A Scoping Review of STEAM Policies in Europe

Academic Editors: Foteini Asderaki and Sofia Mastrokoukou Received: 8 May 2025 Revised: 5 June 2025 Accepted: 9 June 2025 Published: 19 June 2025 Citation: Roinioti, E., Cherouvis, S., Filipowicz, S., Addis, A., Chappell, K., & Karpouzis, K. (2025). A Scoping Review of STEAM Policies in Europe. Education Sciences,15(6), 779. https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060779 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Review A Scoping Review of STEAM Policies in Europe Elina Roinioti 1, Stephanos Cherouvis 2, Szymon Filipowicz 3,4 , Annalisa Addis 5, Kerry Chappell 6 and Kostas Karpouzis 7,* 1Department of Performing and Digital Arts, University of Peloponnese, 211 00 Nafplio, Greece; [email protected] 2 European Network of Science Centres and Museums (ECSITE), 1050 Brussels, Belgium; scher[email protected] 3Copernicus Science Centre, 00-390 Warsaw, Poland; [email protected] 4Interdisciplinary Doctoral School, SWPS University, 03-815 Warsaw, Poland; [email protected] 5Lisbon Council, 1040 Brussels, Belgium; [email protected] 6School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PY, UK; [email protected] 7Department of Communication, Media and Culture, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, 176 71 Athens, Greece *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The Road-STEAMer Horizon Europe Program examines STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education policies across Europe, with a specific focus on integrating the arts into traditional STEM disciplines. Through the analysis of open-access repositories, official documents, and stakeholder interviews, this study conducts both a macroanalysis of European policies and a detailed analysis of national initiatives. The research categorizes EU member states into three groups: high-priority countries (Belgium , France, Bulgaria, Finland, and Germany), countries acknowledging the importance of STEAM with partial initiatives, and those in early development stages. Special attention is given to grassroots initiatives. The findings reveal significant variation among member states and affiliated countries, driven by unique national challenges. In many cases, STEM/STEAM programs are closely linked to broader societal issues, such as financial development, digital transition, and social inequalities. Keywords: arts; education; policy analysis; scoping review; STEM; STEAM 1. Introduction According to the 2025 report by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) 1 , Europe is experiencing a significant shortage of skilled professionals in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields—a challenge that reflects global trends. Compounding this issue is the persistent under-representation of women and marginalized groups within these critical sectors. However, the implications of STEAM education extend well beyond the direct workforce. By integrating arts into STEM, STEAM education offers broad societal benefits, equipping individuals—regardless of their occupation—with essential skills to thrive in an increasingly complex and digital world. This scoping review, conducted as part of the Road-STEAMer Horizon Program, aims to address these challenges through a dual focus. At the macro-policy level, the primary objective is to map and synthesize European Union initiatives in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education, forming the foundation for identifying existing gaps. Besides this, the report examines the evolution of national-level STEAM policies within individual EU member states and affiliated countries. This longitudinal analysis seeks to uncover trends, adaptations, and innovations in policy implementation Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060779 Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 2 of 19 over time, offering a nuanced understanding of the progress and challenges at both regional and national levels. The data presented here is gathered from open-access repositories, official EU and national websites, policy-makers’ portals, and the collective expertise of the Road-STEAMer project consortium. Short interviews were also conducted with targeted stakeholders in Poland and Ukraine, using a concise open-ended interview guide. The paper aims to enable clear identification of policy gaps and support the development of targeted recommendations for addressing these gaps; the text is organized into the following key sections: 1. Introduction: This section outlines the research questions and policy concepts that frame the analysis. It provides a foundational overview of the primary inquiries and the core policy principles guiding the investigation. 2. Methodology and policy agenda: The methodology section details the approaches and techniques employed for data collection and analysis. It offers a thorough explanation of how the landscape of STEAM policies was examined, including the tools and frameworks used to map existing initiatives. 3. STEAM Education Policy Analysis: This section presents the findings from the analysis of collected data, highlighting key trends, strengths, and deficiencies in the current policy landscape. 4. Discussion and Conclusion: The final section synthesizes the findings, discussing their implications and setting the stage for future research or policy action. It also outlines the anticipated next steps in bridging identified gaps. The Context of This Work The project’s primary objective is to develop a comprehensive STEAM roadmap for science education within the framework of Horizon Europe. This roadmap represents a strategic vision designed to align the European Union’s leading research and innovation funding program with efforts to foster greater interest and participation in STEM fields. Central to this initiative is the integration of artistic methodologies, with a focus on creative thinking and applied arts, as encapsulated in the “A” of STEAM. The consortium’s mission is to deliver a roadmap tailored to Europe’s needs by emphasizing key strategies. First, the project seeks to cultivate collaboration and co-creation among diverse stakeholder communities, including those involved in science education, research, innovation, and creativity. This effort involves fostering deep exchanges and dialogues to promote mutual learning, thereby generating robust insights and shared understandings of the opportunities, challenges, and requirements shaping STEAM education. Second, the initiative adopts a bottom-up approach that foregrounds the practices and autonomy of educators and practitioners. This strategy intentionally moves away from abstract, high-level conceptualizations of STEAM or generic top-down implementation plans, aiming instead to root innovation in the realities of educational practice. Finally, the roadmap focuses on putting STEAM methodologies into practice by showcasing exemplary cases and best practices. By building stronger connections between open science and open schooling, the project aspires to amplify the role of science education as a critical instrument for addressing Europe’s pressing scientific and societal challenges. In this paper, we use the term STEAM when the arts are integrated and STEM when there is no specific connection to the arts. Our goal, however, is to emphasize the arts as an equally important field of knowledge and skill. Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 3 of 19 2. Methodology and Policy Agenda Examining the intersection of policy-making and STEAM education requires addressing key concepts and formulating fundamental research questions to guide the inquiry. The exploration of STEAM education is inherently multidimensional, encompassing a wide range of perspectives. These include policy development, strategic initiatives at both official and semi-official levels, societal implications, issues of inclusivity and representation of marginalized groups, and the challenges posed by labor skills shortages and digital transitions. In the context of education, the scope of inquiry extends to curriculum design, the implementation of interdisciplinary activities, and strategies for achieving integration across disciplines. The role of the arts and humanities, and their synergy with traditional STEM domains such as mathematics and engineering, is particularly significant. Moreover, the tension between vocational and general education, as discussed by Al Quraan and A Forawi (Al Quraan & Forawi,2019, p. 85), adds another layer of complexity, emphasizing the need for nuanced approaches to educational reform. Within the Horizon Europe framework, our project identifies several pressing challenges currently confronting EU member states. Foremost among these is Europe’s ongoing skills crisis, marked by employment challenges and a pronounced shortage of qualified professionals in STEAM fields. This skills gap impedes progress in digital and green transitions, further exacerbated by the persistent under-representation of women and marginalized communities in these sectors. Beyond workforce development, STEAM education holds value for all individuals, equipping them with the critical competencies needed to navigate a rapidly evolving, digitized world. Innovative approaches, such as incorporating arts into STEM and promoting out-of-school science activities, enhance engagement, foster soft skills, and prepare individuals to address complex societal issues like the climate crisis. By promoting interdisciplinary methodologies, STEAM education also helps cultivate broader societal appreciation for the arts, fostering adaptability and resilience in the face of future uncertainties. Europe also faces critical labor shortages in STEAM and ICT sectors, as highlighted in the Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2023 2 report and findings from the European Commission’s Joint Research Center. These shortages are compounded by mismatches between the skills of tertiary graduates and the needs of employers. Challenges include deficiencies in digital skills, gaps in soft skills among graduates, and persistent imbalances in workforce participation by gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and disability. Policies such as Action 7 of the European Skills Agenda aim to bridge these gaps by emphasizing STEAM education and prioritizing digital competence among all age groups. However, more is needed to address disparities and align education systems with the demands of a technologically advancing world, especially as the demand for ICT specialists is expected to reach 20 million by 2030. In this context, the STEAM approach’s holistic integration of arts and sciences offers a pathway for addressing these challenges while fostering an inclusive and equitable workforce. Our work approaches STEAM education as the integration of artistic methods and perspectives into traditional STEM disciplines. However, STEAM lacks a universal definition, reflecting the field’s complexity and diversity. The project identifies six key criteria for successful STEAM practices: collaboration, interdisciplinary relationships, thinking–making– doing, creativity, real-world connection, and inclusion/personalization/empowerment, all underpinned by a commitment to equity (Chappell & Hetherington,2024). This principle advocates for active student participation while rejecting traditional hierarchical approaches to education. Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 4 of 19 Policy-making, in contrast, has historically been defined within narrower boundaries. Thomas Dye’s influential definition of policy as “what government chooses to do or not to do” (Dye,1992) encapsulates a top-down perspective focused on government action and inaction. Although this approach remains relevant, it fails to account for the varying levels of policy enforcement at the governmental or EU levels and the critical contributions of grassroots, bottom-up initiatives. These community-driven efforts often bring unique issues to the forefront of policy agendas, reflecting real-world challenges that top-down approaches may overlook. The primary objective of our policy analysis is to gather and evaluate information on STEAM education policies at both the EU and national levels. This involves mapping the policy landscape and identifying the priorities that shape current educational strategies. Key research questions include the following: 1. How do the identified challenges intersect with STEAM education and what are the prerequisites for effective integration? 2. To what extent are arts and humanities incorporated into existing national and international policies? 3. How have national governments adopted EU recommendations and directives and what strategies underpin their current policy efforts? Although the analysis emphasizes top-down policy initiatives, it also acknowledges the critical role of grassroots and practitioner-driven approaches. Educators, community leaders, and other stakeholders provide practical perspectives that address real-life problems, providing valuable information that complements formal policy frameworks. By integrating these diverse points of view, the analysis seeks to create a comprehensive understanding of the role of STEAM education in shaping Europe’s future. 2.1. Methodology This section details the methodological framework employed by the Road-STEAMer project to identify, classify, and analyze policies related to STEAM education. The process was grounded in desk research, using primary and secondary sources, supplemented by insights from the Road-STEAMer consortium and its network. Thematic analysis served as the main method for exploring the data collected, ensuring a systematic approach to extracting key themes and patterns. The methodology for analyzing EU-level policies focused on compiling detailed information about various legislative instruments and initiatives. With respect to their type, the policies were classified into four types. • Directives: Legislative acts outlining goals for EU countries, allowing each country to develop its own laws to achieve these goals. • Recommendations: Non-binding instruments offering guidance without imposing legal obligations. • Reports: Official reports that analyze and assess the impact of a policy or provide a framework for future interventions. • Communications: Documents that may include policy evaluations, summaries of action programs, or proposals for future initiatives. For EU-level policies, the key information collected consisted of the following: • Name/identifier of the policy text. • The purpose of the policy, particularly as it relates to STEM or STEAM education. • Key terms or concepts encoded within the text. • Specific activities or recommendations tied to the objectives of the policy. • Relevant timeframes, where applicable. Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 5 of 19 • Cross-references to related policies to understand interconnections within the legislative ecosystem. In the context of national policies, our objective was to capture both top-down policy frameworks and significant bottom-up initiatives that impact STEAM education ecosystems. Two primary dimensions guided data collection, namely formal policies and legislation, that is, national STEAM policies that define overarching frameworks for educational practices, and grassroots initiatives, where we highlight notable examples of community-driven actions and informal programs that contribute to the STEAM landscape. The aim was not to provide an exhaustive mapping, but rather to highlight policy initiatives across different countries and examine whether and under what conditions STEAM has been acknowledged as a central approach to national development. However, the impact factor is rarely quantified, as most grassroots initiatives have not undergone a formal evaluation. Evaluating bottom-up initiatives typically requires the participation of universities, centralized national tracking systems, or policy feedback loops, resources that are often lacking. In the case of Road-STEAMer, the experience of the professional network of the curriculum informed the sampling of case studies, which was guided by qualitative criteria such as the periodicity, size and participation levels of events. Given the diversity of policy environments across EU member states, the analysis accounted for national traditions in policy formulation, acknowledging the inherent variability and limits to generalization. Following the logic of Comparative Policy Analysis (Cruceanu,2019) which involves comparing policy strategies and initiatives across regions or countries, national policies were grouped into three categories based on their prioritization of STEAM education. These three categories reflect the extent to which national governments have adopted a clear and consistent roadmap for STEAM integration, in line with EU recommendations. 1. Countries that place a high priority on STEAM education. 2. Nations that acknowledge STEAM education in their policies but lack extensive frameworks. 3. Countries that do not prioritize STEAM education or are in the early stages of developing relevant policies are highlighted. As a method that evolves with available data and identifies patterns through crosscase comparison, our analysis examines the policy frameworks of European countries using the following criteria: the presence of national policies focused on STEM or STEAM; a clearly defined set of policy objectives or goals; major government-backed programs and initiatives; the specific target groups addressed by the policies; and the degree of alignment between national policies and broader EU macro-policy goals. A distinctive feature of the Road-STEAMer methodology was its focus on integrating the arts and humanities into traditional STEM domains, aligning with the broader vision of promoting interdisciplinary education. Drawing on an extensive literature review and earlier work (Chappell & Hetherington,2024), we proposed specific criteria for the successful STEAM adoption, with an emphasis on collaboration, creativity, real-world relevance, and inclusivity. The policy analysis explored whether official documents explicitly referenced STEAM or adhered to the narrower STEM framework. An interpretative approach was then employed to contextualize the discourse on arts in education, particularly its role in fostering interdisciplinarity. 2.2. Challenges and Limitations Policy analysis traditionally encompasses four core components: (a) identifying the policy’s target problem, (b) articulating its principles or objectives, (c) specifying implementation actions, and (d) conducting evaluation. However, within the Road-STEAMer project, Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 6 of 19 evaluation posed notable challenges due to limited access to policy texts, a general paucity of evaluative data, and the evolving nature of many STEAM policies. Limited access, on the other hand, was due to several factors, the two most significant being the language barrier and the lack of systematic recording of policy-making by local governments. Particularly regarding the former, many EU countries’ policy texts and reports are available only in the local language, making it difficult to overcome language barriers. This challenge was addressed with the help of the Road-STEAMer network—collaborators across the EU guided us through national texts and policies. Targeted, structured interviews with stakeholders—focused on topics such as policy changes over the past three years, potential drawbacks, and issues of policy consistency—provided valuable contextual depth and contributed additional layers of insight to our data. 3. STEAM Education Policy Analysis 3.1. Policy Overview in EU The “Science Education for Responsible Citizenship” report (European Commission, 2015) and subsequent European policy documents collectively outline a transformative vision for STEAM education. These documents emphasize the interdisciplinary integration of the arts and humanities within traditional STEM education to address societal challenges and promote inclusivity, creativity, and innovation. The progression of these policy frameworks underscores the evolution of EU priorities, from foundational STEM education to broader STEAM approaches that integrate societal, technological, and equity-driven goals. More specifically, the report introduced the “Framework for Science Education for Responsible Citizenship,” organized into six key areas: • Establishing a Learning Continuum for All: Emphasizing lifelong learning pathways to maintain engagement with science and STEAM education. • Transitioning from STEM to STEAM: Advocating for the inclusion of arts and humanities to enhance creativity and interdisciplinary approaches. • Quality Teaching: Supporting teacher development through pre-service and inservice training. • Collaborative Networks: Encouraging partnerships among educational, governmental, and private stakeholders. • Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Embedding societal responsibility into education and research practices. • Strategic Alignment: Ensuring that educational strategies at various governance levels respond to societal and technological needs. The report highlights the transformative potential of STEAM to promote equity, accessibility, and the inclusion of marginalized groups and positions arts integration as a means to inspire diverse participation, including increased interest among women and under-represented communities in STEM fields. Building on this, the 2018 Council Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (Schola Europaea,2018) reflected a significant shift, updating the previous framework to address contemporary challenges such as digital literacy and automation. Key themes included the following: • Focus on STEAM: Portrayed as both a driver of educational transformation and a tool for societal advancement. • Integration of Creativity and Computational Expertise: Recognized as essential for sustainable development and inspiring youth, particularly women, to pursue STEM careers. Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 7 of 19 • Lifelong Learning and Societal Needs: Highlighting education’s role in equipping individuals to navigate rapidly evolving digital landscapes. The recommendation marked STEAM as the cornerstone of educational reform, aligning learning with the demands of modern workplaces and social contexts. In 2020, the European Commission produced a Communication on Skills Development. This communication 3 introduced a forward-looking perspective on aligning STEM and STEAM education with labor market needs and lifelong learning. Notable aspects and instruments included the following: • Enhancing Transversal and Entrepreneurial Skills: Linking STEM education with skill development for a dynamic workforce (Action 3). • Promoting Excellence and Networks: Strengthening educational ties through European platforms like SCIENTIX4(Action 7). • Universities as STEAM Hubs (Action 5). • Erasmus+ (2021–2027): Supporting STEAM education to address gender disparities, with a significant focus on women in ICT and engineering. • Horizon Europe Program: Facilitating transnational collaborations and advancing responsible research and innovation. The report emphasized STEAM as critical for the European Education Area by 2025, with the aim of addressing gender under-representation and skill shortages, particularly in digital and technological domains. More recently, the Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027) reinforced the vision of inclusivity and accessibility in lifelong STEM education. Action 13, “Women’s Participation in STEM”, directly addressed gender imbalance in STEM fields through public awareness campaigns (e.g., ESTEM festivals), platforms such as Girls Go Circular to foster community and mentorship, and advocacy for interdisciplinary STEAM approaches to ensure inclusivity. STEAM education was linked to broader societal goals, such as equitable access to technology and fostering a culture of creativity and critical thinking. Finally, the European Council designated 2023 as the European Year of Skills. Related policy advancements reinforced the transition from STEM to STEAM within an interdisciplinary framework by integrating digital skills to enhance digital literacy and access at all educational levels. Additionally, efforts to promote STEAM as a tool for lifelong learning, adult education, and technological skill development aimed to ensure equitable knowledge access. The directive also emphasized a whole-government approach, highlighting STEAM’s central role in addressing digital skill gaps and improving educational inclusivity as policies transition from national to EU levels. Overall, the evolving EU policy landscape reveals a robust commitment to positioning STEAM education as a driver of societal, technological, and cultural transformation. The integration of arts and humanities is not only an educational enhancement but also a strategic measure for inclusivity, aiming to bridge gender gaps, inspire creativity, and prepare citizens for the complexities of a digital and automated world. The European approach also highlights collaboration, with universities and international partnerships playing pivotal roles in achieving these goals. 3.2. EU Policy in National Contexts This section examines the integration of STEAM priorities into national policy frameworks across the EU and relevant affiliated countries, highlighting the varying degrees of adoption and implementation. Building on prior analyses, including the Kearney Report (Kearney,2011), the categorization provides an updated perspective on how EU member states are responding to EU-level recommendations and societal needs. The findings point to an evolving landscape where STEAM education is increasingly embedded within Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 8 of 19 national strategies, with a notable shift towards long-term commitments. The following categorization focuses on STEAM, where the primary criterion is the degree of integration among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—with explicit reference to the inclusion of the arts. The use of parentheses in STEAM is intentional, signaling practices that acknowledge the role of the arts but have not yet fully implemented or operationalized this integration. To evaluate the status of STEAM educational policies at the national level, three categories were defined: Countries Prioritizing STEAM Education: These countries demonstrate sustained and advanced integration of STEAM education into their national policies. Characteristics of this group include the following: • Policy Maturity: National frameworks reflect a clear identification of challenges, coupled with detailed action plans to address them. • Long-Term Strategies: Policies transition from shortand mid-term measures to cohesive strategies that align with broader societal and EU objectives. • Continuity and Responsiveness: Ongoing policy development and implementation showcase adaptability to evolving market and societal demands. Examples of this category are as follows: • Belgium: Focuses on STEAM to address labor market demands, emphasizing teacher training and curriculum innovation. • France: Embeds STEAM education within its broader educational modernization agenda, linking it to societal challenges such as digital transformation. • Bulgaria: Recent adoption of standalone STEAM strategies as part of national education reforms, reflecting a strong commitment to EU recommendations. • Finland: Recognized for its innovative approach to STEAM education, integrating it within its holistic education system. • Germany: Maintains robust STEAM initiatives that address workforce needs, emphasizing technical and vocational education and training (TVET) as part of its dual system. Nations Recognizing the Significance of STEAM Education: This category includes countries with emerging or targeted STEAM initiatives, reflecting their recognition of the field’s importance but lacking comprehensive, long-term strategies. These countries often implement policies aimed at addressing immediate labor market needs or specific educational gaps; as a result, policies in these countries may focus on pilot programs or region-specific interventions, while the STEAM initiatives tend to have limited scope or duration. Countries Not Prioritizing STEAM Education or Developing Initiatives: In this group, national strategies for STEAM education are either absent or in nascent stages. Limited data availability and a lack of comprehensive frameworks characterize this category. This is illustrated by minimal emphasis on STEAM in policy agendas, as well as the absence of cohesive strategies, with efforts often confined to isolated or grassroots initiatives. Usually, the challenges for these countries include resource constraints, a limited alignment with EU recommendations, and a lack of actionable policies to address identified challenges. 3.3. STEAM Education as High Priority Countries such as Belgium, France, Bulgaria, Finland, and Germany serve as exemplars within the EU for their strategic emphasis on STEAM education. These nations display continuity, with a pattern of consistent investment and policy adaptation, policy evolution with a progression from fragmented measures to comprehensive frameworks, and proper Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 9 of 19 alignment with EU objectives, with policies that resonate with the goals outlined in EU directives, including gender equity, digital literacy, and creativity. Overall, this analysis reveals a shifting policy landscape, with a growing number of EU countries recognizing STEAM as a pivotal element of their educational strategies. While progress is evident, disparities persist, particularly among nations in the third category. Addressing these gaps will require tailored support, resource sharing, and a stronger emphasis on cross-national collaborations to ensure a balanced and inclusive implementation of STEAM education across the EU. Belgium has been a front-runner in integrating STEAM into its educational and policy frameworks, initiating its efforts with the STEM Action Plan 2012–2020. This foundational policy introduced a structural approach to enhancing STEM education, addressing systemic issues such as gender disparity, labor market alignment, and the under-representation of disadvantaged groups. Key elements include the following: • Comprehensive Objectives: Making STEM education more attractive by incorporating innovative teaching methods, increasing the number of girls and students from under-represented groups in STEM fields, and improving societal attitudes toward technical professions. • Stakeholder Engagement: Collaboration across education, government, and business sectors, and establishment of the STEM Platform, comprising experts from diverse domains, who provided dynamic feedback loops for continual improvement. • Monitoring and Evaluation: Tools such as the STEMMonitor, which tracked enrollment trends and outcomes, illustrated the policy’s impact, with over 2600 additional students enrolling in STEM-related courses between 2010–2011 and 2019–2020. While the initial focus was primarily on traditional STEM fields, the plan did acknowledge the arts as a potential integrative element, though it lacked explicit implementation frameworks for STEAM. Building on the successes and insights from its predecessor, Belgium introduced the STEM Agenda 2030 5 in 2021. This initiative reflects a more holistic approach, addressing broader societal challenges and sustainable development, enhanced competencies for students, educators, and industry professionals, and gender-specific outreach to inspire girls to pursue STEM careers. It also indicates that STEM remains a national priority, with initiatives extending beyond education to influence research, employment, and everyday life. Bulgaria’s journey toward STEAM prioritization is relatively recent but has been marked by substantial strategic efforts. The country began laying the groundwork during 2013–2014, culminating in the development of a comprehensive STEAM agenda as part of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (2021–2027) 6 . Key Milestones and Priorities include the following: 1. The 2022 National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Central to this plan is the establishment of a national STEM ecosystem, with an emphasis on digital literacy for all age groups, and the creation of innovative STEM centers equipped with modern infrastructure to promote project-based and experiential learning. 2. Integration of Arts and Creativity: STEM education is explicitly linked to creativity and digital arts, reflecting the broader goals of STEAM education. 3. Infrastructure and Capacity Building: Investments in facilities, labs, and educational resources were planned, so as to modernize the STEM ecosystem, also relating to the digitization of libraries and other learning spaces to enhance accessibility and interactivity. 4. Targeted Efforts to Address Inequality, with a special focus on social inclusion, exemplified by initiatives like STEM BUS Bulgaria (2022), which takes STEM learning to Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 16 of 19 aquaculture and video game design, where students can explore the intersection of science, technology, and creativity. This approach is gaining momentum, particularly in senior high schools in countries like Denmark, where programs are designed to nurture creative professionals who can navigate and contribute to the digital and creative economies. The integration of the arts into the STEM curriculum is seen as an essential strategy to prepare students for future industries that require not just technical knowledge but also creativity, innovation, and critical thinking. 5. Conclusions STEAM education is increasingly recognized across the EU as a key pillar for preparing students for the challenges and opportunities of the future. Countries have implemented various strategies based on national needs and policy objectives, ranging from early education reforms to professional development for teachers and STEAM professionals. In many instances, the integration of the arts with STEM has been a strategy to address gender imbalances and foster creative problem-solving skills among students. The evolution of European policy documents on STEAM education shows a strategic shift towards addressing contemporary challenges in a rapidly changing world, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic. Initiatives beginning with the 2015 “Science Education for Responsible Citizenship” report laid the foundation for a more inclusive and digitally literate society, with a strong emphasis on science education and its role in societal development. However, while these documents have been consistent in promoting STEM education, the explicit integration of arts into STEM (i.e., the transition to STEAM) has been only sporadically referenced, with little action-oriented guidance in the official EU frameworks. This gap in policy underscores a broader question for future development in education: how to systematically integrate the arts and humanities into the traditionally more technical fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. On a national level, various EU countries have adopted diverse strategies to advance STEAM education, tailoring their approaches to specific national contexts and priorities. Countries like Belgium, France, Malta, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Finland, and Germany have placed STEAM education at the heart of their policy agendas, aligning with broader European goals of promoting sustainable digital and green economies. These nations have also prioritized educational reforms, notably in the post-2019 period, with a clear focus on accelerating digital transitions to foster innovation and economic competitiveness. Despite the common trends toward educational reform, the integration of arts into these initiatives remains relatively fragmented. Social inequalities, especially in terms of gender disparities in STEM fields, have spurred the creation of specialized programs aimed at promoting female participation and ensuring greater inclusivity in STEAM disciplines. However, the specific role of the arts in this context has largely been underdeveloped in EU policy, and is more prevalent in bottom-up initiatives or national projects. In this context, Italy’s “Arts and Science across Italy” initiative, Denmark’s STEAM courses, and the UK’s more bottom-up STEAM approach, supported through the likes of the CLA (Cultural Learning Alliance,2017), exemplify national-level efforts to integrate the arts into the broader STEAM framework and emphasize the development of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking, skills that are essential in preparing students for the evolving global economy. While our review acknowledges that current EU policy and funding efforts prioritize STEAM education as a strategic response to skills shortages, digital transformation, and societal inequalities, we also recognize that this emphasis is not without tensions. The very notion of STEAM was introduced precisely to address the narrow instrumentalism Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 17 of 19 of traditional STEM by integrating creativity, critical thinking, and cultural awareness. However, as some critics have argued, when the arts and humanities are merely “added on” to an essentially STEM-driven agenda, their potential to reshape educational priorities is limited (Chappell & Hetherington,2024). This, essentially, calls for deeper reflection on whether the current focus on STEAM fully addresses the complex social, environmental, and ethical challenges Europe faces. Regrounding education in culture and humanistic inquiry, rather than simply supplementing STEM with aesthetic elements, may offer alternative and complementary pathways. Future policy work should explore these paradigms more explicitly, including how arts-led or humanities-driven educational models might inform broader educational reform. In this context, the Road-STEAMer project, with its holistic educational approach, highlights the importance of fostering critical thinking and self-development through interdisciplinary methods. This approach reflects a broader shift in national education policy, where governments are increasingly turning to STEM disciplines as central to addressing societal challenges, such as the ongoing digital transition and the green economy. In this context, by analyzing the national implementations of STEAM programs, we gain crucial insight into how different audiences are being targeted and how policy objectives are being shaped in response to these efforts. This understanding provides a critical foundation for identifying policy gaps at the European level, and proposing policies to tackle them, ensuring that it meets the needs of diverse learners and future-proofing European education for the challenges ahead. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology and formal analysis, E.R. and K.K.; investigation and resources, all authors; data curation, E.R.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R. and K.K.; writing—review and editing, all authors; supervision, K.K.; funding acquisition, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work was supported by the Horizon Europe Road-STEAMer project “Developing a STEAM Roadmap for Science Education in Horizon Europe”, grant number: 101058405. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript: STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics STEAM Science, Technology, Arts, Engineering, Mathematics EU European Union JRC Joint Research Centre Notes 1 European Education Area, STEM education: report highlights need for more policy efforts and research, published: 22 January 2025, https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/stem-education-report-highlights-need-for-more-policy-efforts-and-research (accessed on 1 May 2025). 2 Employment and Social Developments in Europe (ESDE) 2023, https://op.europa.eu/webpub/empl/esde-2023/ (accessed on 1 May 2025). Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 18 of 19 3 European Commission, European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience, 1 July 2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0274 (accessed on 1 May 2025). 4Scientix STEM Education Community, https://www.scientix.eu/ (accessed on 1 May 2025). 5 Cedefop and ReferNet (2023). STEM Agenda 2030: Belgium-FL. Timeline of VET policies in Europe, https://www.cedefop .europa.eu/en/tools/timeline-vet-policies-europe/search/43768 (accessed on 1 May 2025). 6 European parliament, Think tank, Bulgaria’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play, https://www.europarl .europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2022)733662 (accessed on 1 May 2025). 7 Ministry of Education and Culture, Finnish National STEM Strategy and Action Plan: Experts in natural sciences, technology and mathematics in support of society’s welfare and growth, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/164953 (accessed on 1 May 2025). 8 German qualifications framework working group, Progress through education—the German Qualification Scheme, 20 March 2011, http://bit.ly/3GkGQ5I (accessed on 1 May 2025). 9 Ingenious Project, France National Needs Analysis on STEM School-Industry Collaboration, https://bit.ly/4d3yXhD (accessed on 1 May 2025). 10 Eurydice, Join in STEM: BMBWF action plan for more STEM experts, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education -systems/austria/national-reforms-higher-education (accessed on 1 May 2025). 11 STEAMonEdu, Action plan for education in Romania, https://steamonedu.eu/platform/node/118 (accessed on 1 May 2025). 12 Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs, Strategy for Denmark’s Digital Growth, https://investindk.com/-/media/ websites/invest-in-denmark/files/danish-digital-growth-strategy2018.ashx (accessed on 1 May 2025). 13 STEM Talent Girl, https://talent-girl.com/ (accessed on 1 May 2025). 14 Visioning the future by transforming education-National Educational Strategy 2024–2030 (Malta), https://education.gov.mt/ wp-content/uploads/2023/12/NATIONAL-EDUCATION-BOOKLET-DEC-2023-2030.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025). 15 Art and Science across Italy, https://artandscience.infn.it/en/ (accessed on 1 May 2025). 16 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Strategy for the Education Policy of the Czech Republic up to 2030, https://msmt.gov.cz/ uploads/brozura_S2030_en_fin_online.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025). 17 Digital Slovenia 2030, https://digital-skills-jobs.europa.eu/en/actions/national-initiatives/national-strategies/slovenia-digital -slovenia-2030 (accessed on 1 May 2025). 18 The UK Science and Technology Framework, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-science-and-technology -framework/the-uk-science-and-technology-framework (accessed on 1 May 2025). 19 UK Government, Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014: Next Steps, https://www.gov.uk/government/ organisations/hm-treasury (accessed on 1 May 2025). 20 Ukraine: Reform of General Secondary Education—the New Ukrainian School, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/news/ ukraine-reform-general-secondary-education-new-ukrainian-school (accessed on 1 May 2025). References Al Quraan, E. J., & Forawi, S. A. (2019). Critical analysis of international STEM education policy themes. Journal of Education and Human Development,8(2), 82–98. [CrossRef] Buturlina, O., Dovhal, S., Hryhorov, H., Lysokolenko, T., & Palahuta, V. (2021). Stem education in Ukraine in the context of sustainable development. European Journal of Sustainable Development,10(1), 323. [CrossRef] Chappell, K., & Hetherington, L. (2024). Creative pedagogies in digital STEAM practices: Natural, technological and cultural entanglements for powerful learning and activism. Cultural Studies of Science Education,19(1), 77–116. [CrossRef] Cruceanu, T.-C. D. (2019). The comparative method for policy studies: The thorny aspects. HOLISTICA Journal of Business and Public Administration,10(1), 56–67. [CrossRef] Cultural Learning Alliance. (2017). STEAM: Why STEM can only take us so far. CLA. Dye, T. R. (1992). Understanding public policy. Pearson. European Commission. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education (Report No. EUR 26893 EN). ESERA. Kearney, C. (2011). Efforts to increase students’ interest in pursuing science, technology, engineering and mathematics studies and careers (p. 30). National Measures taken by 16 of European Schoolnet’s Member Countries. European Schoolnet. Korompili, A., & Karpouzis, K. (2022). An early childhood introduction to robotics as a means to motivate girls to stay with STEM disciplines. In Handbook of research on integrating icts in steam education (pp. 22–40). IGI Global. Li, Y. (2022, October 14–16). Research on STEM education policy in germany. 2022 5th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2022) (pp. 1058–1064), Chongqing, China. Educ. Sci. 2025,15, 779 19 of 19 Makri, O. (2023). European Union media and information literacy (MIL) in education. The case of the EU member state Greece: Going beyond the implementation of the Initiative “21st Century Skills Lab” (“Competencies Lab”) empowering learners as media and information literate future citizens under the COVID-19 pandemic situation. PSEPHEDA Digital Library and Institutional Repository. Raudien ˙ e, I., Kaminskien ˙ e, L., & Cheng, L. (2022). The education and assessment system in Lithuania. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,29(3), 383–394. Reimers, F. M. (2021). In search of a twenty-first century education renaissance after a global pandemic. In Implementing deeper learning and 21st century education reforms: Building an education renaissance after a global pandemic (pp. 1–37). Springer. Schola Europaea. (2018). Key competences for lifelong learning in the European schools (p. 72). Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Pedagogical Development Unit. Shlenova, M., Yuryeva, K., Heletka, M., Kravchenko, Y., & Kravchenko, V. (2025). Distance learning in Ukrainian higher education as an aspect of the industrial revolution 4.0. Multidisciplinary Reviews,8(4), 2025102. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.