I'd be curious to know if there is some kind of split between
art/history museums and science/natural history museums.  In my short
career I have worked for a science center and a natural history museum,
both of which expanded significantly.  I was hired for those expansions
and understood that I would be "let go" when the project was finished
(even before the exhibits open!).  So, I wonder if science museums are
having different experience than art or history museums in terms of
financial backing.  I don't know about state funds, but it seem that the
public is behind building/expanding science centers. It also seems that
expanding museums hire temporary exhibits staff and permanent
education/programs staff.  Of course, programs are a critical interface
with the public, but without exhibits, what would the museum be?  It
seems to me that money would be well spent rotating a percentage of the
exhibits regularly, and keeping staff on site to do it. Any thoughts?


Ross Weeks said:

>I'd be interested in reactions to the hunch that sources of
>funding for museum educational programs (and collaboration in them from >the 'educational establishment') are on the wane.
>Public investment in education is a matter of political choice.  Are we
>non-governmental museums "included" in that choice, or are we actually >a bit of icing on the educational cake?