The UK government’s Francis Review of the English school curriculum is an unprecedented chance to shift the national and global conversation on economics education: let’s not miss it, say Alex Bush and Jennifer Brandsberg-Engelmann. They explain why we need to change an economics curriculum which perpetuates narratives that are bad for people and planet and erase care work.
The UK government is asking experts, students, parents and teachers for views about how economics is taught in English schools by November 22, as part of the Department for Education’s Francis Review of the curriculum. This is a rare opportunity for the public to directly shape what students learn — and couldn’t come at a more important time.
Economics education impacts everyone, regardless of whether we study it at school or university. As Kate Raworth says in her landmark book Doughnut Economics, “Economics is the mother tongue of public policy, the language of public life, and the mindset that shapes society.” It’s almost a requirement for anyone in a position of power, so what it teaches matters.
In England and around the world, economics courses are implicitly or explicitly teaching teenagers that:
- selfish, utility-maximising human behaviour is natural and rational;
- profit-maximisation and exponential growth are the main goals of the economy;
- household care is not part of the economy;
- the natural world is separate from, and ‘external’ to the economy;
- ethics and values are irrelevant to economic analysis; and
- students are not part of the economy and have no role in its transformation.
Economics courses too often focuses on training students in mastering linear and reductive models that have an exclusive focus on the “market” and the “state” and ignore wider social and ecological systems.
For example focusing just on paid labour in the market completely ignores the role of the unpaid care largely done by women, something that has been a focus of Oxfam’s campaigning in recent years, including putting a spotlight on how care work is invisible in the standard Gross Domestic Product measure of the economy.
And such a technical approach also misses huge and important questions: what is the purpose of our economies? Whose interests do they serve? And whose interests should they serve?
As Sonia Phalatse, of the pan-African feminist network FEMNET told the the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE) last year: “Now, more than ever, we are engaging in a battle of ideas. What is holding us back are mainstream orthodox economists, who have the most outdated, linear, ahistorical ideas out there… This is not scientific, but deeply ideological.” Reforming economics education isn’t just about making a better school curriculum: it’s a societal, planetary and ethical imperative.
Four ways to build better economics courses
We need to equip future generations to understand and address the root causes of our biggest global challenges such as poverty to climate change. Here we set out four key shifts that could make the economics curriculum work for a better future:
1. Articulate a purpose for the economy: growth should not be the only goal
The economy should work for our lives and our planet, yet too often it seems to be the other way round: we give up our wellbeing and degrade our environment in service of a limited view of “economic progress”. So future economics courses should focus on how we can design our economies to meet human needs within planetary boundaries, as Raworth has set out in Doughnut Economics.
That means widening our goals beyond a narrow focus on growth. Oxfam has highlighted the work of feminist economists who point out how oil spills and weapons production might be good for growth, but they are not good for humanity. As the Doughnut Economics Action Lab says: “The starting point of Doughnut Economics is to change the goal from endless GDP growth to thriving in the Doughnut. At the same time, see the big picture by recognising that the economy is embedded within, and dependent upon, society and the living world.”
It also means bringing “normative” perspectives back into economics education, asking ethical and moral questions about what the economy should look like to deliver fairness, justice and a sustainable future rather than simply engaging in analysis of objective facts and looking only at the present.
2. Ensure students understand the economy is not just markets: it includes ‘commoning’ and household care and domestic work too
Study of household care and “commoning” – the social practices and norms for managing a resource for collective benefit – should be added to the curriculum to complement study of markets and the state. This will provide students a more diverse and complete picture of what the economy is, what we should value and how we can organise ourselves for human and wider ecological wellbeing.
If they are to understand how to build economic resilience, it’s vital that students understand how critical household care and the commons are to our future economy and society: economies that do not pay attention to both of these will not flourish.
Students should also understand that the economy is embedded in wider social and ecological systems, intimately connected to one another. The curriculum should broaden the current narrow range of economic ideas to incorporate approaches and historical context from multiple schools of thought, such as ecological, institutional, feminist, and decolonial economics, all underpinned by a systems-thinking approach.
3. Allow students to question the assumption that all humans are selfish
Orthodox economics tends to assume all humans are selfish, that they always act in their own selfish interest, maximising business profits or personal “utility”. Students need a more comprehensive and realistic view of human nature: one that accepts and includes human motivations beyond utility and profit maximisation; that considers reciprocal and cooperative behaviours which better reflect complex human behaviour in the economy.
4. Reduce emphasis on technical models and let students experience the economy as it really is on their doorstep
The focus of learning must shift away from spending huge amounts of time learning about technical, mathematical models that provide limited insight into how the real world works. Instead, the curriculum should provide more space for students to engage with local economies and students’ lived experience. They should build their understanding of local communities and ecosystems, as well as the day-to-day realities of jobs, organisations and households.
That is best done by allowing students time for project-based learning grounded in their local communities. Such a hands-on experiential approach will help students understand real-world economics, while strengthening the human relationships and networks that are so important for future life, study and work.
In England? Shape the Francis Review right now before the deadline of November 22
Right now, we have a short window to shape real change by responding to the Francis Review by November 22. The review’s survey covers all subjects and is long but, if you would like to respond, the goal is simply to convince the Review Panel to open up economics subjects for revision. Determining exactly what that looks like would come later.
A shift in England would also impact Cambridge International Education courses (10,000 schools worldwide), and have wider ripple effects on other school systems, such as the International Baccalaureate, who are also reviewing economics right now.
Here are some links to support your response:
- Current A Level Economics Syllabus
- Current GCSE Economics Syllabus
- Talking points and guidance (use, edit, ignore as you wish)
- PDF of the survey questions (in case you want to see all the questions without entering the survey)
- Online survey (this is where you submit your response – starts at bottom of the page)
We hope as many of you reading this as possible in England will fill in the survey to ask for a better grounding for our young economists. It critical that their schooling is fit for the real world in which they live and lays the foundation for a just and sustainable future.
Author
Author
