MSE News: Prime Minister responds on financial education in schools

worldtraveller

I think that it may be more important to firstly educate our children in the basics of reading, writing & maths before we embark on a course of financial education for them. Unfortunately under the last Labour government two in five children entered secondary school without a firm grasp of these basics. Therefore, IMHO, we need to tackle the current issues over the appalling lack of basic education in the UK first and then maybe think about financial education.

I believe that the Prime Minister is absolutely right when he says that "I am sure you would agree that if pupils are to understand finance, it is important that they also have a good grasp of mathematics".

beamerguy

David Cameron needs to get into the real world

BBC London News

BARCLAYS BANK READY TO PUT £1M INTO LONDON SCHOOLS

They want to train youngsters about money ????

PARDON ME, SHOULD NOT BARCLAYS GET THEIR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER ABOUT MONEY OR ARE THEY PLANNING TO TEACH YOUNGSTERS HOW TO DEFRAUD OTHERS ???

ONE MILLION POUNDS ????? Why don't they pay back the monies stolen from the public before they go into a big publicity stunt ???

worldtraveller

beamerguy wrote: »

Why don't they pay back the monies stolen from the public before they go into a big publicity stunt ???

Exactly what public money was that?

tiggert

One thing I don't really get about their whole education policy: They are planning this curriculum review (the PM even refers to it in his letter) and yet they are hoping to turn all schools into "free schools" (see here) , so they won't have to follow the curriculum anyway!

oldvicar

prevent millions being screwed by scandals such as PPI, bank charges and endowments

This does not strike me as the correct manner of expression to be used by anyone who expects to be taken seriously by the Prime Minister.

It may go down well with editors who commission articles for The Sun.

Red_sky

MartinWickham wrote: »

But these two comments typically show that our society has not understood the proper function of the EDUCATION system. It is to EDUCATE, not just to provide a narrow training of what we think children might need to know in ten or sixty years time; teachers don't know what children are going to need to know in ten or sixty years time, particularly regarding financial issues.

We need to provide an education system which teaches a broad range of knowledge and provides a wide base of experiences, which inevitably will include examples of a monetary nature. An appropriately educated individual won't need to be taught specific facts about the ever-changing financial marketplace, because they will apply their intelligence and broad education to make their own astute judgements appropriate to their circumstances and needs.

Of course, a good level of mathematics education is still essential, but this is not dependant in any way on 'financial education', whatever that is.

Oh my God! You sound like a typical teacher. I got taught so much crap when when I was at school, most of which was completely useless to me either then or later in life. A complete waste of my time and my life. It just goes to prove, you don't even know what financial education is. I think a few people on here could tell you. Teach the kids something which is useful to them and not all the useless crap you teach. For instance i got taught politics in the 19th century. Oh yes, that was really useful to me. What a complete waste of my time.

Red_sky

MartinWickham wrote: »

On this forum I accept I might be the only person to hold contrary views. Nevertheless, my belief is that Martin Lewis' 'financial education' has been misguided from the beginning, and David Cameron has clearly had the benefit of good advice.

Martin Lewis seems to have assumed that he knows what the 'picture' of compulsory financial education will look like if it is rolled out. The murky picture I envisage is of the carnage that will exist after the resource-heavy financial industry has infiltrated the education at the lowest levels to promote it’s own greedy ends.

I haven't noticed individuals of the teaching profession as being particularly financially savvy; therefore, this is not a group that are natural candidates to take on a financial education role.

We DO need to teach competently, and the low expectation and narrowness of school mathematics teaching propagated by the National Curriculum currently is abysmal. However, the inadequacy of the National Curriculum does not justify the extension of further, damaging compulsion into schools, even of 'financial education'. It might give us a few clues that nationally we need to find a better route to instigate a massive and badly needed upgrade of mathematics education. This IS properly within the remit of teachers and the education system, and it would more properly equip individuals to understand and deal appropriately with their financial needs.

God, another load of hogwash. Get a life and teach the kids something useful. And nobody has mentioned the resource-heavy financial industry infiltrating the education system at the lowest levels to promote it’s own greedy ends. Teachers are meant to teach not the finance industry. But as you mention yourself, probably the teachers themselves are not capable of teaching this subject which doesn't surprise me in the least. Apologies to any teachers who may be capable of teaching something which is useful. Why are common sense solutions to problems so difficult to instigate in this country on so many, many levels.

John_Pierpoint

I am far from convinced that teachers - people on the public payroll - are suitable for explaining the financial facts of life to the next generation:

Geography: Kids you are one of over 60 million crowded onto an off shore island unable to feed itself and with depleted natural resources. You are going to need to live by your wits.
History: Forget all the pageantry; the British Empire was built by double entry book keeping and budgetary controls. This might have created some unforeseen nonsenses, like a Crimean war with soldiers dying of cold "because the standard issue cannot be more than one greatcoat per year"; but it did provide a method of rationing resources.
Languages: Mandarin Chinese because that is where the money has gone and it might turn out to be the only language with enough speakers to challenge English. - “Ni Hao 你好”
Maths: Speaks for itself.
Chemistry: Start with the efforts to turn base metal into gold.
Physics: Best degree for getting an overpaid job in a bank.
Biology: Opportunity to discuss farming and commodity prices.
English: Method for expressing thoughts clearly and concisely.
English Literature: Introduce life's two most powerful forces - Sex and Money. "Grapes of Wrath" "Mansfield Park" & "Great Expectations" cannot be understood with out an understanding of the effect of money and human relations on the characters involved.

We need schools that can turn out pupils who can compete in a global economy, not out of touch celebrity seekers, who think the state owes them a living.

oldvicar

Red_sky wrote: »

Oh my God! You sound like a typical teacher. I got taught so much crap when when I was at school, most of which was completely useless to me either then or later in life. A complete waste of my time and my life. It just goes to prove, you don't even know what financial education is. I think a few people on here could tell you. Teach the kids something which is useful to them and not all the useless crap you teach. For instance i got taught politics in the 19th century. Oh yes, that was really useful to me. What a complete waste of my time.

You were really lucky to be taught this. How sad that you didn't learn anything.

oldvicar

Red_sky wrote: »

God, another load of hogwash. Get a life and teach the kids something useful. And nobody has mentioned the resource-heavy financial industry infiltrating the education system at the lowest levels to promote it’s own greedy ends. Teachers are meant to teach not the finance industry. But as you mention yourself, probably the teachers themselves are not capable of teaching this subject which doesn't surprise me in the least. Apologies to any teachers who may be capable of teaching something which is useful. Why are common sense solutions to problems so difficult to instigate in this country on so many, many levels.

Because of 19th century political reforms.