What "Science: A New Golden Age" means for afterschool STEM

By Della Cronin, Principal, Bose Public Affairs Group.

The White House recently released an ambitious blueprint for reshaping the nation’s research and development enterprise. Although “Science: A New Golden Age” is not primarily an education policy document, STEM education and afterschool advocates should pay close attention.

Released in July by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director Michael Kratsios, the report describes itself as the most comprehensive reconsideration of the U.S. science and technology enterprise since Vannevar Bush’s landmark “Science: The Endless Frontier” in 1945. It calls for changes in how federal research is funded, a greater emphasis on critical technologies and AI-enabled science, stronger connections between research and manufacturing, and new pathways for Americans to participate in science and technology.

For STEM education advocates, the last point may offer the greatest opportunity.

The report calls for integrating hands-on technical training and apprenticeships into STEM education, expanding scientific careers beyond traditional academic pathways, and building regional innovation clusters connecting research, advanced manufacturing, and communities. That vision aligns remarkably well with what high-quality afterschool and informal STEM programs already do: give young people opportunities to experiment, build, design, code, investigate, and interact with STEM professionals. The emerging policy environment creates an opportunity to describe STEM education as part of the nation's talent and research infrastructure, rather than simply as an education program.

An opening for informal STEM

The report's emphasis on practical knowledge is particularly relevant to informal STEM learning settings such as afterschool programs, science centers, museums, libraries, and makerspaces. These organizations introduce millions of young people to scientific tools and emerging technologies and can connect students who might never envision themselves in STEM with scientists, technicians, and employers.

That makes informal STEM more than "outreach" at the end of the research pipeline. It can be the community on-ramp to the research enterprise—providing hands-on experimentation, career awareness, technical identity development, and public access to federally supported science.

The report also presents challenges. Its vision prioritizes fields including AI, quantum science, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, nuclear energy, and space. Advocates will need to make the case that developing leadership in those technologies requires sustained investments in people, including early opportunities that build curiosity, scientific literacy, and a sense of belonging in STEM. They will also need to make the case for investments in building expertise in the basic sciences that power these fields and technologies.

The research community is paying attention

The scientific community's reaction to the paper has been mixed. Some innovation-policy advocates have welcomed proposals to experiment with grantmaking, reduce administrative burdens, create new research organizations, and give scientists greater freedom to pursue ambitious ideas. Others assert that the framework could further disadvantage research universities and potentially justify reductions at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies. And others question the report's emphasis on technology and engineering, arguing that a thriving U.S. research enterprise also depends on support for fields such as social science and public health.

Those debates matter to STEM education advocates because the future research enterprise cannot be separated from future STEM talent pathways.

Advocates have an opportunity now

Importantly, “Science: A New Golden Age” is not simply a discussion paper. The accompanying FY2028 R&D priorities memorandum directs federal R&D agencies to develop implementation plans and incorporate the new priorities into their FY2028 budget submissions.

That creates an advocacy opportunity before agency priorities, budgets, and grantmaking practices become fixed. Advocates should consider engaging agencies while they are translating the White House vision into implementation plans and future solicitations.

Afterschool and informal STEM education leaders should engage OSTP, NSF, the Departments of Education, Labor, and Energy, NASA, and other science agencies with a straightforward message: achieving American scientific leadership requires investing not only in laboratories and technologies, but also in the people who will use them.

Advocates can bring concrete examples showing how informal STEM programs connect young people to critical technologies, researchers, employers, and technical careers; how partnerships with schools, colleges, and industry expand participation; and how federal STEM investments reach communities far beyond research universities. Advocates should also engage young people directly in these conversations so they can shape and guide discussions about their futures.

The White House has opened a consequential debate about what America's scientific enterprise should look like for the next generation. Afterschool STEM advocates have both an opportunity and a responsibility to make sure that the next generation itself is part of that conversation.

For tools and resources on making the case for afterschool STEM, visit the Afterschool STEM Hub’s advocacy toolkit. And for the most recent data on the state of afterschool STEM nationwide, check out aa3pm.co/stem.