This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
This is the report summary, read the full report.
It has been almost ten years since the national curriculum in England was reformed and, for the first time—after a cross-party campaign in Parliament—financial education was made a compulsory part of the curriculum. Financial education was incorporated into statutory citizenship education at key stages three and four (ages 11 to 16) and into elements of the mathematics curriculum, which from key stage one to four (ages 5 to 16) is intended to ensure that all young people leave school with an understanding of the mathematical skills needed for personal finance.
Despite widespread acceptance of the benefits and importance of financial education, the range of evidence we received was near unanimous that financial education in primary schools in England is currently insufficient and should be expanded. We heard evidence that children are using money at an increasingly young age and with greater independence and that children under eleven are being reached by online marketing and may be subject to financial risks and pressures. Effective financial education needs to begin during primary school years to prepare children for the financial world in which they increasingly participate.
The amount of delivery time dedicated to financial education in primary and 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. The Committee heard that more financial content should be included within the mathematics curriculum. We urge the Government to review the contents of the mathematics curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4 in order to expand the provision and relevance of age-appropriate financial education at both primary and secondary school level.
Making the economic and financial elements of PSHE education statutory at both primary and secondary school level is a simple and effective way of expanding financial education at both levels and signalling the increased importance of the subject to all students.
For 16-to-18-year-olds who are transitioning into the workplace, paying taxes, considering applying for a student loan, and perhaps living away from home for the first time, financial education is also vital. And yet it is post-16 students who currently 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. 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. This could provide a helpful alternative to the GCSE mathematics retake for those who do not achieve a grade 4 or above. The Government must also focus on recruitment and retention of specialist maths teachers if this aim is to be met. The Department for Education should explore means of increasing the take up of core mathematics and functional skills courses, but it should also consider opportunities for a specific qualification in financial literacy which could fit into the Advanced British Standard as a minor subject.
There were mixed views on where financial education should sit within the curriculum. A small number of written submissions argued that it should have a definite home or that it should be delivered within a core subject. The majority of evidence we received, however, advocated a cross-curricular approach in which financial education is integrated across various subjects. This approach has the benefit of offering students some form of financial education, whatever their subject preferences may be, but it can also lead to a lack of coherence in what is taught between subjects. We believe that a financial education co-ordinator, appointed by each school or multi-academy trust, would provide a more coherent programme of study and clarity over curriculum requirements. The Government should produce guidance for MATs, teachers and school leaders on how best to appoint and support financial education leads.
There is a widespread view that teachers of financial education benefit from the use of teaching resources—including textbooks and lesson plans—but that the sheer quantity of resources to choose from can be overwhelming. The evidence suggests that although there is a huge range and number of resources available, they are not being effectively utilised in schools, with 50% of respondents to one young persons’ survey saying they did not have access to any financial education materials in school. We have concerns about the suitability of some resources which are produced or endorsed by banks or other commercial organisations with a vested interest in providing branded materials. The Department for Education must work with subject associations, professional bodies, and other government departments to curate and promote 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. Teachers feel more confident in planning and delivering lessons following even a small amount of training which improves the financial capability of the pupils they teach. However, access to financial education training and development is often hampered by workload pressures and availability of staff to cover lessons. We heard that training in financial education can be beneficial to teachers at every stage of their careers, but that offering training at an early stage through initial teacher training (ITT) was particularly important. The Department for Education must ensure that continued professional development opportunities and subject knowledge enhancement in financial education are continuously available and well signposted throughout a teacher’s career, starting with initial teacher training provision.
We heard that Ofsted’s limited evaluation of financial education in schools can affect how the subject is viewed and prioritised. There was specific concern about Ofsted’s decision to evaluate citizenship lessons under personal development rather than as part of the quality of education judgement. This in turn means the financial education content within the citizenship curriculum is not exposed to the same rigorous evaluation afforded to other national curriculum subjects. It is our recommendation that citizenship should be evaluated by Ofsted as part of its quality of education key judgement in addition to personal development.
Neither England nor any of the other UK nations has volunteered to participate in the OECD’s PISA financial literacy assessment, which examines the financial literacy attainment of 15-year-old pupils. The Minister told us that this was to reduce the burden on schools and teachers and because participation in the mathematics section of PISA was sufficient. However, only a small number of schools need volunteer for the financial assessment, and the evidence shows that pupils’ performance in mathematics and financial literacy do not always go hand in hand. Participating in the financial literacy assessment would provide invaluable insight into the how well pupils are performing and highlight the areas of financial education that could be developed within the curriculum, as well as showing a real commitment to improving the financial capability of children and young people. The Government should look to participate in the next PISA financial literacy assessment scheduled for 2025 and also work with the devolved administrations to encourage them to do the same.