Economics or indoctrination
The results are in for the first ever National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test in economics -- the feds consider the NAEP to be the "nation's report card." Supposedly, the results show that American public school students have achieved a high level of academic progress in economics by 12th grade.
Read the sample question below (correct answer is A according to the report) to see if the feds are testing knowledge of economics or compliance with statist designs.
Sample question:
Country X and Country Y have similar populations and natural resources. Which of the following best explains why Country X would have a higher rate of economic growth than Country Y?
A. Country X invests more in education.
B. Country X imports more consumer goods.
C. Country X places higher taxes on businesses.
D. Country X pays larger salaries to government officials
Of course, "Country X" does not imply acting man. It implies the government that controls all acting men who happen to inhabit the arbitrary geographical boundary defined as Country X by the government of Country X.
This is a simple question used to justify government and its expenditures, nothing else. But, isn't that the intent of any national exam?
Comments (17)
Great find. In a brief scan of the document, I made it all the way to the GDP/Inflation/Unemployment question before my stomach really got upset and I had to stop. Hope to take a better look at it when I have more time. Lots of fodder in there for folks around here.
Published: August 9, 2007 11:25 PM
I can tell you something else, free and for nothing, which I was abruptly reminded of last night during a pre-election webcast given by the two main party leaders here in Australia. Kevin Rudd, leader of the Australian Labor [sic] Party and leader of the opposition, larded his comments on education with the word "investment"; he used it at least three times that I counted.
But when politicians talk of "investing" in education, they don't mean what accountants mean when they speak of investing in a tractor factory, say. Even though tractors are capital goods, paying the workers is only a current expense; investing in the factory means increasing the factory capacity or productivity on an enduring basis, not just for the one round of pay.
So, even if you take the statist view that politicians are investing in children - that the children are something the politicians will have hold of - you can't say that paying more teachers, or paying existing teachers to teach more, is investing in education, any more than paying tractor factory workers is investing in the factory.
Of course, what the politicians are really up to is putting a gloss on building up a sector they want votes from - teachers in the first instance, and secondarily any parents of school age children they can deceive, i.e. who don't spot that the funds are taken from them and make it that much harder to afford proper education - and around 1/3 of Australians opt out of the state system even with the drag of their taxes paying for "free" education and so reducing their ability to afford fees.
Published: August 9, 2007 11:52 PM
How is paying government officials more unrelated to economic growth by reasoning used in this exam?
I would say that there exists an negative relationship with the size of country's public sector and economic prosperity of its citizens (not necessarily with the GDP per capita).
Published: August 10, 2007 12:48 AM
The answer:
"Choices B and D are incorrect because they
describe factors that are unrelated to economic
growth. Choice C is incorrect because higher taxes
on businesses could have a potential negative
effect on economic growth."
But I probably didn't need to post that since according to the exam, if you and I live in the same country, we apparently share the same brain - thinking and acting as one.
Also interesting to note in the "answer" is higher taxes "could" have negative effects on economic growth. I suppose they could also have positive effects? I'd like to see that one as an essay question. "Please explain how higher taxes on businesses may have a positive impact on economic growth."
Mike
Published: August 10, 2007 1:30 PM
Aside from the obvious collectivist implications behind the assertion that a "country" "invests" in education, there's a big calculation problem here -- What is the optimal amount of spending on education? What if Country X is "investing" too much in education? At what point does spending on education become wasteful?
There's a strong argument to be made that many people in the US spend far too much on education, out of all proportion to the actual value. Everyone likes to think of themselves as educated, and it has a large cultural value, but the size of the US college population is grossly inflated due to subsidies. A large number of these college students get no economic benefit from more college, once you factor in the delay they experience in getting their working lives started.
Published: August 10, 2007 2:02 PM
Yes, I would imagine if Country X had a tax rate of 99% and "invested" every dime in education the economy would not look so hot.
Published: August 10, 2007 6:04 PM
E. Country X regulates its economy less.
Published: August 10, 2007 8:22 PM
It implies the government that controls all acting men who happen to inhabit the arbitrary geographical boundary defined as Country X by the government of Country X.
Yes, that is correct. This is because those teenagers, just like you and I, live and will be living within these supposedly arbitrary boundaries for all of our lives.
Testing their general working knowledge of economics - that is, the economic mechanisms of the world in which they live - is supposed to be the point. Not quizzing them as to some abstract and unrealistic view of a stateless society.
Published: August 10, 2007 10:08 PM
The "knowledge" being tested for is incorrect; that is the point of this blog entry. But the fact that your comment has no relation to the statement you quoted indicates that you may want to go back and read again.
Published: August 11, 2007 2:41 AM
The question does not require or otherwise encourage economic thought. That is the problem.
Published: August 11, 2007 11:49 AM
RWW
Do you really not understand or are you just being contentious for a lack of anything relevant to say?
It is a poor question, but jumping off into arbitrary boundaries and such from that one question is over the top nonsense.
I woud accuse you of not having read any of the other questions on the test, but of course you could prove me wrong with a quick Google search after the fact.
Bottom line is that if the average teenager has a basic understanding of how an economy works, then that is great.
However, criticizing what is meant to be a general test because it does not deal with the fringe ideological notion that states are bad per se is absurd.
Fedako, and yourself rww, are not so much bothered by the test, but it is a convenient spring board for your fringe thoughts on stateless society.
Published: August 11, 2007 12:44 PM
Ray G.,
I noted the arbitrary boundaries for a reason: Answer A (for example) did not read, "The parents -- and grandparents, etc. -- living in Country X have invested more in their own children's education."
In essence, the question substituted the free choices of acting individuals for the collectivist view of an acting state. Do you accept that as a libertarian view?
Note: Even this expenditure would not guarantee economic growth. It could be that Country X is seeing an influx of educated Country Y'ers because Country X has a lower tax burden and, hence, a higher investment in capital. It could be that Country X is wasting scarce resources on silly government education programs - see real world example (below) -- and, hence, reaping a stagnant economy.
The point of the question -- and most other questions on the test -- is to imply that government can create growth, improve the economy, etc. As a libertarian, you should agree that government cannot accomplish such goals.
Certainly, in a relative sense, one government can outspend another on education. But, that does not imply that the higher-expenditure country's economy will improved due to the relatively higher expenditure. That is the economic lesson that goes missing.
A real world example: My local public vocational school spends over $30K per student each year. Why do they spend so much? Because they can; their revenue and expenditures are off the radar of most taxpayers.
Do you, a libertarian, truly believe that this expenditure is driving the economy locally, state-wide, or throughout the US?
So, the premise of the question is wrong. And, it does not test "the economic mechanisms of the world in which they live ..." It does test knowledge of the fallacies that drive policy debates.
Wouldn't you rather have students understand real economics? Or, are you happy with them leaving public schools educated in the fallacies that point toward socialism, and not libertarianism?
Something to think about.
Jim
Published: August 11, 2007 1:26 PM
You’re repeated reference to my being a libertarian reminds me of when some irate listener calls into a radio show and repeatedly puts an exaggerated “MR” in front of the host’s name.
I don’t disagree that the question is a bad question, and I don’t disagree that teenagers should have a better education in free market economics.
Where I’m taking issue with you is your leap from a basic test to your arbitrary boundaries and such. You’re not suggesting a realistic alternative, you’re simply using it as a launch pad to start a discussion on the fringe idea of a stateless society. If I’m wrong about your views concerning arbitrary boundaries, and stateless societies, just say so. I am speculating a little here, but I think I’m right.
Thus it is you’re not even talking about the test itself, but about public spending in general, and education spending in particular. But not really about the test.
And so it is I’m not really addressing the test, but your view on libertarian thinking.
Personally my own libertarian thinking accepts public expenditure on those things which are obviously in the public good. Some will say roads are public goods, and others will say “Yes, some roads, but not those that only lead up to that private neighborhood.” Those things can be hashed out in the public forum, and I believe this view to be both realistic and still genuinely in favor of individual freedom.
Such an admission typically sends the anarcho-libertarian crowd into “big government” paroxysms, but I’ll stop here and allow for the expected replies.
Published: August 11, 2007 2:37 PM
Yeah Jim, as long as the average person understands that the transactions of millions of people throughout the year can be summed up with few equations and graphs, and that all of the various goods and services we produce can be added up into one number to see if we did better this year than last, what's the problem?
Published: August 11, 2007 2:57 PM
Ray, using the word "fringe" as some slur is not going to help you. One need not even advocate a stateless society to see that question as utterly misphrased. It is a matter of economics here. These questions treat countries as monolithic entities, not comprised of individuals, but rather as economic agents in their own right. This is not teaching economics (properly conceived as the discipline which studies individual's actions in coordination), it is teaching outdated mercantilist notions.
Are you a minarchist, incidentally?
Published: August 11, 2007 5:37 PM
Should read: coordination, division of labour and exchange.
Published: August 11, 2007 5:38 PM
Personally my own libertarian thinking accepts public expenditure on those things which are obviously in the public good.
Identifying and evaluating the true, total costs and benefits of government expenditures is a highly complex, far-reaching, dynamic and difficult topic. As Bastiat discussed 150 years ago, it involves accounting for what is seen, as well as what is unseen. That is not easy.
If you believe that such things can be blithely glossed over as being "obviously in the public good," then it is clear that you are not actually doing much thinking at all.
Published: August 11, 2007 10:12 PM