Teachers aren't just piling on for funding. Like the blog post you linked says, teachers find that creative/artistic applications of technology/science/math/engineering tends to increase joy and interest in students. Push back to this "shift" feels like: "Back in my day, we wrote accounting software and called it STEM"

fwiw I sell LEGO drone kits

My point is that STEM is already too broad as it is to focus resources on chip fabrication. Neither Accounting Software skills nor Interior Design skills should be eligible for funding for this stated purpose. But certainly diluting STEM just causes us to move further from that goal. The types of approaches to early education are going to be more broad, as is necessary (and LEGO drone kits sound like a great approach to that), but a student has to specialize as they advance to higher education, and if we're not funneling enough students into the critical categories, we can lose all of our strategic advantage in technology.

I've also recently come across Science Technology Engineering Arts Mathematics and Design.

It's absolutely about other groups trying to pile on and say "we're important and deserve extra funding too".

It's almost like certain decisions don't benefit from being politicized.

But try telling that to millenials today and you'll get an earful.