The Money has released research examining financial education in secondary schools.
The Key Findings of the report:
The Money Charity said “From September 2014, financial education became part of the secondary school curriculum. A culmination of years of campaigning, the change was greeted as a great advance. For some, particularly in the policymaking world, there was a sense of “job done!” – now it was on the curriculum, secondary school students would have good financial education. When the change was announced, The Money Charity were pleased to see financial education finally recognised as something all young people should have access to. But we were sceptical that it would impact what actually went on in schools. In itself, unless matched by a large input of resources and incentives for schools, it would be unlikely to change much in the classroom.”
“Having been one of the main organisations delivering financial education in schools, both before and after 2014, we at The Money Charity saw very little uptick in demand from schools. And, anecdotally, teachers rarely mentioned the curriculum requirement. Meanwhile, long standing complaints about insufficient time, resources and leadership support continued. And this Spring, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People reported the continuing need for “strengthening school provision” – highlighting that much work was still to be done, and championing a redoubled effort. We gave our input to this report, but felt that the anecdotes we drew on needed to be more robustly evidenced.”
“Based on a survey of 126 teachers and in depth interviews with a further six up and down the UK, it is our attempt to answer the question of what happened. In it, we explore the extent and quality of financial education in the UK, ask what the barriers are to schools improving what they offer, and discuss how schools and policymakers can improve the situation. We find that, while most schools deliver some finance education, teachers have little faith in its quality and are held back by insufficient time, negligible resources and school leaderships who do not view it as a high priority. Teachers we surveyed called for greater resources, and clearer leadership, and a mixed model of provision that includes direct delivery by experts from outside schools.”