Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
When the Financial Times launched the FT financial inclusion and education campaign in 2021, the case for financial education was clear. Financial education has been shown again and again to improve life outcomes, across all ages and demographics, while boosting economic potential.
Three years of experience working with young people, women and marginalized communities has only confirmed FLIC’s vision of the importance and scale of the challenge. So it has been encouraging to see greater attention of political leaders in recent years. However, a report this week from the UK Parliament’s Education Committee suggests much more needs to be done.
The report finds acceptance in England schools is poor: Only 33 percent of primary school students receive any financial education, while only 39 percent of high school students said they received any financial training. And the subject remains non-compulsory for those over 16 years of age.
The quality of existing programs is also poor. Today’s students, bombarded on social networks by crypto boosters and get-rich-quick schemes, make financial decisions at a much younger age than previous generations. The committee found that current curricula do not meet these modern needs.
Many of the problems can be attributed to poor implementation. Financial education is often completely neglected or included in schedules as an afterthought. Curriculum content is scattered across personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE) and mathematics, and there is rarely a senior administrator tasked with its implementation across the school. Curriculum material also varies greatly in terms of quality and motivation: FLIC and other educational organizations produce unbiased material, while commercial organizations such as banks may want to build brands as well as educate.
There is also insufficient evaluation. Research suggests that financial education They should be incorporated into mathematics curricula. But most financial education is taught on PSHE courses, where it is not sufficiently assessed for rigor or treated as a priority by administrators. According to the report, only 3 percent of time in math classes is devoted to financial topics, which is inconsistent with both recommended best practices and the reality of most people’s use of math. Adulthood.
The parliamentary report presents a number of sensible proposals. Schools should appoint a financial education coordinator to evaluate curricula and have a joined-up approach. Quality and progress should be monitored more closely, including through expanded PSHE reviews and the UK’s option to participate in the OECD’s Pisa assessment to financial education. Financial education should be compulsory for all students from primary school to age 18, even if the election call raises questions about whether Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government “Mathematics until 18“The initiative will ever materialize.
But more needs to be done. Exam boards should include more financial mathematics in papers. Curriculum providers should focus more on the skills students need to thrive in today’s financial world. Most crucial of all, enough math teachers must be hired and better trained in foundation finance.
If the Labor Party wins the election, it has committed to a major review of the curriculum in all subjects. This would take several years, but would offer the opportunity to incorporate knowledge about everyday finances into education at all levels. Meanwhile, implementing the Education Committee’s recommendations without delay would help the current generation of students navigate financial obstacles while better utilizing their economic potential.