Financial Education

Whilst there are some examples of exemplary practice, in the main financial education in primary schools in England is insufficient and should be expanded. Children use money at an increasingly young age and with greater independence, often making transactions that are immediate and, at times, irreversible. Whilst this should in theory be happening from secondary school age onwards, there is increasing evidence that children under eleven are being reached by online marketing and may be subject to financial pressures.

Effective financial education needs to begin early, during primary school years. We have heard evidence that the limited provision of financial education in primary school mathematics does not adequately prepare children for the fast-changing financial world in which they increasingly participate. Building a strong foundation for financial education at primary school would also ensure that as children develop their cognitive abilities and a sense of delayed gratification, they will do so informed by good financial practice.

The amount of delivery time dedicated to financial education in secondary school mathematics is insufficient and does not reflect the importance of personal financial literacy or the emphasis which has been placed on it by the Government. More financial content, based on real-life, problem-solving activities, should be included within the secondary mathematics curriculum.

We recommend that the Government urgently reviews the contents of the mathematics curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4 in order to expand the provision and relevance of financial education at primary and secondary school level. This need not require a re-drawing of the national curriculum itself but could be achieved through a model curriculum approach to enhance and enrich mathematics with financial knowledge. Whether through curriculum enhancement or reform, more financial content must be incorporated into the mathematics curricula to ensure that young people at every level are developing financial literacy as a fundamental part of their mathematical knowledge and fluency. This needs careful sequencing to deliver age- appropriate content. Whilst the Oak National Academy may prove a useful mechanism for delivering this to teachers, it should not be the only vehicle for delivering such an important development.

Financial education is crucial for 16-to-18 year-olds, many of whom are transitioning into the workplace, paying taxes, considering applying for a student loan, and living away from home for the first time. Yet it is post-16 students who miss out on any form of compulsory financial education. Providing post-16 students with a comprehensive financial education as part of its plans to continue maths education to the age of 18 should be a priority for the Government. Recruiting and retaining a sufficient number of teachers to teach mathematics is already a challenge but Government must address if it is to expand the delivery of mathematics to the age of 18.

We welcome the Government’s proposals to make mathematics compulsory learning for all students up to the age of 18. Whichever form this takes, whether through the Advanced British Standard or otherwise, the Government must ensure that the mathematics programme includes financial literacy as a fundamental part of the curriculum. The Government should also redouble its focus on recruitment and retention of maths teachers if this aim is to be met.

Beyond pure mathematics, as we recommend in our report on post-16 qualifications, the Department should explore means of increasing the take up of core mathematics and functional skills courses, but it should also consider offering a specific qualification in financial literacy which could fit into the Advanced British Standard as a minor subject. This would provide opportunities for progression for students who may not be able to take A level mathematics but show an interest or aptitude in improving their financial knowledge. This could also be a useful alternative to the GCSE retake for those who do not achieve a grade 4 or above in mathematics.

The Department should carefully consider the requirements for teaching such a course and could take the opportunity to broaden mathematics recruitment behind those with a degree or A level in the subject to ensure there is a sufficient cohort of qualified teachers who can deliver financial education and contextual mathematics.

Making the economic and financial elements of PSHE education statutory at primary and secondary school level appears to us to be a simple and effective way of expanding financial education at both levels and signalling the increased importance of the subject to all students.

The Secretary of State should make regulations, using powers under section 35 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, to provide for the personal and societal elements of financial education to be taught compulsorily in schools.

A cross-curricular approach in which aspects of financial education are taught in various subjects across the curriculum helps pupils to understand its relevance in different contexts. It also has the benefit of offering students some form of financial education, whatever their subject preferences may be. This approach, however, can lead to a lack of coherence in what is taught between subjects. A financial education co-ordinator would provide their school with a more coherent programme of study and clarity over curriculum requirements.

We welcome the Money and Pension Service’s guidance on financial education, which sets out the benefits of appointing a financial education lead. Whilst we agree with Minister Hinds that each school is best placed to decide how to implement its financial education programme, we believe that providing schools with more detailed guidance on appointing and supporting a financial education co-ordinator, should they choose to do so, would enable school leaders to make more informed decisions about creating and developing this important role.

We recommend that each school or Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) should consider having a financial education lead, who may be a teacher of mathematics, PSHE or citizenship, to co-ordinate financial education across the school curriculum. The Government should produce detailed guidance for MATs, teachers and school Delivering effective financial education 27 leaders on how best to appoint and support financial education leads. It should also consider the case for providing subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) and continuing professional development (CPD) to support such a role.

There is no shortage of financial education teaching materials, yet the evidence tells us that these materials are often unsuitable, the sheer quantity is unhelpful to teachers looking for appropriate resources and that, consequently, they are not being utilised in schools. Whilst it is right that schools should be able to determine which materials they use to teach financial education and that the Government should not prescribe which books and resources ought to be used in schools, we believe that the Department can and should make the process of finding and selecting high-quality financial education teaching materials easier for teachers.

The Department for Education, working with subject associations, professional bodies, the Money and Pensions Service, and other government departments, should curate and promote a selection of high-quality financial education teaching materials and make these easily accessible to teachers and pupils.

Providing teachers with opportunities for appropriate teacher training and continued professional development in financial education has clear benefits for both teachers and pupils. However, there are various factors, including workload pressures, which preclude many teachers from accessing financial education training and development opportunities. We welcome the investment made by the Money and Pensions Service to explore the types of training that are most suitable for teachers and how these can be embedded more effectively.

Training in financial education must be offered at an early stage of a teacher’s career through initial teacher training (ITT). Incorporating financial education training from an early stage provides teachers with a foundation on which they can build their knowledge, skills and confidence in the subject. Training opportunities should be continuously available and well signposted throughout a teacher’s career.

The Department for Education should ensure that training in financial education is available to all teachers beginning their careers through initial teacher training provision, and that continued professional development opportunities and subject knowledge enhancement (SKE) in financial education are available and accessible for all teachers. The Department should ensure that appropriate financial education options are included in both the Early Career Framework and the suite of national professional qualification (NPQ) courses.

Ofsted’s inadequate evaluation of financial education in schools undermines the importance of financial education and adversely affects how it is viewed and prioritised by teachers and school leaders. Citizenship in particular is not being appropriately assessed by Ofsted. Inspection under the personal development judgement alone is not the right accountability measure for a subject as important 28 Delivering effective financial education as citizenship and the financial education content it includes. Citizenship should be evaluated by Ofsted as part of its quality of education key judgement in addition to personal development.

The Department for Education should work with Ofsted to review how it can improve its evaluation of financial education. We recommend that citizenship provision be inspected under the quality of education key judgement and personal development. The Department should take note of the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2022– 23 and its recommendation that Ofsted should evaluate schools’ achievement of the Gatsby benchmarks.

The OECD’s internationally renowned PISA assessments, which examine the education performance of children in different subjects, include an assessment of financial education; England and each of the UK nations has currently opted out of participating in this. The Minister told us that this was to reduce the burden on teachers and because, in his view, participation in the mathematics section of PISA was sufficient. Whilst we accept that there is some correlation between outcomes for the mathematics and financial literacy PISA assessments, results in the former do not necessarily reflect performance in the latter. Participating in the financial literacy assessment would demonstrate the Government’s commitment to improving financial education in England and give the subject more prominence. The emphasis that the Prime Minster has placed on financial literacy surely means he should want the UK to be showing a lead in this area. If other devolved nations chose to follow such an approach it would allow for useful and valuable comparisons between them and the English system.

We recommend that the Government applies to participate in the next PISA financial literacy assessment scheduled for 2025 and engages with the devolved administrations to encourage them to do likewise.