While reading the chapter on integration of formal and informal science education, I kept thinking about a news segment I watched over the weekend – US children were ranked twenty first in the world in science knowledge. The reporters were alarmed by the fact that countries like Slovakia and Lithuania were ahead. They invited experts to discuss the reasons for the situation, as well as what needs to be done to improve that ranking. The main theme was that, in US, parents and schools are happy with mediocrity and children are not pushed hard enough to learn more, as opposed to Asian countries, where children every day go to another school for more studies after their regular school classes are over. This raised doubts in my head about the usefulness of such rankings. I have read that, in the modern world, it is not so much important to retain the vast amount of knowledge (because we can quickly lookup what we had forgotten on a device as handy as a cell phone) but the ability to use that knowledge to solve problems. The informal science education can play a very important role in developing this ability, as well as in developing an inquisitive mindset, which is also crucial in our time when new discoveries challenge the scientific beliefs of yesterday almost daily and you cannot go far on what you have learned years ago. The reporters said that, if Massachusetts were ranked as a country, if would have been sixth, so they suggested to take a look at what is done differently about science education there. Reading this chapter, I kept thinking that the difference could be an efficient integration of informal science education and the traditional one.

I was glad to realize that, all over the country, there are people who constantly think of new ways to enhance the informal science education using the latest technology, making it as widely available as possible. I think, one of the reasons US children fall behind in science is that there is too much ranking based exclusively on testing in our schools, and if students do not perform well (could be because they just did not study or were not interested enough in the subject), they are viewed as not smart enough for serious science education and are not even given much chances to take serious science courses. It is like the children have to prove their right for a good science education instead of just having that right. All that is left for them would be the informal science education, but not all states are lucky enough to have such programs as were described in this chapter. On the other hand, I was surprised to read about ways to improve the effectiveness of field trips. All those areas look pretty common sense to me and it is strange that they are not really addressed by the majority of teachers who plan the field trips. It was interesting to read that teachers can also use the informal science education for their professional development. Of course, it makes sense, I just never thought about it. I believe, the effective integrated use of informal science education for both students and teachers, and not the increased rigor of formal studies, is the way to improve US children’s science ranking.