This editorial examines significant deleterious issues that have emerged unchecked, and seemingly embraced unwittingly, by the greater science education community, the public at-large, and even segments of the international science education community. Their claims are grounded in three main cases that are distinct, yet intertwined with one another. Collectively, they serve as a warning shot across the bow of those disregarding the sociocultural roots of education. Left unchecked, the issues the authors raise may at best deny a progressive understanding of schooling, or at worst, contribute to a kind of dominant subjective educational hegemony. In the first case, they claim that the science education community has been largely remiss in its uncritical adoration of engineering and the inclusion of engineering concepts and practices in the science curriculum. In their second case, they suggest that while many may view technological literacy as a neutral construct focused primarily on how to use technology, the economic interest of business and policymakers helps to maintain power inequities and wrongly defines technological literacy, including media literacy almost entirely in terms of how technology and media are to be consumed. In the third case, the authors posit that the current bandwagons containing hedgmonic initiatives that promote analytic skills and logical reasoning do so while unwittingly overlooking the crucial role of compassion, emotive reasoning, reflexive reasoning, perspective taking (expressed in its ideal form as empathy) and conscience. They point to the missed opportunity of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to capture these latter sociocultural progressive elements in how it fails to situates qualities of socioscientific issues (SSI) and nature of science (NOS) that are central in cleaving residual components of the fact-value distinction of vestigial positivistic traditions.