The Trump administration has been slow to announce its plan to replace the federal science standards with a more focused version.
But the Trump administration is already trying to create a blueprint for a science curriculum that is broadly in line with the U.S. science education standards and is widely accepted by science teachers.
In his budget blueprint, the White House says that the plan will “strengthen STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) as a core part of U.s. public school curricula.”
The plan will also require the education secretary to ensure that schools are taking advantage of state-wide and national research and development efforts, as well as support for science-specific technology transfer.
It calls for “a more diverse, high-performing, and competitive science education system” in which schools focus on STEM and other STEM fields.
But some experts question whether that plan is enough to satisfy the requirements of the new Science Act of 2017, which requires the federal government to set up a national science program.
“I think there’s a lot of uncertainty about how much federal support is going to be there, particularly in science, technology and engineering,” said Robert A. Schuman, an associate professor of educational policy and management at the University of California, San Diego.
Schumer is also director of the school of education and leadership at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank.
“It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation,” Schuman said.
The science law of 2017 requires that all schools in the U, as a matter of law, be required to provide at least a 90 percent science-centered curriculum.
But that requirement has been met only in about half the states.
And some states, like Colorado, have a strict science education requirement, requiring a 90-percent requirement.
A national curriculum could also be important for keeping students interested and interested students in the classroom.
“We do have a large pool of students that are coming from low-income backgrounds who are going to want to pursue STEM and interested in science,” said Laura R. Brown, the director of science education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Brown is also a senior adviser for science and technology policy at the Pew Research Center.
She said she has talked with educators in Colorado and the state of Oregon who have been struggling to find enough STEM teachers.
Brown said the state should consider creating a statewide STEM-focused program for all schools.
The National Science Foundation, which has developed an early version of the plan, says it will have its first results by the end of the year.
“This effort will build on our progress in developing the first national STEM-based science curriculum in the United States,” said Stephen K. Feser, director of national science policy for the National Science Board, in a statement.
But in addition to the national curriculum, the plan calls for funding for research, and the Trump White House also plans to give states more flexibility on how much money they are allowed to spend on science-related activities.
“States should have the opportunity to prioritize and prioritize research in order to ensure their science systems are best prepared to serve our students and communities,” said Sarah Anderson, deputy director of research at the National Center for Science Education, in an email.
The plan is the first step toward a broader plan for a national STEM curriculum.
“The science curriculum is a critical part of our public education system,” said John R. Smith, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of State Science Teachers, in his statement.
“By adopting a national curriculum we will give teachers the tools to provide a comprehensive, state-specific curriculum for all children across the country.”