There is a global tendency for governments to require schools to provide some form of financial capability without defining any detailed curriculum content, assessment criteria or
assessment items (Davies, 2015). Just as there is no universal definition of financial capability outcomes, a standardised learning framework detailing PFE curriculum content for each age group is also absent. Subsequently, countries differ not only in the structure of their PFE learning frameworks, but also in PFE content. While the OECD (2014a) identifies the general dimensions of a financial education learning framework to include learning outcomes, topics, pedagogical approaches and methods, and assessment and monitoring criteria, the choice of specific topics and the age at which these need to be taught is left to the individual countries. As a result, the financial education topics taught varies widely between countries.
Various approaches are taken towards both PFE curriculum content and pedagogy. Kozup and Hogarth (2008) recommend basic numeracy skills, critical thinking, motivation to act in one’s self interest, and awareness of the national and global impact on individual actions as pre- requisites for educating consumers in an effective manner. Similarly, school-based financial education initiatives should contain more practical and attitudinal components to prepare their students for the real world (Sohn et al., 2012). Research by Tennyson et al. (2001) on test scores from the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy Survey (1997) of high school students discovered that course mandates in topics of savings, investment, and income were associated with greater increases in student knowledge than in topics around money management and spending, and debt. Similarly, financial education is taught as a cross- curricular provision in schools (DfE, 2013a; DfE, 2013b), whereas certain studies (Tomaskova et al., 2011, p.369) recommend PFE as a “standalone” subject comprising topics such as finances, financial products, financial markets, price practices, taxes, inflation, assets, liabilities, balance, income statement, management and personal budget and financial planning, balances and deficits, and signing contracts, credit and laws.
A review of learning frameworks across OECD countries (OECD, 2014a, p.71), including the UK, revealed the following topics to be common to all member countries: money and transactions; planning and managing finances (including saving and spending; credit and debit; financial decision-making); risks and rewards; and the financial landscape, including consumers’ rights and responsibilities, and understanding of the wider financial, economic, and social system. However, the specific topics and economic concepts taught under these general headings differed between countries, making international comparison of effectiveness of financial education school curriculum problematic. The “Money on our Minds” Consultation Report (PfEG, 2010a) identified that British students were interested in topics that had immediate relevance to their lives. Hence, topics like insurance, budgeting, loans and debt, wages and salaries, career and life choices, bank accounts, bills and statements, setting up businesses and taking risks were of high interest to students, compared to topics on charities, environmental and ethical issues, and local services. Based on these research findings, PfEG’s (2010b) learning framework for 3–19 years incorporates these topics into key areas of financial knowledge, skills and attitudes, across four core themes: how to manage money; becoming a critical consumer; managing risks and emotions associated with money; understanding the important role that money plays in our lives (PfEG, 2017). Although this framework is progressive with age appropriate topics, it is not mapped specifically across the National Curriculum. It is left to schools to incorporate it into their school curriculum subjects. Consequently, even though the PfEG learning framework (PfEG 2010b) is substantive, it is not replicated in its present form in British schools. Consequently, there is inconsistency in the PFE curriculum that is taught in schools across UK even after the introduction of financial education in statutory subjects of the National Curriculum (The Money Charity, 2016; APPG, 2016).
A consistent approach to PFE curriculum content and pedagogy is essential as the school curriculum has the capacity to marginalise certain groups or individuals (Young, 1971; Milburn et al., 1989; Paechter, 2000). The school curriculum has the power to designate and to differentiate (Milburn et al., 1989). At the macro level, political, economic, and social factors shape the curriculum (Goodson, 1985; Johnson et al., 2007), whereas at the meso/micro level, internal forces – such as school performance measures, availability of resources, attitude and inclination of the senior management team, teachers, and even students – affect the educational experience (Blackledge and Hunt, 2001). Children are given access to what amounts to different “worlds” through the type of curriculum administered (Milburn et al., 1989, p.15). Similarly, Paechter (2000) claims that if the curriculum is not properly implemented, it might marginalise certain groups in society. Her main argument is that gendered power/knowledge relations operate in the formation of curriculum structures where some students are given access to some parts of the curriculum but others are not (Paechter, 2000). Differentiation in the curriculum experience occurs even inside an individual classroom (Young, 1971). The lack of consistent PFE curriculum across schools has significant implications as Morgan et al. note:
If we are interested in supporting young people to develop as learners, to nurture thinking skills, to develop creative and responsive capacities to engage with the world, the question of curriculum and how it is negotiated and constructed cannot be overlooked. (2007, p.14)
Evidence is sparse about how best to embed financial education in an already overcrowded school curriculum. The few examples quoted here are reflective of the diversity in the types of financial education courses and content aimed at young people. Not only is there variation in the PFE curriculum content; there is also no consensus as to the best way to teach PFE so that it is more effective.