Refreshing the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics

Abstract

The second edition of the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics was published by the Council for Economic Education in 2010. The authors examine the process for revising these precollege content standards and highlight several changes that appear in the new document. They also review the impact the standards have had on precollege economic education since the original edition was released in 1997, and conclude with their response to comments offered by participants in a January 2012 American Economic Association conference session titled, “What Economics Should We Teach Before Students Enter College? The Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics and the AP.”

Keywords:

• content standards
• precollege economic education

Keywords:

• JEL code
• A21

Notes

1. A second NAEP economics test is scheduled to be administered in spring 2012 using the content framework originally created for the 2006 assessment.

2. There is a current state-led effort to create common state standards in the social studies, in which economics is identified (along with history, civics, and geography) as one of the four academic subjects in which K–12 standards will be created. These initial efforts appear to make active use of the second edition of the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics (CEE 2010).

3. Standard 14 on entrepreneurship was revised substantially to reflect current scholarship in this area. In addition, Standard 11 on money and inflation was revised to include a statement relating to inflation. Furthermore, there was a subtle change in the wording of Standard 4 on incentives. It now reads, “People usually respond predictably to positive and negative incentives” (emphasis added) (CEE 2010, 10). The italicized word was added to reflect considerable scholarship in behavioral economics since the writing of the first edition. Finally, new language on economic fluctuations was added to content Standard 18, including the reference to recession. The term recessions appears to have been omitted from the first edition of the Standards (CEE 1997).

4. Roberts and McCloskey (2012) refer to the Standards as admirable and something that should be taught to high school students. But they also refer to the Standards as encouraging economic literacy “for reasons having mainly to do with conservative politics” (293, this issue). While the Standards are certainly intended to encourage economic literacy, they are not politically inspired.

5. This is not to argue that economics should not be included in the K–12 curriculum. As noted by Watts (2005), research is broadly supportive of the finding that students’ understanding of economics can be measurably improved in the precollege setting. A separate secondary course, taught by well-trained teachers that use effective curricular resources appears to be the best approach to delivering precollege economic education. Since a majority of secondary students will never take a college course in economics, a well-taught precollege course in economics is likely to be the most effective way to introduce students to the basic economic processes and concepts that they will encounter throughout their personal and professional lives.

6. Indeed, the CEE's Standards-based teacher resource “Focus: Understanding Economics in Civics and Government” (CEE 2009, 179–99) applies many public choice concepts to civics and economics.