Why I picked it up: My work has helped me understand how vital curiosity is to individual life outcomes, from the practical (employment, etc.) to the prosocial (tolerance, inclusive, understanding). Curiosity is also something that museums, as well as other sources of informal learning, are good at sparking and cultivating.

Study after study shows that visiting museums tends to be an "inherited" trait, with parents who visit museums tending to raise children who are also museum-goers. But is curiosity also "inherited?" We know that a curious childhood tends to lead to a curious adulthood, but public schooling doesn't always nurture curiosity. When that desire to learn is missing, learning is far more difficult. Additionally, curiosity is an expensive, resource-intensive thing to cultivate. How can we raise new generations of curious children if curiosity isn't actually nurtured for many (most?) children?

This book examines the origins of curiosity in childhood, and I want to see where I find agreement as well as new ideas to consider and test.


What you need to know:

1. This book primarily explores the role of curiosity in childhood, mostly through the lens of the school experience. Engel notes that "curiosity is the linchpin of intellectual achievement," but illustrates at length the missed opportunities of formal education to nurture it.
2. "The best predictor of a child's curiosity was the mother's curiosity …" To which I say OMG yes, and that we have to do much better with moms (and other caregivers) in our museums. What do I mean? In my work, I've examined at length what I call the "parent bubble," which consists of a lot of parents that visit museums for their children, not with their children. That is an important distinction, because if mom (or dad, or any other caregiver) isn't engaged and modeling curiosity, the children are less likely to benefit from the museum visit.  (For more on the "parent bubble," see my Data Story: "Families, Their Needs, and Museums." You can find more Data Stories about families and parents here.)
3. Curiosity is contagious among children. That is, curious children can encourage and model curiosity in ways that less curious children then practice curiosity. Curious children lift up other children.

My issue with the book: While I felt this was a solid introduction to curiosity in children, there was one big issue I had with it: there was no mention that curiosity isn't equitable.

Engel didn't go into the social justice issues of curiosity at all, but falls into a common, but incorrect, assumption that curiosity is free and risk-free. It isn't. It takes a ton of resources to cultivate curiosity, and those resources (financial, time, energy, know-how, etc.) are not necessarily available in all, or even most, households. How do we, as a society, truly make curiosity free and accessible?

Additionally, what happens when curiosity is misunderstood, shut down, or even punished, making it too risky to express? I've come across some references that suggest the ways African American children sometimes express curiosity are often misinterpreted by white teachers as troublesome or distracting, and the curiosity is thus shut down (or even punished). We should also consider what happens if the pursuit of curiosity by a child (or adult) of color is perceived as threatening to whites (it shouldn't be, but we don't live in an ideal world).  In these cases, we have a serious equity issue. (Note - the idea that curiosity is too risky for some children is a newer consideration I am just beginning to learn about and I need to do my own literature review on it. *Head slap moment.*)

Bottom line, she didn't acknowledge that the pursuit of curiosity is a privilege of the haves.


Read or skip? If you are looking for an intro book on curiosity in children, this is a good choice, and there was general agreement with previous research on curiosity. Otherwise, no need to pick up. I personally did not find new ideas to consider or test (though this does not take away from it being a good primer.) 

Full citation:  Engel, Susan. The Hungry Mind: The Origins of Curiosity in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Back when I was a museum director, I remember being told that your budget is your mission. That is, how resources are spent reflect the mission and values of an organization. Thus, what the United States spends via federal expenditures children (in this case) also reflects to some degree on our values as an American society. I picked this up to see if we are moving in a future-oriented direction, investing children … or not.

Given that those over 65 are likely to outnumber minor children by about 2045, I'll be honest and say I am not too hopeful for child welfare. Not that we shouldn't spend on the care of seniors (we should), but more that I don't think the high costs of senior care should come at the expense of children.

What it is: An analysis of federal expenditures on children from 1960 to 2017, and projections to 2028. It is a decent primer for what is actually spent where.

Key findings: Federal spending on children relative to GDP is expected to decline over every major category (health, education, income, security, etc.), and children's share of the budget is projected to drop from 9.4% to 6.9%. This decline is largely due to increased spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (45% of budget, excluding spending on children; it is expected to hit 50% by 2028), and interest payments on the debt (the latter of which will actually exceed spending on children by 2020).

Federal expenditures for children consist primarily of healthcare (Medicaid, CHIP, etc.), tax exemptions and credits to families, nutritional benefits, and income security. Low-income children receive 61% of all federal expenditures for children.

Education receives <10% of federal expenditures for children. States, in the aggregate, spend nearly twice as much on children than the federal government, and the bulk of their expenditures are for education. Indeed, states and local government provide 93% of governmental expenditures on child education. That being said, the 7% spent by the federal government is projected to decline steeply.

Implications for museums: First, and this isn't a museum implication but a societal implication, we as a country have essentially decided that investing in children isn't where we should focus. I find that troubling for many reasons (which you likely share).

This report also portends a troubling future for programs that are deemed more expendable in the budget. As the population ages, and funding becomes tighter as Social Security and Medicare obligations increase (as well as other, new challenges that come with an aging population), any program that is deemed remotely expendable, rightly or wrongly, is likely to face greater scrutiny (at best) and even elimination. I fear the battles over IMLS, NEH, and NEA are only beginning.
​
Additionally, budget constraints will likely ripple out to states and local governments. When federal dollars only reach so far, state and local governments will then be forced to conduct their own assessments and reallocations to make up gaps in childhood care and education, care for seniors, and perhaps for infrastructure and other basic needs. That may mean trouble for line items deemed more expendable, such as state parks, municipal museums, and arts and humanities funding.

Lest I leave you depressed and pessimistic, however, the future doesn't have to mean absolute doom and gloom for museums if museums are proactively part of the solution. That means, when it comes to children, being truly indispensable to child development and welfare. While some well-educated museum-going parents may be prepared to say that now, when push comes to shove I doubt museums will make the cut unless we actually are indispensable to all children, providing measurable, positive impacts on those children and society. Even then, while it would give museums an opportunity compete effectively for funding, my reading of this report indicates funding opportunities will still likely be from private sources.

Let's also consider seniors. As their numbers grow, so will their health and social needs … but increasing evidence shows that cultural engagement (including museums) can help maintain well-being, decreasing healthcare costs. That gives museums an opening to develop positive impacts for individual seniors while also providing pragmatic cost-saving solutions for health spending. If, of course, we are savvy about what we do, measure the impact, and make the case.

Read or skip? The executive summary is excellent. Otherwise, skip, unless you are planning on advocating directly on this issue. The full report really gets into the weeds of budgetary policy (example: how the Budget Control Act of 2011 affected spending on children).

Full citation: "Kids' Share 2018: Report on Federal Expenditures on Children Through 2017 and Future Projections." Urban Institute. July 2018.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.

Why I picked it up: Museum-goers tell me museums have contributed to their understanding of others, and that it happens over a lifetime, starting from childhood. This study focuses on kindness (including compassion and empathy), so the relevance seemed, at least initially, obvious.

What it is: A survey of 2000 children ages 6 to 12. It tells us their views, as well as what they think  their parents believe. Interesting, as what they think their parents believe may different than what their parents actually believe. Not a bad approach, seeing how parental attitudes and behaviors are translated to children. Additionally, there are a fair number of restrictions around surveying children this young, so I'm grateful for any solid source that provides data directly from children like this.

Good news nugget: 2/3 of children did indicate a fundamental understanding of the concept of empathy, with older children being somewhat more likely than younger ones, which is understandable.

Is it useful to museums? To be honest, I found this of limited use to museums. It is helpful to get a "lay of the land" on children, especially if children and their families are a key audience segment. But otherwise, not directly useful. Instead, the audience for this data is parents, with a goal of helping parents prioritize showing kindness.

That being said, they have a great summary infographic that is worth a look.

Methodological gripe: I found some of the questions a bit problematic, methodology-wise. For example, they ask: "What do you think is most important to your parents, that you're happy, do well in school, or are kind?" 44% responded that they are happy, 33% that they do well in school, and 23% said being kind. The study then goes on to note "Parents, you may think that the kindness message--being a good person with strong values--is getting through to your kids, but the survey data shows that kids think otherwise."

REALLY? That's not how I read it. This isn't a zero-sum game. The question only allowed one answer, and I can see a child being torn in how to answer. The fact that 77% chose things other than kindness doesn't tell me that parents are not teaching and/or modeling kindness. It tells me that there are two other things that come out ahead, but the margin is totally unclear. It could be big (in which case their conclusion that children are not getting the kindness message is correct). But I suspect it is fairly narrow, with parents likely valuing all three things. How this question is asked, however, doesn't allow children to provide any nuance. Thus, I took all of the results with a bit of a grain of salt.

Full citation:  "State of the Kid 2017." Highlights for Children. 2017.


Have a suggestion for my reading list?  Email it to me at susie (at) wilkeningconsulting (dot) com.