This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 06:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Feminist EconomicsPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfec20

Moving Beyond theMasculine NeoclassicalClassroomMargaret Lewis & Kimmarie McGoldrickPublished online: 20 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Margaret Lewis & Kimmarie McGoldrick (2001) MovingBeyond the Masculine Neoclassical Classroom, Feminist Economics, 7:2,91-103, DOI: 10.1080/13545700110059252

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13545700110059252

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be

liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relationto or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

MOVING BEYOND THE MASCULINE

NEOCLASSICAL CLASSROOM 1

Margaret Lewis and KimMarie McGoldrick

This essay is a comment on “Guidelines for Pre-College Economics Education: ACritique,” by Marianne Ferber, which appeared in Feminist Economics, Vol. 5, No.3, November, 1999.

ABSTRACT

In addition to critiques of the content and methodology of neoclassical econ-omics, feminist economists have also offered constructive re� ections on the wayeconomics is taught. The “Voluntary Economics Content Standards for Pre-College Economics Education,” developed in 1997 by the U.S. NationalCouncil of Economic Education, present yet another challenge to feministeconomic educators. In this paper, we � rst review general methods for chal-lenging and expanding these standards. Next, we select a speci� c content stan-dard and explore how it might be reworked to re� ect more accurately feministeconomic scholarship and pedagogy. This reformulation of the standard willhelp broaden the pedagogy and content that are both implicit and explicit inall of the standards, allowing for a more inclusive classroom.

KEYWO RDSEconomic literacy, critique, feminist pedagogy

INTRO DUCTION

In January 1997, the U.S. National Council of Economic Education (NCEE)released its “Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics,” whichwere intended to improve the economic understanding of elementary andsecondary students in the United States. While directed toward pre-collegestudents, these standards are derived from material presented in most U.S.college textbooks, which signi� cantly in� uence economic understandingin the United States and, subsequently, in much of the world. Indeed, asMarianne Ferber notes, U.S. economic educators “are in� uential wellbeyond the borders of their own country,” with “establishment economistsin . . . most other countries . . . likely to have similar views about [teaching]introductory courses” (1999: 136).

Feminist Economics ISSN 1354-5701 print/ISSN 1466-4372 online © 2001 IAFFEhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/13545700110059252

Feminist Economics 7(2), 2001, 91–103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

These content standards, constructed by a distinguished coalition ofeconomics educators,2 largely re� ect the dominant neoclassical paradigmof contemporary economics. This result is hardly surprising, as one of thecriteria3 used to construct the content standards was, according to John J.Siegfried and Bonnie Meszaros (1997: 249), that they re� ect consensus inthe discipline, because “including strongly held minority views of economicprocesses risks undermining the entire venture.” Consequently, the NCEE’sstandards not only emphasize neoclassical economic concepts, skills thatdevelop “the” economic way of thinking, and pedagogical suggestionsintended to reinforce the neoclassical view, but they also effectively ignorethe “minority views” that do, of course, exist in the economics discipline.

To date, members of the profession have barely responded, either to thecontent in the standards or to the problematic criteria used to developthem. Indeed, W. Lee Hansen (1998), critiquing Siegfried and Meszaros’swork, appears more impressed by the lack of dissenting opinions in the con-struction of these standards than by the prospect of viewing them througha critical lens.4 Yet Karen Pennar (1997: 32), a Business Week economist, con-siders it “unfair to 12th graders to study government’s economic role withscant discussion of taxes and income distribution.” She further suggests thatthe content standards leave students ill-prepared to discuss the multitudeof con� icting policy suggestions that arise concerning controversial econ-omic issues, such as welfare.

Marianne Ferber is one of the few economists who has critiqued the prob-lematic aspects of the content standards. In “Guidelines for Pre-CollegeEconomics Education: A Critique,” published in the November, 1999, issueof Feminist Economics, Ferber scrutinizes the content standards, in part byusing the coalition’s own development criteria to identify problems thatpervade the standards in general. She is also critical of the explicit, andimplicit, content of � ve individual standards,5 demonstrating that they donot re� ect economic realities or current debates among economists. These� aws lead Ferber to conclude that the existing standards will “neither helpinstructors teach their students more about the economy and how it oper-ates, nor encourage them to emphasize how complex the world is” (p. 140).

Ferber’s critique represents one method that feminist economists mightuse to respond to the content standards; it questions the process ofdeveloping such standards and the results obtained from that process.Another critical approach might not only demonstrate the limitations ofthe existing standards, but also offer alternatives using other economicparadigms, such as “Ten Principles of Institutional Economics” or “TenPrinciples of Feminist Economics” (Geoffrey Schneider and Jean Shackel-ford 2000). Both of these approaches are modeled after Gregory Mankiw’sneoclassical-based “Ten Principles of Economics” (1998: Ch. 1).

This paper traces a third potential path of critique, which is to explorehow the individual content standards might be adapted to more accurately

DIAL OGUE

92

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

re� ect current economic scholarship. By modifying the NCEE’s grade-speci� c benchmarks and the accompanying “students will be able to use thisknowledge in everyday life” sections of the content standards package, thisapproach provides instructors who are expected to use the NCEE’s contentstandards with alternative teaching materials. By constructing these alterna-tives, our approach will build on the other two modes of critique.

We begin by describing how the NCEE’s Content Standards are organ-ized. Each starts with the words, “Students will understand that . . .”, accom-panied by a brief description of what “Students will be able to use thisknowledge to do. . . .” An explication of the standard’s theoretical and con-ceptual underpinnings follows. The instructional materials next provideteachers with sets of benchmarks for grades 4, 8, and 12, each of which con-tains speci� c learning expectations for the grade level and emphasizes what“students will know” and what they should be able to do with this know-ledge. The sets of materials are intended to provide instructors with speci� cexercises and activities, which they can use to “judge whether studentsunderstand the standards” (Siegfried and Meszaros 1997: 250). It is inter-esting to note the reasons offered for this level of detail in the instructionalmaterials. Siegfried and Meszaros (1997: 247–8) claim that the absence ofnational content standards may have several undesirable consequences.First, it may lead some American states6 to “focus their economic standardson insigni� cant content,” or to include other subjects, such as personal� nance or business, “thereby marginalizing economics.” In addition,because teachers are “often overwhelmed when asked to teach a subject inwhich they have little background or experience,” national standards willidentify “what is important to teach at various grade levels” and will provideteachers with appropriate instructional materials. Combined with the con-sensus criterion previously mentioned, it seems apparent that the NCEE’scontent standards materials are, in effect, intended to reinforce “right”(i.e., orthodox) thinking among uninformed (and unsuspecting?) instruc-tors, thereby not only perpetuating the narrowly-conceived neoclassicalparadigm but also indoctrinating future generations with their particularconception of economics. Therefore, we hope what follows will be an anti-dote for economics instructors who teach at various levels around theworld, particularly those at the pre-college level, as well as those who teachintroductory sequences at the college level, and who may be encouraged,or even required, to use the NCEE’s content standards and accompanyingcourse materials.

Before continuing, we want to note that while we are very critical of theNCEE’s guidelines, we � nd that the instructional materials they offer havevalue. Indeed, many of the activities and exercises they present are basedmore on student experiences and “real-world” observations than thosecurrently found in college-level instructional materials, an approach weconsider necessary for good pedagogy (see, e.g., April Laskey Aerni, Robin

BE YOND THE MASCULINE NEOCLASSICAL CLASSROOM

93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

L. Bartlett, Margaret Lewis, KimMarie McGoldrick and Jean Shackelford1999). Thus, instead of completely disregarding the NCEE’s recommen-dations, we hope our modi� cations of the NCEE’s exercises will offer econ-omics teachers around the world course materials they can adapt for theirown classrooms.

A MORE INCLUSIVE CONTENT STANDARD:THE CASE OF NO. 13

Content Standard 13: Income for most workers is determined by themarket value of what they sell. What workers earn depends, primarily,on the market value of what they produce and how productive theyare.

Feminist economists will quickly recognize some of the problems implicitin this statement. The � rst sentence of the standard, as Ferber points out(p. 140), suggests to students (and instructors) that people’s incomes arecomprised of what they earn through their own efforts,7 thus ignoringincome derived from wealth; this omission is particularly problematic whenanalyzing women’s relative economic status in many countries other thanthe United States (see, e.g., Bina Agarwal 1994 and Nilufer Çatagay, CarenGrown and Diane Elson 1995). It also ignores any income received throughintra-household transfers and from government sources. These omissionswill greatly reduce the likelihood that an instructor will discuss, forexample, the socio-economic differences between children living onwelfare and those living on their parents’ wealth, or how economic circum-stances change as the result of divorce or the death of a parent. Further,perpetuating the belief that income is solely what is earned in the marketmakes it more dif� cult for students to fully understand the growing gapbetween the “haves” and the “have-nots” within the United States as well asbetween economically-advanced and developing nations.

The � rst sentence also implies that “workers” are only those individualswho have something to sell in “the market”; thus work performed outsideof a market context is not classi�ed as “work.” This distinction leads to amissed opportunity to explain that work includes all economic provision-ing activities. Indeed, since students, in particular, are likely to be intimatelyfamiliar with the nonmarket-based provisioning activities of adults, especi-ally those of their parents, they might be more receptive to this broader,more accurate de� nition of work than they will be later as college students.

The second sentence of the standard is obviously based on the premiseof the neoclassical theory of labor markets, which argues that wages aredetermined by the impersonal forces of supply and demand, or in techni-cal terms, that a worker’s wage is equal to the value of the worker’s contri-bution to the � rm’s marginal revenue product. Thus, according to the

DIAL OGUE

94

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

standard, wages are primarily a function of the price of the product and theindividual worker’s productivity, a position challenged even by some neo-classical economists (Ann Jennings 1999). They would be likely to agreewith Ferber (p. 140), who notes that “market imperfections, such as barri-ers to entry, discrimination and more generally, by monopoly as well asmonopsony power” are excluded from the analysis. Such an omission maystrain the credulity of 12th-grade students, who are likely to have had somework experiences and may have encountered, or at least witnessed, thesemarket imperfections � rst hand.

Another issue associated with the second sentence stems from itsreliance on the neoclassical paradigm. As economists are (or should be)well aware, the economics discipline offers many alternative explanationsas to how wages are determined. Jennings (1999), for instance, notes thatsegmented labor-market theory emphasizes the extent to which social div-isions among the workforce based on gender or race differences reinforcethe power and pro� ts of capitalists. Similarly, dual labor market theoryargues that wages are determined largely by the historical evolution ofworkplace conditions and norms, with a focus on internal versus externallabor markets as well as on differences between primary and secondarymarkets. More recently, ef� ciency-wage theories have been developed,which focus on “wage rigidities and above-equilibrium ‘ef� ciency’ wages”as the norm in most labor markets (p. 515), particularly in today’s increas-ingly tight labor markets. These alternative theories suggest that wages arenot necessarily determined by what workers produce and how productivethey are, as Content Standard 13 claims, and may serve to reinforcestudents’ own experiences.

The consequences of such an incomplete picture of labor markets andwage determination can be seen immediately in the next section of theinstructional materials, which says that students will be able to use thisknowledge to “predict future earnings based on their current plans for edu-cation, training, and career options” (p. 28) because wages are determinedby individual human capital characteristics through a process that is un-biased, just, and solely determined by the individual worker’s rationalchoices.8 This emphasis not only ignores the complexity of wage determi-nation but, more importantly, it may discourage students from challengingfuture wage or compensation offers that in fact re� ect social attitudes andnorms more than an individual worker’s productivity. Indeed, it may go sofar as to discourage students from entering so-called caring professionssuch as teaching and nursing, or poorly remunerated, but socially valuable,professions such as the creative arts.

The justi� cation for Content Standard No. 13 provided by the authorsfurther reinforces the simplistic neoclassical explanation. In addition to theproblems identi� ed above, the discussion implicitly assumes that labormarkets are purely competitive and that the resulting wages are based on

BE YOND THE MASCULINE NEOCLASSICAL CLASSROOM

95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

known and measurable productivity, results that have little basis in currenteconomic realities. Further, it also ignores the multitude of nonproductiv-ity-related factors that in� uence wages, as well as the social factors that in� u-ence a person’s decisions to acquire education or training. Indeed, theyclaim that only those students who accept the neoclassical explanation pre-sented can “appreciate the value of the skills they can acquire” (p. 28), thusfurther reinforcing the notion that individual choice is all-important, andignoring social attitudes and institutions that may foil even the best inten-tions and the best-laid plans.

Thus far, we have focused only on the limitations of Content StandardNo. 13. By moving on to the benchmarks associated with each grade level,we can also begin to develop the modi�cations necessary for making thisstandard more suitable to a heterodox economic classroom.

Let us � rst consider the expectations associated with grade 4. As statedin the � rst knowledge benchmark, the authors indicate that upon com-pletion of grade 4, students should know that “labor is a human resourcethat is used to produce goods and services” and be able to “identify humanresources in their community and the goods and services they produce”(p. 28). Instead of implying that “labor” only refers to market work, thisexercise could, with some modi� cations and using the provisioning de� -nition of economics, be used to broaden the students’ conceptions of workas including labor beyond that performed for pay. For example, the instruc-tor could ask the students if such activities as providing home-cooked mealsand home-based child care constitute work.9

The second knowledge benchmark (“people can earn income byexchanging their human resources (physical or mental work) for wages orsalaries”) and its attendant activity (“collect data from adults regarding theirreasons for working, analyze the data, and generalize about why peoplework” (p. 28)) can also be modi�ed to broaden student understanding ofhow income is earned. Here, instructors could add survey questions abouthow adults obtained their current jobs and whether their job decisions weresimply personal or if family or social in� uences came into play. For example,Simon Duncan and Rosalind Edwards (1997) found that British motherswere more in� uenced by cultural factors than economic factors when decid-ing whether to work in the market. Questions could also be added con-cerning the sources of family/household income, and they could focus onthe reasons why people perform various kinds of work. These questionscould facilitate a discussion of caring labor and motives other than sel� shones that govern provisioning activities, while the former could lead to a dis-cussion of, for example, the differences between wealth and income.

These exercises at the grade 4 level could then be built upon in grades 8and 12; some suggestions are found in Tables 1 and 2. Several caveats are,however, in order for instructors who may consider these additional and/ormodi�ed exercises. First, they will want to avoid predetermining student

DIAL OGUE

96

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

responses, a problem implicit particularly in the 8th-grade benchmarks,which use language such as “students will use this knowledge to . . . concludethat” (p. 28, italics added). Second, 12th-grade instructors will need to givestudents more information than that provided by the NCEE guidelines ifthey are to have useful discussions about income. Indeed, only if instructorspresent a broader de� nition of economics, make explicit – and challenge– the implicit assumptions used to generate the learning expectations, andavoid the tendency to oversimplify a complex world, will they be able toteach their students at all levels, including college, about the world the wayit really is.

SUMMAR Y

A cynic who reads the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economicsmight conclude that this is simply another effort by the dominant playersin the U.S. economics profession to reinforce the dominant neoclassicalparadigm, thereby making the discipline even more ideologically hide-bound. Even if a more charitable position is adopted, the Content Stan-dards confront economists with several challenges. First, it is important thatdetailed critiques of the standards themselves continue, so that instructorsare aware of the lack of consensus that actually exists in the economics pro-fession. The process employed to construct the standards also warrantsfurther critique, especially since a number of the benchmarks are incon-sistent with the NCEE’s development criteria. For example, because thestandards emphasize conceptual content, rather than examine “basic facts”of the U.S. economy, or how the U.S. economy compares with othereconomies, the empirical exercises in the benchmarks are dif� cult to com-plete. In other words, how can content standards ignore economic realitiesaround the world?10

In view of all these problems with the NCEE standards, heterodox econ-omists should develop modi� cations, so that instructors will have a choiceof other materials to use in their classrooms. Critiquing the Standards them-selves is important, but is still only a � rst step; modifying the Standards isan obvious second step, but the real challenge is to develop an economicsthat more accurately captures real economies, including all provisioningactivities undertaken by the entire range of economic actors in today’sworld.

Margaret Lewis, Department of Economics, College of Saint Benedict,St. Joseph, MN 56374, USA

e-mail: mlewis@csbsju.edu

KimMarie McGoldrick, Department of Economics, University of Richmond,Richmond, VA 23173, USA

e-mail: kmcgoldr@richmond.edu

BE YOND THE MASCULINE NEOCLASSICAL CLASSROOM

97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

�T

he fa

st-fo

od r

esta

uran

t job

is p

art o

f a r

elat

ivel

y co

mpe

titiv

e m

arke

t and

thus

not

repr

esen

tati

ve o

f all

labo

r m

arke

ts. E

ffec

tive

alte

rnat

ives

mig

ht in

clud

e th

e m

arke

ts o

fpr

ofes

sion

al a

thle

tes,

ent

erta

inm

ent s

tars

, or

CE

Os,

wh

ere

indi

vidu

al w

orke

rs h

ave

som

e m

onop

oly

pow

er a

nd

wh

ere

the

expe

cted

cor

rela

tion

of s

alar

ies

and

perf

orm

ance

do

not a

lway

s ex

ist.

�E

xplo

re h

ow r

elat

ion

ship

s be

twee

n em

ploy

ers

and

empl

oyee

s ca

n be

exp

loit

ativ

e. A

poss

ible

exa

mpl

e h

ere

wou

ld b

e th

e ca

se o

f the

“co

mpa

ny

tow

n” in

wh

ich

ther

e is

only

on

e bu

yer

of la

bor.

Th

is c

ould

als

o le

ad to

a d

iscu

ssio

n of

the

con

�ic

ting

rol

es o

fpr

o�t-s

eeki

ng o

wne

rs a

nd w

age-

seek

ing

wor

kers

, as

sugg

este

d by

Mar

x.

�T

his

surv

ey r

equi

res

that

bot

h a

bro

ad c

ross

-sect

ion

and

larg

e n

umbe

r of

adu

lts b

eus

ed to

avo

id s

ampl

e bi

ases

. Alte

rnat

ivel

y, h

ave

stud

ents

ana

lyze

inco

me

and

wea

lthda

ta (

such

as

that

col

lect

ed b

y th

e E

con

omic

Pol

icy

Inst

itut

e an

d pu

blis

hed

in th

ebi

annu

al T

he S

tate

of W

orki

ng A

mer

ica)

, and

dis

cuss

the

dist

ribu

tion

s of

eac

h.

�H

ave

stud

ents

iden

tify

the

wea

lthie

st p

eopl

e in

the

U.S

. and

the

posi

tions

they

hol

d.T

his

wou

ld fa

cilit

ate

disc

ussi

on o

f the

cor

rela

tion

betw

een

wea

lth a

nd e

cono

mic

pow

er.

�In

stru

ctor

s w

ill w

ant t

o m

ake

expl

icit

all

assu

mpt

ion

s m

ade;

e.g

., m

any

sim

ulat

ions

typi

cally

ass

ume

that

wag

es w

ill b

e m

arke

t cle

arin

g, b

ut e

f�ci

ency

wag

e th

eory

sugg

ests

oth

erw

ise.

�D

iffe

ren

t sim

ulat

ions

mig

ht b

e ru

n; e

.g.,

the

mar

ket-c

lear

ing

neoc

lass

ical

res

ults

mig

ht b

e ob

tain

ed fr

om o

ne r

un, a

nd th

e fo

llow

ing

run

cou

ld b

e us

ed to

sh

ow h

owm

arke

t im

perf

ecti

ons

that

lead

to in

com

plet

e or

une

qual

ly-d

istr

ibut

ed in

form

atio

nfo

r so

me

play

ers

chan

ge th

ose

resu

lts.

�H

ighl

igh

t wag

e de

term

inat

ion

fact

ors

not i

nco

rpor

ated

into

the

basi

c ne

ocla

ssic

alm

odel

, suc

h as

Bec

ker’

s “t

aste

s fo

r di

scri

min

atio

n” m

odel

, Phe

lps’

s st

atis

tical

disc

rim

inat

ion

mod

el, t

he d

ual l

abor

mar

ket m

odel

and

its

emph

asis

on

exte

rnal

vers

us in

tern

al la

bor

mar

kets

. (Se

e Fr

anci

ne B

lau,

Mar

ian

ne F

erbe

r an

d A

nne

Win

kler

199

8 fo

r a

disc

ussi

on o

f eac

h.)

Ask

ow

ner

s of

fast

-food

res

taur

ants

wh

yth

ey a

re w

illin

g to

pay

a w

age

or s

alar

y to

wor

kers

and

con

clud

eth

at r

esta

uran

tow

ner

s do

so

beca

use

they

exp

ect t

o be

able

to s

ell t

he

food

an

d se

rvic

es p

rodu

ced

at a

pri

ce h

igh

en

ough

to c

over

wag

es a

nd

sala

ries

an

d al

l oth

er c

osts

of p

rodu

ctio

n.

Surv

ey s

ever

al a

dult

s re

gard

ing

thei

rso

urce

s of

inco

me,

and

con

clud

eth

at th

ela

rges

t por

tion

of p

erso

nal i

ncom

e fo

rm

ost p

eopl

e co

mes

from

wag

es a

ndsa

lari

es.

Part

icip

ate

in a

mar

ket s

imul

atio

n as

empl

oyer

s an

d em

ploy

ees

to d

eter

min

ew

age

rate

s fo

r la

bor.

Tab

le 1

Con

tent

Sta

nda

rd 1

3: N

CE

E e

xerc

ises

an

d su

gges

ted

mod

i�ca

tions

for

grad

e 8a

NC

EE e

xerc

ises

: at t

he c

ompl

etio

n of

gra

de 8

,Su

gges

ted

cont

ent a

nd p

edag

ogic

al m

odi�

catio

nsst

uden

ts w

ill u

se th

is k

now

ledg

e to

(ita

lics

adde

d)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

�O

nce

stud

ents

hav

e de

�ne

d th

eir

own

hir

ing

deci

sion

s, n

ext h

ave

them

inte

rvie

wem

ploy

ers

abou

t wh

at c

har

acte

rist

ics

they

use

in h

irin

g. A

lso,

if p

rodu

ctiv

ity

is li

sted

as

a fa

ctor

, be

sure

to a

sk th

e em

ploy

ers

how

they

mea

sure

pro

duct

ivit

y.�

Sele

ct s

ever

al s

peci

�c jo

bs fa

mili

ar to

stu

dent

s, a

nd a

sk th

em to

det

erm

ine

wha

t ski

llsar

e n

eces

sary

for

each

an

d ho

w/w

hy th

ey v

alue

the

vari

ous

skill

s fo

r ea

ch jo

b.C

ompa

rin

g st

uden

t res

pon

ses

can

also

fost

er a

dis

cuss

ion

abo

ut e

duca

tion’

s ro

le a

s a

sign

al o

r sc

reen

ing

devi

ce fo

r em

ploy

ers

in th

e hi

rin

g pr

oces

s. (

See

Kim

Mar

ieM

cGol

dric

k 19

99 fo

r m

ore.

)

�Fo

r th

e �

rst a

ctiv

ity,

hav

e st

uden

ts r

esea

rch

the

dist

ribu

tion

of i

ncom

e am

ong

peop

lew

ho h

ave

mad

e th

is c

aree

r ch

oice

, and

iden

tify

how

inco

mes

var

y ac

ross

var

ious

grou

ps, s

uch

as s

ex a

nd

race

.�

Iden

tify

fact

ors

that

may

inh

ibit

stud

ents

from

rea

lizin

g th

e ch

osen

car

eer.

Tal

k to

adul

ts, p

artic

ular

ly o

lder

on

es, t

o se

e if

an

y w

ere

disc

oura

ged

from

pur

suin

g ce

rtai

nty

pes

of e

duca

tion

an

d/or

car

eer

path

s.�

Sinc

e th

e se

cond

act

ivity

rei

nfor

ces

the

belie

f th

at p

over

ty is

an

indi

vidu

al c

hoic

e, u

sea

serv

ice-

lear

ning

pro

ject

, in

wh

ich

stu

dent

s ta

lk w

ith s

ocie

ty’s

“do

wn

trod

den

” ab

out

thei

r w

ork

“ch

oice

s” a

nd o

ppor

tuni

ties.

Dec

ide

wh

ich

wor

kers

to h

ire

and

expl

ain

the

hir

ing

deci

sion

s, g

iven

a li

st o

f job

appl

ican

ts w

ith d

iffe

rent

leve

ls o

fpr

oduc

tivi

ty.

Con

side

r a

care

er c

hoic

e, r

esea

rch

the

amou

nt o

f edu

catio

n re

quir

ed a

nd th

em

edia

n in

com

e fo

r th

is c

aree

r.Id

entif

y re

ason

s w

hy h

igh-

scho

ol d

ropo

uts

freq

uen

tly e

nd u

p in

pov

erty

.

Not

e:(a

) In

Tab

les

1 an

d 2,

we

reco

gniz

e th

at s

ome

exer

cise

s re

fer

only

to th

e U

.S. H

owev

er, w

e be

lieve

that

mos

t exe

rcis

es c

ould

be

mod

i�ed

to r

e�ec

t eco

n-

omic

situ

atio

ns

in o

ther

cou

ntr

ies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

100

�C

onsi

der

a si

ngl

e oc

cupa

tion

ove

r tim

e in

add

itio

n to

an

entir

e se

ctor

of t

he

econ

omy;

e.g

., us

ing

wag

e tr

ends

for

cler

ical

wor

kers

wou

ld fa

cilit

ate

disc

ussi

ons

ofho

w d

iscr

imin

atio

n (

shift

from

a m

ale-

dom

inat

ed p

rofe

ssio

n to

a fe

mal

e-do

min

ated

,“p

ink-

colla

r” jo

b), t

echn

olog

y (e

spec

ially

the

intr

oduc

tion

of t

he

type

wri

ter)

, and

stru

ctur

al c

han

ges

in th

e ec

onom

y (f

rom

a m

anuf

actu

ring

-bas

ed to

a s

ervi

ce- a

nd

info

rmat

ion-

base

d ec

onom

y) a

llh

ave

affe

cted

wag

e de

term

inat

ion

in c

leri

cal

occu

patio

ns.

�T

his

activ

ity w

ill r

einf

orce

the

asse

rtio

n th

at in

crea

sin

g th

e m

inim

um w

age

decr

ease

sem

ploy

men

t, a

conc

lusi

on in

crea

sing

ly c

halle

nged

by

econ

omis

ts. I

f use

d at

all,

stud

ents

sh

ould

exa

min

e w

ho

wor

ks in

thes

e jo

bs, a

nd th

ey s

hou

ld b

e in

form

ed o

fre

cen

t em

piri

cal s

tudi

es th

at c

hal

len

ge th

e re

ceiv

ed w

isdo

m a

bout

em

ploy

men

tef

fect

s of

the

min

imum

wag

e.�

Bec

ause

wag

e in

crea

ses

do n

ot a

lway

s le

ad to

an

incr

ease

in th

e qu

antit

y of

labo

rsu

pplie

d, a

non

tech

nica

l dis

cuss

ion

of i

ncom

e an

d su

bstit

utio

n e

ffec

ts w

ould

be

appr

opri

ate

her

e.

�M

arke

t str

uctu

re d

iffe

rent

ials

, pow

er s

truc

ture

s, a

nd a

dditi

onal

rel

evan

t fac

tors

nee

dto

be

incl

uded

in th

is c

har

t.�

Usi

ng la

bor

as a

n e

xam

ple

of th

is p

rodu

ctiv

e re

sour

ce, a

naly

ze w

age

tren

ds o

ver

time.

Is th

is g

ener

al tr

end

re�

ecte

d in

all

wor

kers

’ wag

es?

�C

onsi

der

wha

t for

ces

impa

ct th

e di

ffer

entia

l gro

wth

of w

ages

acr

oss

vari

ous

cate

gori

esof

pro

duct

ive

wor

kers

(su

ch a

s th

ose

with

a p

arti

cula

r le

vel o

f edu

catio

n).

How

are

thes

e fo

rces

rel

ated

to th

e m

arke

t str

uctu

re a

nd p

ower

str

uctu

res?

Rev

iew

inco

me

data

for

jobs

inm

anuf

actu

ring

and

ser

vice

indu

stri

es o

ver

the

last

25

year

s. E

xpla

in h

ow c

hang

es in

the

stru

ctur

e of

the

econ

omy,

gro

ssdo

mes

tic p

rodu

ct, t

echn

olog

y, g

over

nmen

t,pr

ices

, and

dis

crim

inat

ion

have

in�

uenc

edin

com

e fo

r jo

bs in

thes

e tw

o ar

eas.

Exp

lain

the

impa

ct o

f an

incr

ease

in th

em

inim

um w

age

on th

eir

abili

ty to

sec

ure

an a

fter

-sch

ool j

ob a

nd th

e im

pact

of t

hein

crea

se o

n th

eir

will

ingn

ess

to w

ork.

Con

stru

ct a

�ow

ch

art t

o sh

ow h

ow a

chan

ge in

a r

esou

rce

pric

e af

fect

spr

oduc

ers

and

wor

kers

in a

par

ticu

lar

prod

ucti

on p

roce

ss.

Tab

le 2

Con

tent

Sta

nda

rd 1

3: N

CE

E e

xerc

ises

an

d su

gges

ted

mod

i�ca

tions

for

grad

e 12

NC

EE e

xerc

ises

: at t

he c

ompl

etio

n of

gra

de 1

2,Su

gges

ted

cont

ent a

nd p

edag

ogic

al m

odi�

catio

nsst

uden

ts w

ill u

se th

is k

now

ledg

e to

(ita

lics

adde

d)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

101

�H

ighl

igh

t th

e so

cial

nor

ms

and

valu

es im

plic

it, s

uch

as w

hy c

han

ges

in d

eman

d fo

rsp

eci�

c pr

oduc

ts o

r ce

rtai

n ty

pes

of la

bor

occu

r. F

or e

xam

ple,

rec

ent j

ob g

row

th in

food

pre

para

tion

ser

vice

s re

�ec

ts g

row

ing

acce

ptan

ce o

f eat

ing

mea

ls a

way

from

hom

e.�

Sum

mar

ize

the

empl

oym

ent o

ppor

tun

ities

of p

resc

hool

teac

hers

and

chi

ld-c

are

wor

kers

. Exp

lain

that

the

rapi

d gr

owth

in th

is o

ccup

atio

n is

exp

ecte

d to

con

tinue

and

chal

len

ge s

tude

nts

to id

entif

y fa

ctor

s co

ntri

buti

ng to

this

exp

ansi

on, i

nclu

ding

hig

htu

rnov

er r

ates

, gre

ater

pro

port

ion

of c

hild

ren

in c

hild

car

e an

d pr

esch

ool (

desp

ite

num

ber

of c

hild

ren

unde

r 5

decl

inin

g), l

abor

forc

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of w

omen

bet

wee

nag

es o

f 20

and

44, w

omen

ret

urni

ng to

wor

k so

oner

aft

er c

hild

bir

th, e

mpl

oyer

spr

ovid

ing

child

-car

e be

ne�

ts s

uch

as

dire

ct s

ubsi

dies

and

on-

site

car

e, a

nd

wel

fare

refo

rm p

olic

ies

that

req

uire

mor

e m

othe

rs to

wor

k.

�In

vest

igat

e re

ason

s fo

r th

ese

chan

ges

and

iden

tify

thos

e m

ost a

ffec

ted

by th

em. F

orex

ampl

e, p

lot t

he r

atio

of y

ear-

roun

d fu

ll-ti

me

mal

e an

d fe

mal

e w

orke

rs a

nd

cons

ider

the

poss

ible

cau

ses

of th

e re

sulta

nt U

-shap

ed p

lot f

or d

ata

sinc

e th

e 19

50s.

(T

he

fem

ale–

mal

e ea

rnin

g ra

tio “

is h

igh

in th

e ea

rly

1950

s, fa

lls u

ntil

the

earl

y 19

70s,

an

dth

en r

ises

” (R

andy

Alb

elda

, Rob

ert D

rago

an

d St

even

Shu

lman

1997

: 21)

.) R

epea

tth

is e

xerc

ise

for

hous

ehol

d ty

pes

(fem

ale-

hea

ded,

mal

e-he

aded

, tw

o-ea

rner

hous

ehol

ds, e

tc.)

and

occ

upat

ions

(cl

eric

al, p

resc

hoo

l tea

cher

s, r

egis

tere

d nu

rses

,ju

dges

, and

law

yers

). C

onsi

der

links

bet

wee

n th

e ge

nder

an

d ra

ce m

ake-

up o

f the

seoc

cupa

tions

an

d th

eir

dist

ribu

tion

of e

arni

ngs

(Alb

elda

, Dra

go a

nd S

hulm

an 1

997:

29–3

8).

Lis

t thr

ee c

aree

rs th

at a

re e

xpec

ted

topr

ovid

e ne

w jo

b op

enin

gs a

nd e

xpla

inw

hy.

Lis

t th

ree

care

ers

that

are

exp

ecte

dto

exp

erie

nce

a d

eclin

e in

job

open

ings

and

expl

ain

why

.

Iden

tify

the

maj

or c

hang

e in

fun

ctio

nal

dist

ribu

tion

of i

nco

me

in th

e U

.S. b

etw

een

the

1780

s an

d th

e 19

90s.

Als

o, d

eter

min

eif

ther

e ha

ve b

een

sign

i�ca

nt c

hang

es in

the

pers

onal

inco

me

dist

ribu

tion

in th

eU

.S. o

ver

the

past

50

year

s.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

NOTES1 The authors would like to thank the participants at the 1998 IAFFE Summer con-

ference for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.2 The coalition included representatives of the National Council on Economic

Education, the National Association of Economic Educators, the Foundation forTeaching Economics, and the American Economic Association’s Committee onEconomic Education.

3 The other criteria were (1) Parsimony: “Understanding each standard should benecessary for citizenship, employment, and lifelong learning of economics andhelp a typical high school graduate grapple with the ordinary business of life”(p. 249); (2) Understanding: “Written so parents, teachers, students, and thegeneral public could understand them” (p. 249); (3) Correct: “Standards shouldbe correct, re� ecting the best scholarship within the discipline” (p. 249); (4)Attainability: “Standards should be challenging but attainable by all high schoolgraduates exerting a sustained effort” (p. 249); and (5) Measurability: “Stan-dards should be written with suf� cient speci� city that their attainment can bemeasured” (p. 250).

4 Hansen does suggest that the authors may have taken the commitment to parsi-mony a bit too far by never adequately addressing the meaning of the standardsapproach. He further maintains that while measurability is one criterion uponwhich the standards are based, little in the way of the development of such toolsand techniques is provided. But while Hansen raises legitimate concerns, theydo not re� ect a critical assessment of the standards’ content.

5 These are Standard Numbers 3, 4, 8, 10, and 13.6 In the U.S., individual states and local school districts, not the federal govern-

ment, have the responsibility for determining elementary and secondary edu-cational curricula.

7 We acknowledge that the statement says “most workers.” However, this point isnot subsequently reinforced: nowhere in the instructional materials do theauthors discuss other sources of income. This pattern – an accurate statementthat is not supported by appropriate explanation and/or examples – is foundrepeatedly throughout the NCEE’s document.

8 Feminist economists, among others, have been highly critical of the neoclassicalframework’s reliance on methodological individualism and rational choiceframework (see, e.g., Julie Nelson 1993 and Drucilla Barker 1999).

9 See Nancy Folbre (1995) and Susan Himmelweit (1995) for further discussionsof work outside the paid labor force.

10 We do realize that this question may only concern economists who believe thateconomic concepts are historically- and culturally-based.

REFERENCES

Aerni, April Laskey, Robin L. Bartlett, Margaret Lewis, KimMarie McGoldrick, andJean Shackelford. 1999. “Toward a Feminist Pedagogy in Economics.” FeministEconomics 5(1): 29–44.

Agarwal, Bina. 1994. A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. Cam-bridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Albelda, Randy, Robert Drago, and Steven Shulman. 1997. Unlevel Playing Fields:Understanding Wage Inequality and Discrimination. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Barker, Drucilla. 1999. “Neoclassical Economics,” in Janice Peterson and MargaretLewis (eds.) The Edgar Companion to Feminist Economics, pp. 570–7. Cheltenham:U.K.: Edward Edgar.

DIAL OGUE

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Blau, Francine D., Marianne A. Ferber, and Anne E. Winkler. 1998. The Economicsof Women, Men, and Work, 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Çatagay, Nilufer, Caren Grown, and Diane Elson (eds.). 1995. World Development:Special Issue on Gender, Adjustment, and Macroeconomics 23(11).

Duncan, Simon and Rosalind Edwards. 1997. “Lone Mothers and Paid Work:Rational Economic Man or Gendered Moral Rationalities?” Feminist Economics3(2): 29–62.

Ferber, Marianne A. 1999. ‘Guidelines for Pre-College Economic Education: ACritique.” Feminist Economics 5(3): 135–42.

Folbre, Nancy. 1995. “Holding Hands at Midnight: The Paradox of Caring Labor.”Feminist Economics 1(1): 73–92.

Hansen, W. Lee. 1998. “Principles-Based Standards: On the Voluntary NationalContent Standards in Economics.” Journal of Economic Education 29(2) (Spring):149–56.

Himmelweit, Susan. 1995. “The Discovery of ‘Unpaid Work’: The Social Conse-quences of the Expansion of ‘Work’.” Feminist Economics 1(2): 1–19.

Jennings, Ann. 1999. “Labour Markets, Theories of,” in Janice Peterson andMargaret Lewis (eds.) The Edgar Companion to Feminist Economics, pp. 511–21.Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Edgar.

Mankiw, N. Gregory. 1998. Principles of Economics. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press,Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

McGoldrick, KimMarie. 1999. “Education, Economics of ,” in Janice Peterson andMargaret Lewis (eds.) The Edgar Companion to Feminist Economics, pp. 317–23.Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Edgar.

National Council on Economic Education. 1997. Voluntary National Content Stan-dards in Economics. New York: National Council on Economic Education.

Nelson, Julie A. 1993. “The Study of Choice or the Study of Provisioning? Genderand the De� nition of Economics,” in Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson(eds.) Beyond Economic Man, pp. 37–63. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pennar, Karen. 1997. “Economics Made Too Simple.” Business Week, 20 January: 32.Seigfreid, John J. and Bonnie Meszaros. 1997. “National Voluntary Content Stan-

dards for Pre-College Economics Education.” American Economic Review 87(2):247–53.

Schneider, Geoffrey and Jean Shackelford. 2000. “Economics Standards, Bench-marks and Lists: Proposed Antidotes for Feminist Economists,” Working Paper.

BE YOND THE MASCULINE NEOCLASSICAL CLASSROOM

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

36 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014