this standard as relevant: 5b, 5c, 5e, 5j, 5q, 5r, and 5s. These performances, knowledge, and dispositions emphasize interdisciplinary applications, valuing knowledge across content areas, and encouraging learner exploration. Table 2 presents the descriptions of these elements. Unlike other documents, the InTASC standards conceptualize interdisciplinary learning as central to teachers’ professional responsibilities. Although these standards do not name integrated science and mathematics explicitly, they position cross-disciplinary application as a pedagogical expectation rather than an enrichment. This highlights a tension across policy documents. Interdisciplinary learning is expected at the instructional level but not structurally supported through preparation standards or disciplinary licensure pathways.

Table 2. InTASC Standard 5 (CCSSO, 2011, p. 14).

	Description
5b	The teacher engages learners in applying content knowledge to real-world problems through the lens of interdisciplinary themes (e.g., financial literacy, environmental literacy).
5c	The teacher facilitates learners’ use of current tools and resources to maximize content learning in varied contexts.
5e	The teacher develops learners’ communication skills in disciplinary and interdisciplinary contexts by creating meaningful opportunities to employ a variety of forms of communication that address varied audiences and purposes.
5j	The teacher understands how current interdisciplinary themes (e.g., civic literacy, health literacy, global awareness) connect to the core subjects and knows how to weave those themes into meaningful learning experiences.
5q	The teacher is constantly exploring how to use disciplinary knowledge as a lens to address local and global issues.
5r	The teacher values knowledge outside his/her own content area and how such knowledge enhances student learning.
5s	The teacher values flexible learning environments that encourage learner exploration, discovery, and expression across content areas.

3.1.3. NSTA/ASTE Standards for Science Teacher Preparation

The NSTA/ASTE (2020) joint standards guide science teacher preparation. Although the standards strongly emphasize science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas, they include only limited references to connections with mathematics. Standard 1 highlights the importance of connecting disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and practices. Standard 2 requires science teachers to design equitable, culturally responsive instruction that includes connections to crosscutting concepts and practices. Standard 5 emphasizes that effective teachers provide evidence of students’ ability to apply core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and practices. Despite references to applications and cross-disciplinary connections, explicit guidance on integrating science and mathematics is absent.

This pattern reflects a broader assumption in science policy. Namely, mathematics is treated as a supporting tool for scientific reasoning rather than a coequal discipline requiring shared instructional design or joint pedagogical preparation. The standards acknowledge the role of mathematics but do not articulate competencies for coordinated instruction across the two disciplines.

3.1.4. NCTM Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics

The NCTM (2020) standards for preparing secondary mathematics teachers emphasize modeling, applications, and the use of technology. For example, Standard 2 highlights candidates’ ability to engage in mathematical modeling processes and apply technology in mathematical contexts. While these standards encourage authentic applications of mathematics, they stop short of requiring integration with science. A more recent NCTM (2024) publication has highlighted statistics and modeling, which may suggest emerging opportunities for cross-disciplinary integration, but this emphasis is not present in the 2020 standards.

Similar to the NSTA/ASTE standards, NCTM positions science as an implicit context for modeling rather than an explicit partner discipline. Integration is framed as a possibility but not a policy requirement, leaving the development of integrated practices to individual programs or instructors.

3.1.5. AMTE Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics

The AMTE standards emphasize both deep mathematics content knowledge and the ability to connect mathematics to other disciplines and contexts. The standards also highlight applications and modeling. Some references explicitly mention applications to the sciences and arts. For example, the standards cite curricular materials developed by the COMAP & SIAM (2016), many of which are interdisciplinary. However, the standards do not frame this work as integrated STEM or STEAM preparation. Instead, modeling is positioned as a mathematical practice with possible cross-disciplinary connections, but without explicit policy guidance on integration.

In Early Childhood standards (EC.1), teachers are expected to recognize mathematical structures that also connect to the sciences and the arts, such as composing and decomposing shapes and spatial structuring. In the Upper Elementary standards (UE.1), teachers are encouraged to draw on mathematical practices in contexts that can extend to science (e.g., measurement in experiments).

For middle-level preparation, the AMTE standards highlight two areas of connection. Standard ML.4 calls for engaging learners in meaningful and interdisciplinary contexts, explicitly noting connections between mathematics and other subjects such as science, language arts, and social studies. Standard ML.9 emphasizes that middle-level mathematics teachers should experience coursework or methods classes not only in mathematics, but also in middle school science or other disciplines to strengthen their interdisciplinary preparation.

At the high school level, Standard HS.1 highlights the intersections between mathematics and computer science. It notes that while computer coding draws heavily on mathematical ideas and problem-solving, mathematics teachers must also recognize computer science as a distinct field requiring specialized preparation. Standard HS.2 calls for proficiency with tools and technology, including spreadsheets, computer algebra systems, statistical software, dynamic geometry environments, and other digital tools that could support interdisciplinary applications, including in science.

Overall, AMTE acknowledges interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary opportunities, particularly in middle-level contexts (via modeling and science connections) and high school contexts (via computer science and technology). However, it stops short of advocating explicitly for integrated STEM or STEAM teacher preparation. The AMTE standards thus illustrate a recurring policy tension. Namely, integration is encouraged rhetorically but optional in practice. No mechanisms exist to require or assess candidates’ ability to design coordinated science and mathematics instruction, leaving integrative expertise unevenly developed across teacher preparation pathways.

3.1.6. CBMS MET II

The CBMS Mathematical Education of Teachers II provides recommendations for mathematics teacher preparation (CBMS, 2012). We found no mentions of integrated, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary teaching of science and mathematics. References to STEM primarily referred to coursework for students (e.g., “STEM-intending high school students” or “STEM majors”) rather than integrated STEM teaching.

The report notes that some teacher preparation programs lead to multi-subject certification (e.g., mathematics and science), but these were described as logistical structures rather than intentional integration of subject matter. The document also references preparing teachers to teach computer science and includes several examples of science applications in mathematics courses (e.g., calculus, differential equations, statistics). These examples illustrate the relevance of mathematics to science contexts but do not amount to guidance on integrated teacher preparation.

Across the six policy documents we examined, we found variation in how teacher preparation standards reference integration. Only the InTASC standards explicitly stated interdisciplinary learning by identifying performances, knowledge, and dispositions that require candidates to apply content across disciplines. AMTE and NCTM provide reference interdisciplinary work through an emphasis on modeling, applications, and connections to other disciplines, particularly science and technology, but they do not explicitly frame these as expectations for integrated STEM preparation. NSTA acknowledges the role of mathematics within scientific practices and crosscutting concepts, yet there is no explicit guidance on joint science–mathematics preparation. In contrast, CAEP and CBMS contain no references to STEM, STEAM, or integrated science–mathematics instruction. Taken together, this cross-document comparison reveals that current U.S. teacher preparation policies consistently prioritize disciplinary depth while offering only limited and uneven support for interdisciplinary or integrated preparation.

This cross-document pattern indicates that, at the policy level, integration is largely unregulated and unstandardized. Because policies define what preparation programs must assess, report, and demonstrate for accreditation or compliance, the absence of integration in these documents creates structural barriers to widespread implementation. Integration is allowed, but not required, and encouraged, but not operationalized.

3.2. Certifications or Endorsements

Question 2a explores the states that offer dual or integrated endorsements. By law, each state sets its own licensure regulations. While the federal DOE has some policies that guide the process, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 defines “high-quality teachers,” ultimately, each state defines how these laws and policies are interpreted and enacted. Our review found that while a handful of states, including Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, offer integrated STEM endorsement areas, most states maintain separate content-area credentials. In other words, teachers must first gain licensure in one of the recognized areas of Mathematics, Science, English/Language Arts, Social Studies, or Elementary/Middle School. Iowa, New Jersey, and Utah have STEM endorsements for teachers for specific grade bands, commonly elementary and/or middle grades. South Carolina is the only state with STEAM offered as a recognized teacher endorsement.

Interestingly, states often offer more options for supplemental endorsements than initial licenses (e.g., Reading, Computer Science, STEM, or STEAM). Requirements for these endorsements also vary by state. Of note, we found that many of these supplemental endorsements emphasize pedagogy and coursework in multiple STEM fields, but without explicit integration of STEM/STEAM across the curriculum. Educational organizations such as STEM.org provide PD certificates, which may be used as continuing education credits required by most states; however, these certificates do not rise to the level of state credentials. Taken together, these variations demonstrate that while states acknowledge the value of broader STEM preparation, they do not consistently define integrated science and mathematics expertise as a formal credentialed area. The result is a patchwork system in which teachers may hold STEM credentials that do not require integrated instructional competencies, thereby limiting coherence in how integration is implemented across states.

3.3. School Designations

Next, we provide the findings for question 2b, asking “which states designate PK-12 schools as integrated STEM or STEAM?” Understanding the requirements for STEM education in each state is complex. Although all states affirm the importance of STEM, implementation is largely left to districts. In many states, integrated STEM schools are designated through opt-in programs (e.g., magnet schools, academies), but these designations vary in rigor and oversight. Similarly, a review of schools within a state reveals different interpretations of the process as well as uneven integration into the schools. In all states, school districts implementing a STEM-infused curriculum typically develop programs that, according to what is written in the policy, align with the state priorities. In some states, these programs are closely evaluated by state education specialists, but in other states, the school district simply files a plan.

Both selective (admitting only high academic potential and gifted students) and inclusive (open to students of all abilities) STEM-designated high schools operate across the United States. Currently, at least 15 states operate state-sponsored residential schools specializing in mathematics and science, which comprise part of the approximately 90 selective, elite STEM-focused high schools nationwide (Successful STEM Education Initiative, 2022). These are typically small, prestigious public high schools with test scores and interview admission criteria. The National Consortium of STEM Schools [NCSS] now reports 100-member high schools located in 32 states (NCSS, 2025). In addition, every state offers Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs established under the federal Perkins Act, many with STEM pathways, which are designed to prepare students for STEM careers (Congressional Research Service, 2022).

While some states focus on specialized residential or selective STEM schools, others have implemented recognition and certification processes to strengthen STEM programs within existing schools. Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas offer STEM schools or program recognition. This process is often seen as a way to make a school or program more desirable within the community. In Indiana, for example, the process includes an extensive set of criteria for schools seeking STEM certification. This is evaluated at the state level using a series of intricate rubrics. Schools that are successful in achieving the STEM designation are certified for five years prior to submission for renewal. The process in Indiana focuses on inquiry-based learning within the school, evidence of student-centered instruction, establishment of community partnerships, and out-of-school STEM opportunities for students. The Indiana process also requires intentional connections of the integrated STEM standards with curricula, teacher professional learning opportunities, and assessment tools.

Across states, these findings demonstrate that integration is operationalized more fully at the school-designation level than in teacher preparation or licensure policy. However, because participation is voluntary and the criteria vary widely, states have no consistent mechanism to scale integrated science and mathematics instruction system-wide. States with rigorous designation systems signal the importance of integration, but without corresponding teacher preparation requirements, schools must shoulder responsibility for developing teachers’ integrative expertise locally.

3.4. PK-12 Science and Mathematics Standards

Question 2c examined the extent to which national standards for PK-12 curricula promote integration. Based on our review, only four states in the U.S. have explicitly integrated PK-12 STEM standards: Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, and Tennessee. The NGSS incorporates “Using mathematics and computational thinking” as one of the integrated Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) (NGSS, 2013).

To date, 20 states have fully adopted the NGSS, and approximately 40 have adopted modified versions of the NGSS (Achieve, 2018). In contrast, the CCSS-M does not have explicitly integrated PK-12 STEM standards, although there are several mathematical practices and mentions of applications of mathematical concepts. Both the NGSS and CCSS-M include process standards: the NGSS embeds Scientific and Engineering Practices, while the CCSS-M outlines the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Table 3 indicates the alignment between the CCSS-M standards and the NGSS practices.

Table 3. Mathematics, Science, and aligned Science & Engineering Practices (Mayes & Koballa, 2012).

CCSS-M—Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMPs)	NGSS—Science & Engineering Practices (SEPs)
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them	1. Asking questions and defining problems 3. Planning and carrying out investigations
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively	2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 5. Using mathematics and computational thinking
3. Construct viable arguments and critique others’ reasoning	5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions 7. Engaging in argument from evidence 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.
4. Model with mathematics	2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations
5. Use appropriate tools strategically	2. Developing and using models 3. Planning and carrying out investigations 4. Analyzing and interpreting data
6. Attend to precision	3. Planning and carrying out investigations 8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information
7. Look for and make use of structure	4. Analyzing and interpreting data 6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions 7. Engaging in argument from evidence
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning	5. Using mathematics and computational thinking 6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions

The NRC’s (2012) Framework for PK-12 Science Education is the foundation upon which the NGSS was built. The Framework established the overarching vision and key principles for the NGSS, describing the three-dimensional model of learning which integrates science and engineering practices (SEPs), disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), and crosscutting concepts. The NGSS are the performance expectations that implement the concepts and vision that are laid out in the Framework. The Framework heavily stresses the integration of mathematics in science teaching at the PK-12 level. The term “mathematics” appears 130 times, along with “integrate or integration” 55 times, “interdisciplinary” three times, “science & mathematics” twice, and “application” 73 times. The document clearly positions mathematics as an essential tool for doing science, not just a parallel subject. The intent of the Framework was to make quantitative reasoning, data, and modeling inseparable from authentic science learning.

The many instances of the terms “mathematics” and “integration” in the NRC Framework occur in 4 contexts: (1) the science and engineering practices, (2) the crosscutting concepts, (3) the disciplinary core ideas, and (4) the curriculum and teacher preparation (NRC, 2012). Within the SEPs, analyzing and interpreting data explicitly calls for the use of statistics, probability, and proportional reasoning. Using mathematics and computational thinking is described as a core practice of science, alongside experimentation and modeling, and the use of equations, simulations, and graphs is presented as central to explaining scientific phenomena. In the crosscutting concepts, the use of ratios, proportionality, exponents, and logarithms, along with algebraic tools and quantitative reasoning, is recommended to analyze systems. In the DCIs, the integration of mathematics is emphasized within each discipline: the physical sciences rely heavily on algebra, functions, and graph interpretation; the life sciences utilize statistics and probability for genetics and ecosystems; and the earth and space sciences incorporate computational models, graphing, and geometric reasoning. Chapter 10 addresses curriculum and teacher preparation, noting that teachers are expected to develop mathematical and quantitative skills beyond their disciplinary training, yet it offers no plan for how such training should occur (NRC, 2012). The Framework calls for integrated PD involving the collaboration of mathematics and science teachers but leaves such PD planning up to the approximately 13,000 individual school districts in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2024) to implement and provides no guidance for teacher preparation.

The CCSS-M uses standards for mathematical practice as overarching processes that are intended to crosscut all content areas. There were no explicit mentions of “STEM”, “STEAM”, or “art”. The word “integrate” was not used in the document in relation to integrating STEM or STEAM. The word “technology” was used 17 times in the text to describe assistive technology and tools for visualization, data generation, and data analysis. Some mentions of technology point to science-type examples for the use of technology to collect, generate, or analyze data. “Applications” had 4 specific mentions in the document and most directly pointed at using mathematics in their applied contexts. The contrast between the NGSS and CCSS-M highlights a structural misalignment. While the NGSS embeds mathematics throughout its practices and disciplinary ideas, the CCSS-M largely omits science connections. As a result, integration depends on educators’ discretionary choices rather than on mutually reinforcing expectations across standards documents. Furthermore, although the NRC Framework extensively theorizes integration, neither the NGSS nor the CCSS-M specifies how teacher preparation, assessment systems, or curriculum structures should support coordinated implementation.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this review was to examine the extent to which U.S. policy supports the preparation of teachers to teach integrated science and mathematics and to identify how PK-12 licensure structures, school designations, and standards promote or constrain integrated approaches. Across all policies, we found a consistent pattern. Although integration is frequently recommended in principle, U.S. policy overwhelmingly reinforces disciplinary silos in practice. Below, we expand these findings, connect them to prior literature, and outline implications for policy.

4.1. Summary of Key Findings

This policy review had four central findings. First, the major teacher preparation policies from CAEP, InTASC, NSTA/ASTE, NCTM, AMTE, and CBMS provide little explicit guidance on preparing teachers to integrate science and mathematics. Instead, they emphasize strong individual disciplinary preparation with limited guidance on integrating disciplines. Second, only a small number of U.S. states offer integrated or dual science and mathematics teacher endorsements, and most require teachers to be licensed separately in mathematics or science despite state-level rhetoric encouraging integration. Third, STEM or STEAM school designations exist in many states, but the criteria vary widely, and few states have robust or consistently monitored models. Finally, while the NRC Framework and NGSS clearly articulate the integration of mathematics and science learning, most states’ interpretations of the NGSS and CCSS-M do not result in coordinated PK-12 policies that support integrated instruction.

4.2. Interpretation of Results

Taken together, these results indicate that the push toward integrated science and mathematics education in PK-12 settings has outpaced policy that supports teacher preparation to enact such integration. The contrast between the strong vision for integrating science and mathematics in the NRC’s Framework and the lack of accompanying preparation policy demonstrates a mismatch between expectations placed on teachers and the structures designed to support their learning. The dominance of single-subject licensure structures also reinforces the idea that mathematics and science are best taught separately, a message that stands in tension with national rhetoric about preparing students to solve integrated, applied problems. This misalignment suggests that integration in PK-12 classrooms is likely to be inconsistent and highly dependent on local initiatives rather than coherent policy guidance.

4.3. Context and Comparison with Existing Literature

These findings are consistent with longstanding critiques that U.S. educational systems position STEM as a policy designation rather than an instructional or epistemological shift that meaningfully integrates scientific and mathematical ways of knowing (NRC, 2001). In many cases, STEM operates as a label or policy slogan, rather than a change in the underlying structures of curriculum, pedagogy, teacher preparation, or classroom practice. As prior reviews have noted, policymakers often use “STEM” as an organizational or accountability category by designating schools, pathways, or programs as STEM without requiring substantive changes to instruction. Our findings reinforce prior research that found that U.S. education has not embraced the deeper shifts in knowledge, pedagogy, and integrated reasoning that genuine science and mathematics integration requires. Even though integration is encouraged rhetorically, policies still maintain separate science and mathematics structures.

National STEM initiatives tend to highlight broad priorities, such as innovation, workforce development, or equity, without offering concrete guidance for integrated teacher preparation or integrated instruction. The present study extends this work by showing that fragmentation persists across multiple policy layers. The teacher preparation policies emphasize disciplinary depth rather than integrated preparation; only a few states offer dual or integrated endorsements, STEM/STEAM school designations vary widely, and most states’ interpretations of the NGSS and CCSS-M do not result in coordinated PK-12 policies that support integrated instruction. Together, these patterns suggest that the U.S. policy system is not yet designed to support widespread, coherent implementation of integrated science and mathematics instruction.

In contrast, international frameworks provide examples of stronger guidance and alignment. The European Union’s STEM policy guide (Mazzeo Ortolani, 2025) and the European Schoolnet integrated STEM framework (Tasiopoulou et al., 2022) illustrate how coordinated policy can connect teacher preparation, curriculum design, and school-level implementation. While these documents differ in scope from U.S. policy contexts, they highlight what is missing from current U.S. structures: a unified framework that connects teacher preparation, PK–12 standards, and school-level implementation. These comparisons underscore the extent to which U.S. policies remain siloed relative to international efforts that explicitly define and support integrated STEM instruction.

Importantly, our results also relate in interesting ways to several recent literature reviews of integrated STEM teacher education. Portillo-Blanco et al. (2024), for instance, conducted a systematic review of integrated STEM education and identified core principles across the field, such as integration, real-world problems, inquiry, design, and teamwork, but also documented large variation in how these principles are interpreted in practice. Their work helps show what integrated STEM should look like theoretically, but our policy review reveals that U.S. policy does not align with this vision. Rather, the major preparation policy does not explicitly support those principles in pre-service teacher education.

Similarly, Rodríguez et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review of STEM teacher education programs, finding that many programs emphasize design-based learning, problem-based learning, or project-based models, and that disciplinary integration is often achieved through content or competencies rather than through coherent policy structures. Our work extends their insights by showing that, although many programs may operate with integrated curricula, state or national policy often fails to sustain or encourage that integration through teacher preparation standards, licensure, endorsements, or PK-12 standards.

Burrows et al. (2021) analyzed integrated STEM PD and argued that teachers commonly need time for practice in their PD. They found that successful integrated PD models are often structured locally, through partnerships, and rely on teacher-led design. That echoes our finding that policy at the state or national level is not strongly aligned with integrated approaches, leaving PD and integration to be driven by local or grassroots initiatives.

Eckman et al. (2016) provided one of the more concrete models of integrated STEM teacher preparation. They studied a pre-service “teaching cooperative” where STEM teacher candidates had their coursework and field experiences in a school simultaneously, and found that these teachers felt more confident, more comfortable with content knowledge, and better prepared to work with high-needs students than those in more traditional models. Their model demonstrates that deeply integrated preparation can work, but our review suggests that few policies actually mandate or support such immersive, integrated training structures through licensure and accreditation.

In summary, by comparing our policy-level analysis to these programmatic and literature-based reviews, we see a clear gap. Namely, while the research and program literature point toward effective integrated models (Burrows et al., 2021; Eckman et al., 2016; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Rodríguez et al., 2024), U.S. policy largely fails to institutionalize or scale these models. Our contribution is to make this gap visible and highlight how policy misalignment may limit the uptake of effective integration practices.

4.4. Policy Implications

The absence of an integrated preparation policy has significant implications for the future of STEM education in the U.S. Without national or state-level expectations for coursework that focuses on integrating science and mathematics, most teacher candidates will continue to experience science and mathematics as separate fields, making integrated instruction difficult at best to enact at scale. Similarly, inconsistent endorsement structures as well as varied STEM school designation processes and PK-12 standards create uneven access to integrated learning opportunities for PK-12 students. Although only a small number of states have developed STEM or STEAM endorsements for teacher certification, these efforts have typically emerged in states like Georgia and South Carolina, where there is a strong state-level push for workforce development or coordinated STEM initiatives housed in state departments of education. At a time when federal involvement in education is shifting toward increased state and local control (The White House, 2025), the lack of coherent policy may compound existing disparities. Policymakers could mitigate this fragmentation by adopting clearer definitions of integration, establishing integrated competency requirements for teacher preparation programs, and providing integrated science and mathematics endorsements, school designations, and PK-12 standards in all states.

4.5. Limitations

This review is limited by the availability and transparency of policy documents. Some states provide clear public access to endorsement structures and STEM school criteria, while other states do not. Additionally, this study focused on written policy rather than implementation. Therefore, education preparation programs and schools may engage in integrated practices that are not reflected in policy documents. Finally, the review did not analyze local district policies or independent school policies, which may play a significant role in shaping integrated science and math instruction, particularly if current policymakers move towards local control and voucher programs (Anderson, 2025).

5. Conclusions

This review highlights a circular problem in preparing teachers qualified to effectively teach science and mathematics using an integrated approach and implementing integrated science and mathematics in PK-12 schools. No single national policy provides clear guidance on preparing teachers to teach integrated science and mathematics. Moreover, PK-12 state-, district-, and school-level implementation of integrated standards is inconsistent. Although PK-16 science education policy recommends integrating mathematics and PK-16 mathematics policy recommends integrating science, there is no policy requiring teachers to take courses that prepare them to teach the disciplines using an integrated approach. In this context, an integrated approach refers to instructional designs in which students use mathematical thinking to make sense of scientific phenomena. For example, employing mathematical modeling to interpret experimental data, using statistical tools to analyze variation in scientific investigations, or engaging in engineering design cycles that require quantification, measurement, and optimization. Such examples align with Kelley and Knowles’ (2016) characterization of integration as the purposeful coordination of disciplinary practices and mirror program-level models described in recent literature reviews (e.g., Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Rodríguez et al., 2024; Burrows et al., 2021). Without policy structures that prepare teachers to engage learners in these interconnected practices, integration remains dependent on local initiatives and individual teacher expertise rather than being supported through coherent PK-16 systems.

Recent federal actions have further complicated the policy landscape. In March 2025, the President of the U.S. signed an Executive Order initiating the closure of the U.S. Department of Education and transferring many of its functions to the states. Although the full dismantling of the Department would require congressional approval, this signals a significant shift in federal involvement in education policy and raises concerns about the future of coordinated efforts to support integrated STEM and STEAM education. In November 2025, the Department of Education released a statement on the reorganization of existing programs under other federal programs to help ensure funding for legally mandated education initiatives (U.S. Department of Education, Press Release, 2025). The extent to which the American educational system will be impacted by this order remains unclear at this time.

Few states provide explicit guidance or curricula for integrated science and mathematics instruction, and most CCSS and NGSS-adopting states use modified versions of the standards and lack policy guidance for teacher preparation to support the integration of mathematics and science. Without explicit and consistent policy backed by funding to support implementation, integration remains an aspirational goal, and siloed approaches persist. We recommend looking to the European Union as a model for future policy development.

Future research should build on our policy-mapping work by conducting surveys of teacher preparation programs and PK-12 schools to identify exemplary models that integrate science and mathematics in meaningful ways. These surveys could be followed by qualitative, in-depth interviews with program directors, teacher educators, school leaders, and teachers to understand how integration is being implemented, what supports or barriers exist, and which strategies have been most successful. Such research could surface scalable, policy-relevant practices and provide concrete case studies for states or accrediting bodies looking to strengthen integrated preparation and instruction.

Drawing upon the EU policy and framework, we call for a nationwide STEM competence framework that builds on established models while providing coherent expectations for policy, teacher preparation, and classroom practice. Such a framework must avoid one-size-fits-all prescriptions, focusing instead on context-based decision making that acknowledges the complexities of educational inequalities, regional variation, and the uneven capacity of schools and teacher-training programs. A national competence framework would not standardize instruction, but would create shared benchmarks, enabling states and districts to adapt the guidance to their local realities while still moving toward a common vision for high-quality, integrated STEM education.

In closing, our study makes a unique contribution. By systemically analyzing U.S. policy across teacher preparation, licensure, school designation, and PK-12 standards, we document that fragmented, siloed structures persist despite decades of calls for integration. This gap between policy and practice limits the potential of integrated science and mathematics education to realize its promise. Unless policy aligns more closely with the integrated models documented in the research literature, integration risks remaining a vision rather than a reality for many teachers and students.