High School Programs :: U.S. National Standards

Economics Instruction in U.S. High Schools: 1980-2000

Over the past two decades, the extent of economics in the school curriculum has increased substantially. Still when compared with history, government, and geography, economics teaching is limited.

Enrollment in Economics and Related Courses

The traditional economics course is taught in the social studies curriculum in high school. Typically, students take a year of civics in ninth grade, a year of world history or world studies in tenth grade, and a year of U.S. history in eleventh grade. In twelfth grade, they have the option of enrolling in two semester-length courses from a set of possibilities that include economics, U.S. government, psychology, sociology, or other courses that vary from year to year. There are variations from this sequence, and some school districts and states have made economics a required course for graduation.

  • In 1982, 24 percent of graduating seniors had taken an economics course.
  • By 1990, the percentage rose almost 20 points.
  • From 1990 to 1994, the percentage of high school graduates taking an economics course remained relatively constant at 44 percent.

Over half of high school graduates receive no formal instruction in economics in a separate course. However, economics ideas, concepts, and principles have entered the curriculum through other avenues. For many years, economic concepts have been taught in consumer economics courses. Then in the 1980s and 1990s, a combined government and economics course emerged in the social studies curriculum. In addition, courses in general business, such as Introduction to Business, Cooperative Business Education, and Business and Management, cover basic microeconomic concepts.

  • In 1994, 12 percent of high school students completed a government and economics course compared to 3 percent in 1982.
  • In 1980, 15 percent of high school graduates took consumer economics courses, but enrollment fell to 8 percent by 1994.
  • Enrollment in business courses stood at about 18 percent in 1982, but declined to about 15 percent in 1994. (Business courses became more specialized and shifted focus to labor market preparation).

Economic Mandates

Enrollment in economics courses and the combination government and economics courses increased mainly as a result of a rise in the number of states requiring economics for graduation.

  • In 1982, seven states mandated some type of economics course – Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
  • By 1987, mandates were in effect in thirteen states – add Florida, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.
  • By 1990, California and New York had required an economics course, bringing the total to 15 states.
  • Then in the late 1990s, Arizona and Oregon rescinded their economics mandate.

Infusing Economics in the Social Studies

Another way economics can be taught is through infusing economic concepts and ideas into other social studies courses, such as U.S. history, world history, government, or civics. The infusion strategy has been widely adopted by schools, partly due to state legislation calling for teaching economics in various subjects in elementary and secondary grades. In 1998

  • Thirty-eight states had standards, guidelines, or proficiencies for teaching economics in various grades of the school curriculum.
  • In turn, 27 states used tests that included economics items in their broader assessment of the social studies.

Comparing Economics and Social Studies Courses in the School Curriculum

Compared to other social studies subjects, economics holds a middle position in the curriculum. The demographics of the students who take economics illustrate characteristics of an elective rather than a required course. In 1994

  • Ninety-five percent of high school graduates took one year of American history
  • Nearly 60 percent completed one year of world history
  • American government and politics was taken by 78 percent of high school graduates
  • Economics was taken by 44%
  • Thirty-two percent took either a psychology or sociology course, and
  • Twenty-four completed a geography course.

In addition, findings in 1994 indicate that

  • About one in nine high school graduates took a one year Advanced Placement (AP) course in American history, but only one in 100 took an AP economics course.
  • The percentage of high school graduates taking a half-year economics course increased by 16 percentage points from 1982 to 1994.
  • A much higher percentage of high school graduates who were black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islanders took economics compared to those who were white. (States with economic mandates have a higher percentage of students from these racial or ethnic groups.)
  • Graduates of public high schools are significantly more like to take economics than are graduates from private schools.
  • Forty-six percent of high school graduates in academic programs have taken economics compared to only about 30 percent of students in vocational programs.
  • Nearly 50 percent of high school graduates within large city, urban fringe, or medium city schools have taken an economics course. In contrast, fewer than 40 percent of graduates from smaller communities took economics.
  • Students in the South (49 percent) and the West (63 percent) are much more likely to have studied economics then their counterparts in the Northeast (34 percent) and Midwest (30 percent). These differences also result from the distribution of state economic mandates.

Content and Controversy in High School Economics

During the past half century, economists and economic educators have prepared content guides to identify key economic concepts and standards and developed instructional materials that illustrate how economics can be taught to students.

The National Task Force Guide

In 1961, the National Task Force on Economic Education issued a report describing the basic economic ideas that all high school students should understand. This report advocated an analytical approach to teaching economics. Prior to this most economics taught in the schools was descriptive. Using the analytical approach, students would define an economic problem, identify and weigh goals and objectives, specify alternative solutions, and analyze the consequences of choosing an alternative. Ideally, teachers also would teach some 45 economic concepts to give high school graduates a solid background in economics.

A Framework for Teaching Economics

The National Task Force guide served as the major content statement until it was replaced by the Framework for Teaching Economics: Basic Concepts. The Framework reorganized and reduced the list of economic content, but continued to stress the use of an analytical approach for teaching economics. This approach has five elements:

  1. 1. A mastery of the basic concepts and tools of analysis
  2. An appreciation of how the major concepts of economics relate to each other
  3. Comprehension of the structure of the economy and the interaction of various sectors
  4. Knowledge about major economic issues, both public and personal, and about how individual actions shape and are shaped by economic forces
  5. Use of an objective and reasoned approach to making economic decisions

The Framework was revised in 1984 and again in 1995. The latest edition shortened the list of basic economic concepts, reorganized and improved the explanation of these concepts, and added measurement concepts and methods related to economics. This document categorizes 22 basic economic concepts into four clusters: fundamental, microeconomic, macroeconomic, and international economics.

Although the Framework has been criticized for content omissions, ideological concerns, and its complexity, it significantly influenced economics instruction and school curriculum in the 1980s and 1990s. Its effects can be found in curriculum guides, teaching and testing materials, and high school economics textbooks. The widespread acceptance and use of the Framework suggests that it represents a consensus statement on what economics should be taught and how it should be taught. In recent years, the attention has turned to economics standards.

The Standards Movement

The movement to national standards in history and the social studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s also stimulated thinking about standards for economics. This work began after economics was included in the Goals 2000 Educate America Act in 1994. The National Council on Economic Education pulled together a group of economists, economic educators, and classroom teachers to develop content standards. In 1997, it published the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics. This guide contains a concise set of content statements setting forth what economics should be taught in grades 1-12. The Standards also include benchmarks that describe in detail what a student should be able to do at grades 4, 8, and 12.

The Standards have been criticized from several quarters. Noted economic educator Lee Hansen refers to the economic standards as "principles-based" and says they are too abstract. In contrast, the Framework is "concept-based." Likewise, critics fault the standards for failing to include a skill dimension that explains the analytical approach to economics and a knowledge dimension that describes different aspects of the economy and how it operates.

Economic Achievement and Outcomes of Coursework in Economics

Researchers have conducted studies on what students know about economics and the effectiveness of economics instruction in different courses. This research has evolved with the development of tests for measuring learning. The findings suggest that the final level of student achievement in economics is low and that not all courses are equally effective.

For the past two decades, the most widely used measure has been the Test of Economic Literacy (TEL). Work is almost complete on the third edition of the TEL, which aligns content coverage with the Framework and the Standards. The number of questions has been cut from 46 to 40 to make it easier to use in shorter class periods. New norms are being prepared based on a testing of over 15,000 students in economics and social studies courses.

National studies of students enrolled in an economics course, a consumer economics course, or a social studies course show that students who took an economics course significantly improved their economic understanding. However, studying economics within a consumer or social studies course did not improve economic understanding. Results from a 1999 classroom testing of a nationally representative sample of high school students found that students with economic instruction scored significantly higher than those without such instruction. Nevertheless, students with economic instruction could answer just over half of the test questions. These findings are consistent with the TEL studies from the 1980s.

William Walstad suggests the primary reason for the modest performance of students on the standardized economics test is the small amount of instructional time devoted to the subject. Subjects, such as history, are taught to all students over many years in concentrated units with courses that begin in the early grades. By contrast, intensive development of economic understanding depends largely on a one-semester course that is typically taught in the last two years of high school and is taken only by a minority of students.

Less is known about the lasting effects of high school economics on the economic literacy of adults. The few existing studies indicate that economic coursework in high school and college does significantly influence what adults know about economics after having completed coursework. However, the flaw or difficulty in this analysis is separating the effects of college learning from high school knowledge. Walstad recommends further study on the lasting effects of high school economics with the large percentage of students who do not attend college and those who attend college but do not take an economics course.

The Influence of Teacher Education on Student Performance

Research shows that teacher education in economics is essential for improving student learning in the subject. However, as the research points out, teachers often have minimal coursework in economics or are not adequately prepared to teach it. Teacher credit hours in economics are a significant variable in explaining teacher effectiveness as measured by "student understanding of economics."

In a 1990 study, W. Bosshardt and M. Watts found a clear difference in effectiveness between three groups of teachers. Those with

  • 17 credits (about six courses) were "above average"
  • 11 credits (about 4 courses) were "average"
  • 8 credits (about 2-3 courses were "below average"

Likewise, William Walstad and his colleague S. Allgood reported that the greatest increase in knowledge for high school teachers occurred in the third year of course work in a master’s degree program in economics for teachers.

Findings on the influence of other teacher variables on student economics achievement show insignificant or inconsistent results. Topics such as noncredit workshops, the number of years of teaching experience, the percentage of the teacher’s load that is economics, and teacher attitudes about economics and the conditions under which they teach it deserve additional study.

In 1985, a committee of distinguished economists and educators, organized by the Joint (now National) Council on Economic Education, recommended that to improve teacher education in economics

  • All future teachers be required to take one basic course in economics, preferably the principles sequence.
  • All prospective teachers of social studies be required to take at least three semester courses in economics.
  • Teachers who specialize in teaching economics complete the equivalent of a field concentration of at least six semester courses in economics.
  • Teachers of AP or honors courses complete at least ten courses or the equivalent of a major in economics.

Current state standards for licensure or certification of secondary social studies teachers fall far short of these recommendations.

Economics Textbooks and Other Instructional Materials

High school economics textbooks receive high marks for their coverage of economic concepts and content accuracy. Nevertheless, two basic criticisms of economics textbooks remain. First, critics charge that the mainstream approach to economics leads to textbooks or courses that are biased or ideological. For example, Suzanne Helburn argues against books that "limit economics to the ruling paradigm of neoclassical economics and usually to the ‘free market’ approach to teaching about market systems." Second, like high school textbooks in general, economics texts often include superficial discussions of topics or inadequate coverage of issues.

One study did find a significantly positive correlation between the rankings of textbooks on coverage of the Framework concepts and scores on the TEL by economic concept.

In contrast, the treatment of economics in history, government, geography, and sociology textbooks have many problems including:

  • A lack economic analysis
  • Ad hoc explanations for many economic events and issues
  • The absence of substantive content on economics topics
  • Factual errors and the misapplication of economic ideas
  • Content organized in a confusing and nonsystematic way.

Likewise, a review of content standards concluded there are conceptual weaknesses in the treatment of economics in standards for history, social studies, civics, and geography.

These textbook and standards problems place greater demands on a teacher who wants to teach economics through infusion in another course. This partially explains why teaching economics in the context of other courses is so difficult and why studies find infusion to be a relatively ineffective approach for economic education.

Teachers often use supplementary print materials in the form of lessons, instructional units, and informative pamphlets to teach economics. These materials are produced by various organizations but published research on their effectiveness is virtually non-existent.

Television programs, on the other hand, have been evaluated widely, probably because of the size of the programs, wider usage by teachers, and better opportunity to measure program effects. Studies have shown positive effects from student viewing of such programs on achievement in economics and other outcomes.

The teaching of economics and the social studies is also being transformed by newer technology such as the Internet and the microcomputer. Research on their effectiveness is only beginning to receive serious study.

More instructional materials are available now in a variety of formats than in years past, but more high quality materials need to be produced. Economics teachers perceive three major barriers to teaching economics:

  1. A lack of supplementary materials
  2. Limited student interest in the subject
  3. Inadequate time for classroom preparation.

These barriers can be lowered when good teaching resources are available. Teachers with a limited background in the subject require materials that are relatively self-contained and easy to use with students.

Role of Economists and Organizations Supporting Economic Education

Over the years, professional economists have come to participate more in economic education projects at the pre-college level. The major avenue has been through work on projects with the National Council on Economic Education, established in 1949 as a nonprofit and nonpartisan educational organization to promote economic education in the nation’s schools.

To achieve its goal, the National Council created a decentralized network to involve many college and university economists and educators in work with the schools. In 2000, there are 47 state councils and 260 college and university centers. The state councils operate in a similar way to the National Council, as nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations that raise funds and manage programs in a state. The National Council also involves economists and economic educators in preparing curriculum guides and educational materials, as in the case of the Framework and Standards content guides.

Other national and state organizations provide materials for economic education, but none has a comprehensive program for the schools, emphasized teacher education in economics, or received the support from as many economists in academia and other fields as has the National Council. In most cases, organizations simply produce materials designed to supplement instruction, but make no specific demands on the use of those materials in the classroom. In a few other cases, organizations develop textbooks and instructional materials and actively lobby educators for their use in the schools, the most notable example being Junior Achievement’s programs for teaching business economics at various grades.