MSE News: MPs' financial education in schools debate next week

Oldernotwiser

Person_one wrote: »

Jamie Oliver was never a school cook, look at the difference he made.

In the main, he wasn't trying to dictate the curriculum.

Oldernotwiser

wozearly wrote: »

Plus, its just one example. Getting people to understand the principles of how debts like mortgages and financial instruments like credit cards (etc.) work also makes a lot of sense, given how the difference between handling these sensibly and not can have a huge impact on people's lives.

Yes, it requires teachers to actually think about how to teach it effectively and avoid being condescending. Yes, it means that something else may need to be nudged out of the curriculum. These are downsidesm but do I believe its valuable to get the right kind of financial education into schools? Absolutely yes.

Do you have any idea how many children/young people have little understanding of percentages?

If basic concepts of numeracy aren't in place, financial education will be ineffective and, if it takes time out of the curriculum, numeracy will be worse and not better.

Person_one

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

In the main, he wasn't trying to dictate the curriculum.

He was trying to influence the way schools run in order to benefit children.

I don't see why this couldn't be part of maths, at least at GCSE level, it might be a bit more interesting for most teenagers and will certainly be more useful to most of them than quadratic equations or trigonometry! They could learn how interest rates work and the real costs of borrowing, work out hypothetical budgets etc. The ones who want to study pure maths further can catch up at A level.

wozearly

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Do you have any idea how many children/young people have little understanding of percentages?

If basic concepts of numeracy aren't in place, financial education will be ineffective and, if it takes time out of the curriculum, numeracy will be worse and not better.

Presumably only if financial education competes directly with numeracy teaching. I don't believe anyone has been suggesting that - although I accept that anything added in means something else is taken out. Its ultimately a question of what the most valuable things to teach children are.

Leading on from that, I'm curious why you believe that including financial education of some description in schools is a waste of time. Can you shed some light on that viewpoint for me?

Oldernotwiser

Person_one wrote: »

He was trying to influence the way schools run in order to benefit children.

I don't see why this couldn't be part of maths, at least at GCSE level, it might be a bit more interesting for most teenagers and will certainly be more useful to most of them than quadratic equations or trigonometry! They could learn how interest rates work and the real costs of borrowing, work out hypothetical budgets etc. The ones who want to study pure maths further can catch up at A level.

I agree that functional Maths should be taught as part of the Maths curriculum (as it always used to be and at a much younger age than GCSE!) but I don't see that you can teach how interest rates work to students who don't understand percentages.

Eco_Miser

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Do you have any idea how many children/young people have little understanding of percentages?

If basic concepts of numeracy aren't in place, financial education will be ineffective and, if it takes time out of the curriculum, numeracy will be worse and not better.

So percentages and numeracy generally have to be part of financial education.

The little financial education I got at school was part of Maths.

Oldernotwiser

wozearly wrote: »

Leading on from that, I'm curious why you believe that including financial education of some description in schools is a waste of time. Can you shed some light on that viewpoint for me?

1. Having spent a large part of my career teaching 16-19 year olds, it never ceased to amaze me how little they retained about anything they learned in school, whether practical or theoretical.

2. Sex education is compulsory in UK schools but we have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe.

3. So much financial education is value laden and could reflect adversely on students' parents and their home background that it would be very difficult to teach this in the way it's suggested.

mumps

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I agree that functional Maths should be taught as part of the Maths curriculum (as it always used to be and at a much younger age than GCSE!) but I don't see that you can teach how interest rates work to students who don't understand percentages.

Lots of kids think maths doesn't matter to them, "What's the point of learning this?" is something maths teachers hear alot, well the ones I know do. This would be something to motivate them, something that can benefit them.

It always amazes me how boys who claim they can't do maths can work out complicated bets (yankees rings a bell) or do mental arithmatic when playing snooker.

Oldernotwiser

Eco_Miser wrote: »

So percentages and numeracy generally have to be part of financial education.

The little financial education I got at school was part of Maths.

So how many hours would you see being allocated to this if you're going to include broad concepts like percentages and numeracy in general?

I've already said that I'm in favour of of applied, practical Maths being taught in schools but we need better Maths teaching generally, not an additional subject.

Oldernotwiser

mumps wrote: »

Lots of kids think maths doesn't matter to them, "What's the point of learning this?" is something maths teachers hear alot, well the ones I know do. This would be something to motivate them, something that can benefit them.

It always amazes me how boys who claim they can't do maths can work out complicated bets (yankees rings a bell) or do mental arithmatic when playing snooker.

I agree with your last paragraph but it seems unlikely to me that teenagers will be motivated by issues such as mortgages and insurance.