MSE News: MPs' report calls for financial education in schools 12 December 2011 at 1:09PM in Student MoneySaving 35 replies 3.1K views

Former_MSE_Helen

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Money teaching is needed, says the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People ..."

Read the full story:

MPs' report calls for financial education in schools

The_One_Who

See the comments on this thread.

Lokolo

PHSE or whatever the acronym is nowadays I found mostly pointless. We had an hour every 2 weeks or something and no-one took it seriously. Most of the subject being taught could have gone into the subject area e.g. sex education goes into biology, finance goes into maths etc. rather in that class.

However it does say that the stuff should be taught in Maths lessons and I agree with it. It's a lot easier to learn when situated with real life situations. However, when you learn percentages you don't care about Mortgages/CC/Savings, and by the time you do care, you've forgotten because you hadn't done Maths for the past 3-4 years.

I am also a little disappointed that the teachers only need a Grade B GCSE to teach this stuff. But glad there is discussion about refresher courses.

MacMickster

While large numbers still leave school without the basic numeracy and literacy skills needed to understand both the numbers and small print of any financial transaction I consider this, whilst well-intentioned, to be a futile exercise which is more likely to detract from teaching the basics than to enhance understanding.

I also fail to see why primary school teachers should have a good GCSE in maths. At that age it is more important that they know mathematical basics (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) and have the teaching skills to pass this on to their pupils. Why they would need to understand trigonometry etc to teach these basics is something that I simply can't make add up.

It would be far more beneficial to provide free drop-in education sessions on this subject for adults at the time that they actually need financial knowledge, than to add yet another compulsory element to the school curriculum.

Reaper

Conservative MP Andrew Percy, chairman of the inquiry, says: "Credit cards, mortgages, hire purchase agreements, mobile phone contracts, tuition fees and even supermarket offers all require us to apply functional maths skills, such as being able to calculate APR, compound interest and percentages, to real-life situations.

lol - I don't know how to calculate APR and I bet he doesn't either!

Pincher

What is the difference between this news item and the earlier one:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2011/11/government-responds-to-compulsory-financial-education-petition


I would call for a small trial in poor areas.
Do a before and after test, and see whether it made any real difference.

Dorastar

There is a big difference between having a maths gcse and being able to teach financial education to children, even at primary school age. For a lot of families (and some teaching staff) there is a lack of understanding of basic finances and priorities e.g. feeding yourself is more important than a tv in each room or a new car, different catalogues for school orders charge different amounts for the same product and some give us cashback, if you strike you lose a day's pay (seriously!!!) Even having an A* in maths isn't going to address basics like this!

Should be a basic curriculum in money management as well as excellent maths teaching. Most children don't even see actual money these days as it comes by magic out of a wall or mostly a little card does all the work. Parents surely have a major role in this but a lot lack basic skills themselves. Reading mse should be made compulsory:p

MSE_Martin

Pincher wrote: »

What is the difference between this news item and the earlier one:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2011/11/government-responds-to-compulsory-financial-education-petition


I would call for a small trial in poor areas.
Do a before and after test, and see whether it made any real difference.

That was a story about the government responding to the epetition.

This was about the launch of the report into financial education thats taken 8 months by a cross party group of MPs.

And expect one on thursday about the parliamentary debate too!

Its an ongoing news story

The_One_Who

Pincher wrote: »

I would call for a small trial in poor areas.
Do a before and after test, and see whether it made any real difference.

I'd be all for a trial, the only problem is that it would take years to know if it had any effect. If they learn this at GCSE level, then many of them won't actually need to budget until they are at least eighteen.

Oldernotwiser

MacMickster wrote: »

While large numbers still leave school without the basic numeracy and literacy skills needed to understand both the numbers and small print of any financial transaction I consider this, whilst well-intentioned, to be a futile exercise which is more likely to detract from teaching the basics than to enhance understanding.

I also fail to see why primary school teachers should have a good GCSE in maths. At that age it is more important that they know mathematical basics (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) and have the teaching skills to pass this on to their pupils. Why they would need to understand trigonometry etc to teach these basics is something that I simply can't make add up.

It would be far more beneficial to provide free drop-in education sessions on this subject for adults at the time that they actually need financial knowledge, than to add yet another compulsory element to the school curriculum.

I think you overestimate the level of Maths that a good GCSE represents!

Apart from this, I agree with what you've written.

Person_one

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think you overestimate the level of Maths that a good GCSE represents!

Apart from this, I agree with what you've written.

It included trigonometry in 2001, well Edexcel did at least.