We need your thoughts on Finance lessons being dropped from Schools Bill

How convenient

Mme, I don't want to know your views as a parent, I want to know your views as a teacher on the inclusion of sex education in the compulsory curriculum.

I have withdrawn the first question about teaching the child to read because it was a poor analogy. (Although thanks Eggy for answering)

If you had in your class a 13 yr old who could not read (try and imagine such a thing), would you teach them to read or would you refuse to teach them on the basis that they should know how to read, and that someone else should have taught them?

the end product of a reading course, is, hopefully, a child that knows how to read, and is able to put that in practice.

the end product of PHSE mini-course on financial management, is not a child that knows how to manage their finances, and is not one that is able (or legally allowed even) to put that into practice. At best they may be a bit more aware (for a short while) of some financial issues. Not much point.

i think there is a strong case against th direct-mailing of credit-cards, for all kinds of reasons - they cause £80- mil of fraud for one thing.

And you were the one who brought up illiterate teenagers!

I have told you what I do as a parent wrt sex education.

Still not going to answer, Mme? Oh dear...

You expressed concern that children were illiterate earlier... Still, if your concern is limited only to the subject you teach, then why have an opinion on financial education? After all, like you said, you're a science teacher... Ah well, I'll leave that one aside. Perhaps it was a poor analogy.

Still, that does not preclude you from answering my second question about your view on the compulsory teaching of sex education. I would love to know what you think on that matter, and how it differs from the teaching of financial education?

I think economic theory is an excellent subject for compulsory education.

Jobhunter, you are spot on.
Getting your fingers burnt in a small way can be a good life lesson too.

The government did just print money - they called it quantitative easing. Tbh, I don't think economic theory and strategy is a suitable subject for compulsory education.

How could I teach anyone to read? I am a science teacher - just like you don't teach finance ;)

I think that children should be taught all about money. Commerce, economics, budgeting everything. Well, it's all the same thing really isn't it.

There are adults who ask why the government doesn't just print more money. that can't be good!

It's all part of educating. Reading, writing, maths.. of course they're the priority but understanding the world is important too.

And I think it's more important to understand finance than to study, oh I dunno - Shakespeare, for example.

To me financial education is a good idea in theory. You can talk about budgeting and debt, mortgages etc but I wonder whether those lessons will directly influence how that person behaves when they have money and responsibilities of their own.
When I was 18 I was sent a credit card through the post that I didn't even ask for, or was not aware I asked for anyway. I knew credit cards were bad and did not want to get into debt but for some silly reason I still used it. Yes I was stupid but I am not sure that any financial education would have stopped me. I was young and the future seemed a long way off and I have learnt the hard way over the years like many. I would love my kids to be more clued up than I was but also expect them to make bad choices and mistakes and learn the hard way too.
It should be taught in schools but a couple of lessons as part of PSE isn't going to make a huge impact on their attitudes to money. The biggest influence will be the examples they see in life e.g parents. Banks and other financial institutions too have a big part to play.

I don't have a financial management SoW, MmeBlueberry- I don't teach it.

Or perhaps I have misunderstood you and it was an attempt at a personal comment?

That is not what I asked you MmeBlueberry- I will ask you again.

If you had in your class a 13 yr old who could not read (try and imagine such a thing), would you teach them to read or would you refuse to teach them on the basis that they should know how to read, and that someone else should have taught them?

Because that is the argument you are using against teaching finance in schools.

I then asked for your stance on sex education, as the same argument has been used in the past against its inclusion in the curriculum.

You haven't answered either of the questions.

I'm not sure why.

I'd love to see your financial management SOW, te.

To be fair, tsp, it was te who brought up illeterate 13 year olds. I have no experience of these pupils as all of mine are proficient readers by then. Handwriting can be a bit dodgy, but their reading is confident, even those who don't speak English at home.

And these politics threads are bound to be polarising.

haven't read the thread, just the OP. I wasn't aware that my children learnt anything about finance at school beyond compound interest, Clearly if they have it hasn't sunk in.

I am teaching them about money management. They have had pocket money and saving accounts for years. They have/will have ISAs when they get to 16 and are expected to research their own. They are taught about debt. Many parents, however, are useless at money management themselves and hence incapable of teaching it.

It is your style to completely miss the point, Mme Blueberry.

Or perhaps you are simply unable to answer the questions?

Still, good of you to let me know you own the thread and tell me what I can and can't talk about.

I am likening sex education to financial education, because there are parallels. It's called an analogy.

You know that. Please stop pretending you don't.

What happens when parents are not as concerned as you about their children's financial well being?

Teaching financial management in schools would enable the next generation to be taught financial management by their parents, which we agree is a good thing.

It is your style to go off at a tangent and bring in unrelated topics, te.

Let's just stick to financial education. Sex education is still controversial enough that many parents opt out. I don't with mine because they go to Catholic schools and I am pretty sure they get a hefty dose of morals along with empowering them to just say no.

In financial education, the role that schools have to play is different from the role that parents should play. As a parent, I don't want what they learn about social issues to be dictated by this awful government we have now. I want to impart my own values.

Having a couple of PSHEE lessons dedicated to financial education is not what is needed. Children need to be exposed to good financial management as they are growing up, starting from when they throw their first tantrum in the sweetie aisle in the supermarket. Leaving it to the school is too little too late.

"It is very reasonable to teach children reading at school. What a ridiculous assertion otherwise!"

Who on earth was asserting otherwise?

I asked why teaching reading in that situation was any different to teaching financial management?

What about sex education?

It was a long-held belief that it was not the job of a school to teach this. Yet now it is routinely taught in schools.

How on earth do you suppose this happened? Perhaps things changed?

Or do you disagree with sex education?

BTW, knowing you will get into debt is not the same as knowing that debt is a bad thing.

form tutor, that would be (before Tethersend corrects me )

I don't think a one-hour lesson from their form tuture when they are in Year 10 is going to make much difference to your family, tbh. The problem is far deeper than anything she can tell them.

I agree with tethersend. it's just too idealistic to leave it to parents. how are the kids supposed to learn from their family if the parents are the ones buying everything they can't afford, getting into massive credit card debt etc?

my DSCs think having an IVA is normal. they think it's ridiculous to save to buy a luxury item when you can get a loan, and that we're fools for not having Sky when it's only £40 a month. the 'provvy man' regularly calls at their mum's/nan's houses, they just do not see that he may as well burgle them for the amount of money he makes off them!

if DH wasn't still taking an active part in their lives, are we really supposed to think they'd learn all they need to know from home?!

sorry to sound so bitchy. it's just really frustrating knowing that their views are already so entrenched and we can't seem to make a difference

It is very reasonable to teach children reading at school. What a ridiculous assertion otherwise!

The mathematical side of finance is also taught in schools.

The values side should be taught by parents. The debt issue is because people want it now and can't control their spending. The know that if they spend more than they earn, they will go into debt, but either don't care or can't control themselves. That isn't soemthing for schools.

Like many problems in our society, they can be traced to non-existent family values and poor parenting.

So would you refuse to teach a 13 year old to read if they couldn't? On the basis that they should have been taught it already by somebody else?

Or would you just acknowledge that they couldn't read and teach them?

Why are financial skills different?