Do You Think Public Schools Should Teach Financial Education?

[bjl584]

This question has come up before. In theory, it would be a good thing to do. Some basic budgeting could be taught alongside math. I'm just not sure how it could be introduced so it has a positive impact. I had years of English, but I couldn't tell you how to identify the supportive adjective (if that's even a thing.) Finances were something that I had to learn through time and experience. I was taught Calculus, but there was never any mention of searching for and purchasing cash flowing assets.

[Smallsteps]

I took a class in college do not remember most because it was too abstract. Just like any other skill it is not about the class / teachings it is about the practice of that skill. I think most people can recite the financial mantras like "spend less then you earn or pay yourself first" but they do not PRACTICE this. When teaching this most people start talking basic math. It is about much more then math. If it was just MATH we would not have so many in debt/ having money problems.
I knew people on a regular basis chased their tails trying to pay basic bills and had zero savings but could up with the money for any item they truly wanted. A person whom asked for help every couple months on FB to keep lights on but came up with between $400-500 per ticket every year for a music festival held 150 miles away and they camped over the 3 day festival which was an added fee/ cost. Not to mention her vehicle was always on verge of death and they asked for rides everywhere, but it was fine for a 300+ mile trip?
Dave Ramsey has made a good living teaching financial education. Granted his audience has real money to practice these teachings on.

[disneysteve]

They're just too young to grasp anything a financial class would throw at them.

I disagree. I think the basic concepts of personal financial management can certainly be taught in an age-appropriate way. Especially at a high school level, kids are already interacting with money on a regular basis. Many of them are working so they have incomes they need to manage and many/most have no clue how to do that.

I think a big reason why so many adults struggle with credit cards and budgeting and investing is because nobody has ever taught them how to do it. It's not something that we all naturally know how to do.

I'm actually surprised that anyone here would be opposed to basic financial education for our children.

[rennigade]

I'm actually surprised that anyone here would be opposed to basic financial education for our children.

If someone can develop a program that is beneficial then im all for it.

I hate to say this or the thought of it...but most people really arent interested in learning about saving/investing. Many live paycheck to paycheck...and those who do eventually figure it out later in life pay someone to manage their money for them. These financial forums you see...everyone that frequents them make up the smallest percentage of people living in the US.

The very few of us who care about saving/investing are a rare breed.

[disneysteve]

If someone can develop a program that is beneficial then im all for it.

I've shared before how I've done "Dad's Financial Academy" for our daughter. Starting in elementary school and continuing to today, I've sat down with her and taught and reviewed first the most basic financial stuff and later more advanced stuff when it was appropriate to her level. I haven't done anything wild or overly complicated and our lessons rarely lasted more than 10-15 minutes. I see no reason why similar education couldn't be incorporated into school curriculums. As I said earlier, most of it meshes well with math classes, especially early on. Later, like in high school, it should be its own class, as it is in our area.

Will kids care? Most probably won't, but most don't care about English or History or Algebra or Physics either but we keep teaching those, so I don't we shouldn't try. Just being exposed to it is better than not. And it's certainly more useful information than a lot of other stuff we force our kids to study.

[rennigade]

I've shared before how I've done "Dad's Financial Academy" for our daughter. Starting in elementary school and continuing to today, I've sat down with her and taught and reviewed first the most basic financial stuff and later more advanced stuff when it was appropriate to her level. I haven't done anything wild or overly complicated and our lessons rarely lasted more than 10-15 minutes. I see no reason why similar education couldn't be incorporated into school curriculums. As I said earlier, most of it meshes well with math classes, especially early on. Later, like in high school, it should be its own class, as it is in our area.

Will kids care? Most probably won't, but most don't care about English or History or Algebra or Physics either but we keep teaching those, so I don't we shouldn't try. Just being exposed to it is better than not. And it's certainly more useful information than a lot of other stuff we force our kids to study.

That certainly makes more sense. If its taught from a young age, elementary all the way up to high school. Ive only ever thought of it as a single class or two in high school. If it could be drilled in their heads as they grow up...better chances of them applying what was taught.

I also see a major problem with that. Our entire economy is based on people spending a lot of money. If all of the sudden you have millions of people who no longer have a drive to buy material things...yikes.

Not sure how true this is...but I keep reading articles that the younger generation are not in to material things. Not sure if they're spending as much as other generations on "things." They prefer "experiences" which still require money.

[disneysteve]

I also see a major problem with that. Our entire economy is based on people spending a lot of money. If all of the sudden you have millions of people who no longer have a drive to buy material things...yikes.

Not sure how true this is...but I keep reading articles that the younger generation are not in to material things. Not sure if they're spending as much as other generations on "things." They prefer "experiences" which still require money.

I've heard this "argument" before and I'm not sure I buy it (no pun intended). My wife and I are very good with our money, but we still spend a fortune, more than many people in this country earn quite honestly. And we don't just spend on necessities and sensible things. We spend on lots of different things, both tangible and experiential. We bought 2 new frying pans the other day for $65. We bought a special bottle of bourbon last week for $90. We spent $45 for lunch with friends yesterday, and than another $10 for dessert somewhere else. We're going away this weekend and will spend $450 for the hotel, about $150 for the amusement park we're going to, plus meals, and whatever else crops up. Last weekend my wife went away with a friend overnight. Between the hotel, meals, museum tickets, drinks, parking... she probably spent $300.

My point is that being good with money doesn't mean not spending. It just means having your spending be part of the big picture for your overall finances.

And somebody has to support all those folks who work at Vanguard and Fidelity and T. Rowe Price and all of those other financial firms .

[disneysteve]

I keep reading articles that the younger generation are not in to material things. Not sure if they're spending as much as other generations on "things." They prefer "experiences" which still require money.

I can tell you that my 22-year-old daughter fits that description pretty well. She prefers to spend her money to attend Supernatural (the TV show, not the occult) conventions and other experiences. This year, she is going to the conventions in NJ, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis. So she is spending plenty on airfare, hotels, gas, parking, food, convention tickets, photo ops, etc. She just won't come home with a suitcase full of souvenirs even though she will spend a few thousand dollars all together between the 3 conventions.

[msomnipotent]

I disagree. I think the basic concepts of personal financial management can certainly be taught in an age-appropriate way. Especially at a high school level, kids are already interacting with money on a regular basis. Many of them are working so they have incomes they need to manage and many/most have no clue how to do that.

I think a big reason why so many adults struggle with credit cards and budgeting and investing is because nobody has ever taught them how to do it. It's not something that we all naturally know how to do.

I'm actually surprised that anyone here would be opposed to basic financial education for our children.

I'm not opposed to kids being taught financial matters, but it is impractical to expect a school to do it. As I said before, our school taught it and it was pretty useless. You either get it or you don't. Another reason is that I will not allow teachers to push their personal beliefs onto my daughter (that's my job.), especially teachers and a principle that refused to believe the $2 bills we gave at a charity event were actual money. I'm scared of what kind of finance they would teach with this Common Core nonsense. We probably would not even recognize it as personal finance, and would be unable to help them with their homework.

And to get to the practical aspect, there just isn't enough time. American kids are in school a lot less than other countries. I was just talking about this with our exchange student the other day. French students have several more hours per day in school than we do, so they are able to spend more time on more subjects. My daughter has to rotate gym, health, and Spanish in the same time slot, so she only gets gym 3 times a week and health and Spanish once each. I used to get all those subjects every day when I was in school. Anything like band or chorus has to be done before or after school.

And finally, anything that is taught in school would just be theory. I told my daughter how to budget and wait for sales, and tried to teach her not to buy $170 LeBrons just because everyone else had them. She didn't actually learn until I made her cough up more than $100 for them and then came home crying because she hated the shoes and wasted all of her birthday money. We covered how to balance a check book in school, but it was really more complicated in the real world with checks not clearing when they should have and forgotten entries. I had a hard time at first and had to learn from experience. School is a poor substitute for experience.

[disneysteve]

our school taught it and it was pretty useless.

Was it just one class that they took for a few sessions or was it woven throughout the curriculum from elementary school through high school?

I would tend to agree that a once-a-week class for 8 or 10 weeks is probably of very little value, especially if that doesn't occur until junior or senior year of high school.

[~bs]

I disagree. I think the basic concepts of personal financial management can certainly be taught in an age-appropriate way. Especially at a high school level, kids are already interacting with money on a regular basis. Many of them are working so they have incomes they need to manage and many/most have no clue how to do that.

I think a big reason why so many adults struggle with credit cards and budgeting and investing is because nobody has ever taught them how to do it. It's not something that we all naturally know how to do.

I'm actually surprised that anyone here would be opposed to basic financial education for our children.

I disagree as well.

Sometimes having the door opened to a certain concept is all that's needed. Maybe most students won't walk through the door to find out more, but some will. I didn't start figuring out the investing and saving thing until after I graduated high school. And largely had to figure it out on my own, making mistakes along the way. I personally would have appreciated having an elective that taught you various financial concepts and aspects. And as a high school student, I think it's important to understand the true cost of debt since credit cards are pushed heavily on students and you're dealing with the potential 30-40k/year tuition of college.

And managing finances is skills that everyone uses throughout their life, whether you want to or not, whether you manage it badly or not...... unlike that 4th year medieval literature class that I wouldn't even be able to tell you who the TEACHER of that class was.

[rennigade]

students and you're dealing with the potential 30-40k/year tuition of college.

I dont want to go too deep in a rabbit hole of conspiracy but this would be the very reason not to educate kids on finances. The government would not want students to think about how much debt they're going to rack up considering the government is strapping those very people down in debt they'll be paying on the next 20 years.

[~bs]

I dont want to go too deep in a rabbit hole of conspiracy but this would be the very reason not to educate kids on finances. The government would not want students to think about how much debt they're going to rack up considering the government is strapping those very people down in debt they'll be paying on the next 20 years.

well as long as we're going down that rabbit hole, the US economy is built on consumption and a low 1% savings rate. Standardized financial education of the next generation of kids might derail that.

[rennigade]

well as long as we're going down that rabbit hole, the US economy is built on consumption and a low 1% savings rate. Standardized financial education of the next generation of kids might derail that.

Agreed. As the scumbag John Rockefeller once said..."I dont want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." Strap them down with debt...they're forced to work it off. If you educate everyone on how to save/invest...that wont work so well for society.

[disneysteve]

Strap them down with debt...they're forced to work it off. If you educate everyone on how to save/invest...that wont work so well for society.

On the other hand, we're now seeing a negative effect of this. Many older workers are staying on the job much longer than previous generations because they can't afford to retire. That's making it harder and harder for college grads and younger adults to find work because there is less turnover happening. If folks don't retire at 62 or 65 or 70 because they aren't financially prepared to, the spot that would have opened up by them leaving stays filled for an extra 3 or 5 or 10 years. Now you've got those college grads with all of those student loans who can't afford to pay them. How does that benefit anyone?