Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

When the Financial Times launched the FT Financial Literacy and Inclusion Campaign in 2021, the case for financial education was clear. Financial literacy has been shown time and again to improve life outcomes, across ages and demographics, while boosting economic potential. 

Three years of experience working with young people, women and marginalised communities has only confirmed FLIC’s view of the importance and scale of the challenge. It has therefore been heartening to see increased attention from policymakers in recent years. Yet a report this week by the UK’s parliamentary Education Committee suggests that much more needs to be done.

The report finds uptake in England’s schools is poor: only 33 per cent of primary school students receive some financial education, while just 39 per cent of secondary school students said they received any financial training. And the subject remains non-compulsory for students over 16. 

The quality of existing programmes is also subpar. Today’s students, bombarded on social media by crypto boosters and get-rich-quick schemes, reach financial choices at a far earlier age than previous generations. The committee found that current curriculums do not match these modern needs. 

Many of the issues can be attributed to poor implementation. Financial education is often neglected altogether, or is squeezed into timetables as an afterthought. Curriculum content is scattered across personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education and maths, and there is rarely a senior administrator tasked with its implementation across a school. Curricular material also varies widely in terms of quality and motivation: FLIC and other educational organisations produce impartial material, while commercial organisations such as banks may want to brand-build as well as educate.

There is also insufficient evaluation. Research suggests that financial literacy should be incorporated into maths curriculums. But the majority of financial education is in PSHE courses, where it is not sufficiently evaluated for its rigour, or treated as a priority by administrators. According to the report, only 3 per cent of time in maths classes is devoted to financial topics, out of step with both recommended best practice and the reality of most people’s usage of maths in adulthood.

The parliamentary report makes a number of sensible proposals. Schools should appoint a financial literacy co-ordinator to assess curriculums and have a joined up approach. Quality and progress should be more heavily monitored, including through expanding PSHE reviews and by the UK opting into the OECD’s Pisa evaluation for financial literacy. Financial education should be made compulsory for all students from primary school to age 18 — even if the calling of an election raises questions over whether prime minister Rishi Sunak’s “Maths to 18” initiative will ever materialise.

But more needs to be done. Exam boards should include more financial maths in papers. Curriculum providers should focus more on the skills students need to thrive in today’s financial world. Most crucial of all, sufficient maths teachers must be recruited, and better trained on foundational finance.

If Labour wins the election, it has pledged a major curriculum review across all subject areas. That would take several years, but it would offer a chance to embed knowledge of everyday finance into schooling at every level. In the meantime, implementing the Education Committee’s recommendations without delay would help the current generation of students navigate financial pitfalls, while also fulfilling more of their economic potential.