STEM as a brand, not a curriculum: how parents can tell the difference

“STEM” is often used as a trust badge, but real STEM education looks very different from tech-flavoured activities.

Article link: https://open.substack.com/pub/johanosteyn/p/stem-as-a-brand-not-a-curriculum?r=73gqa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Audio summary: https://youtu.be/jAa-KTrXKmQ

Follow me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanosteyn/

Parents want their children to love STEM: science, technology, engineering and maths. That ambition is healthy, especially in a country where skills so often determine opportunity. But here’s the uncomfortable reality: “STEM” has become a marketing badge that can mean almost anything. A programme can be labelled STEM because it has a robot, an app, a tablet, or a “coding” activity, even when the learning is shallow, unstructured, or short-lived.

This article is not an argument against STEM. It is an argument for honesty. If we want children to build real capability, we must stop confusing flashy activities with a meaningful curriculum.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

South Africa’s STEM challenge is real, and it helps explain why parents are so receptive to anything that promises a head start. Recent local commentary has warned that declining engagement in mathematics and physical science could worsen future shortages of scientists, engineers and technologists. When parents see that picture, it is understandable that they reach for extra classes, holiday camps, and after-school programmes.

At the same time, demand for robotics and coding is rising, and that demand is being actively cultivated. A 2025 South African report, covered by Bizcommunity, found learners hungry for robotics and coding education while warning that access and delivery are uneven, deepening the digital divide. Where there is demand, there is also marketing.

And now, AI is being pulled into the story. In January 2026, Eyewitness News reported the Gauteng Premier calling for the government to back the use of artificial intelligence in schools. ITWeb’s follow-up highlighted the practical reality: many classrooms still lack reliable connectivity, raising questions about readiness and priorities.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS

This is where “STEM” becomes a shield. It sounds like a guarantee of quality, rigour, and future relevance. But in practice, the label is often used to shortcut the hard work of explaining what is being taught, how it is taught, and how learning is measured. A child can “do robotics” for an afternoon by following instructions, assembling a kit, and watching something move. That can be fun. It can even be inspiring. But it is not automatically engineering, and it does not necessarily build transferable problem-solving skills.

The most common sleight of hand is equating STEM with technology exposure. Technology is part of STEM, but STEM is not “tech vibes”. Real STEM learning involves progression: concepts introduced, practised, corrected, and revisited at increasing levels of complexity. It involves reasoning, not just completing tasks. If a programme cannot clearly describe the learning pathway, it is probably selling experiences, not education.

Another warning sign is when marketing is stronger than evidence. If the pitch focuses on “future-proofing” and fear, rather than foundations and curiosity, parents should pause. The Guardian’s critique of commercial technology in education is relevant here: glossy promises of personalised, modern learning can mask shallow engagement and weak accountability. The point is not that all edtech is bad. The point is that parents are often asked to trust claims they cannot verify.

IMPLICATIONS

So what should parents look for before paying for a “STEM” programme?

First, ask for outcomes in plain language. Not “21st-century skills”, but: what will my child be able to do, explain, or solve by the end? Second, ask how progress is measured. Is there a portfolio, a project that demonstrates understanding, or any form of assessment beyond attendance? Third, ask about the teacher. Are they trained to teach children, not just to use the kit? Fourth, ask about progression. Is there a structured pathway over months, or only stand-alone sessions? Fifth, ask how maths and scientific thinking are incorporated. If everything is “coding”, you may be paying for a narrow slice of STEM while the real foundations remain untouched.

For providers, the opportunity is to build trust through transparency. Be honest about depth. Differentiate between exposure, enrichment, and mastery. Parents will respect a programme that says, “This is an introduction,” far more than one that implies career outcomes after a few sessions.

CLOSING TAKEAWAY

STEM matters, and South Africa needs more children to feel confident in maths, science, and technical problem-solving. But the STEM label has become too easy to buy and too hard to verify. Parents should not have to decode marketing language to understand what their children are actually learning. The healthier future is simple: demand clarity, reward programmes that show progression and evidence, and treat “STEM” as a curriculum promise, not a branding trick. If we get that right, we won’t just produce more “STEM kids”. We’ll raise more capable, curious young people who can think.

Author Bio: Johan Steyn is a prominent AI thought leader, speaker, and author with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence’s impact on business and society. He is passionate about ethical AI development and its role in shaping a better future. Find out more about Johan’s work at https://www.aiforbusiness.net