Financial education, as a life skill for twenty-first century living, was included in the National Curriculum to meet its main aim of providing a broad and balanced curriculum to all students, which:
promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society… prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life. (DfE, 2014b)
However, the National Curriculum has been criticised extensively for being fragmented and not fit for purpose (Priestly, 2011a; Priestly and Humes, 2010; Harris and Burn, 2011), for reinforcing “differentiation” (Milburn, 1989; Paechter, 2000), and for being unable to meet the needs of the twenty-first century citizen (Johnson et al., 2007).
Ill thought-out curriculum policy, driven by a hotchpotch of competing agendas and ignorant of coherent theoretical underpinnings has the potential to be highly detrimental to education. (Priestly, 2011a, p.227)
The way curriculum content is selected and structured is decided by society and is reflective of a power struggle between different elements of knowledge (Bernstein, 1977) and competing powers within and outside school trying to control the curriculum (Paechter, 2000).
There is a natural tendency in modern open societies for a national curriculum to be under pressure from the whole range of interest groups, each of which believes that its subject is important that every child ought to learn about it. In assuming the power to determine a curriculum, a government is taking responsibility to arbitrate between these groups. (Johnson et al., 2007, p.65)
School curriculum development is a site for territorial battles between differing interests of school personnel, researchers, academics, administrators, politicians and various interest groups (Marsh, 1992). The pressures and influences of particular groups or individuals shape the school curriculum. The dominant group does not simply influence the curriculum, but in turn the curriculum recreates the class system in the society (Goodson, 1985). The “contested terrain” of curriculum change is embedded in the ideological clash that lies behind each education system and curriculum reform. Four main types of ideologies underpin educational (especially curricular) reforms as shown in Table 3.
The influence of different types of ideologies can be seen in the revised curriculum where no single ideology prevails; in fact, it is a mixture of ideologies (Priestly, 2011a). The emphasis on vocational education through government support for apprenticeships and the creation of University Technical Colleges (UTC) (DfE, 2015), the character grants worth £6 million aimed at schools promoting traits such as resilience and respect introduced in 2016 (DfE, 2016), the creation of market and parental choice in education and the National Curriculum based on the principle of a broad and balanced education for all (DfE, 2014b) reflect the ideological discrepancies behind the educational reforms of 2013. The inclusion of financial education encompasses “Populist/proletarian” ideology (Young, 1971, p.29) emphasising life skills. A mixture of these ideologies has the potential to negate the effects of the PFE curriculum reform of 2013 by generating a contradictory policy environment. Subsequently,
professionalism – has been replaced by a client-based mentality that limits the capacity of schools and teachers to claim alternative values and exploit or develop education’s capacity for developing “real democracy” (Ozga, 2000, p.6). As Ozga notes, in such an environment the policy focus shifts toward “concepts like client, consumer, stakeholder, quality, excellence, leadership, performance” (Ibid.).
Table 3 Educational ideology underpinning educational policies
Ideology Social Position Educational Policies
Liberal/Conservative Aristocracy/gentry Non-vocational – the “educated” man, an emphasis on character Bourgeois Merchant and
professional classes Higher vocational and professional courses. Education as access to desired positions
Democratic Radical reformers Expansionist – “education for all” Populist/proletarian Working classes/
Subordinate groups
Student relevance, choice and participation
(Source: Young, 1971, p.29)
Although there are alternative ways of conceptualising and organising the curriculum, “the convention of the subject retains its supremacy” (Milburn et al., 1989, p.26). Different scholars have proposed different curriculum models. Johnson (2007) advocates a skill-based curriculum where the knowledge content of the curriculum has specific relevance to the community in which the school is situated. Such a curriculum, he believes, makes learning more responsive to the changing needs of the students growing up in a rapidly changing world. Hannan (1985, p.45), alternatively, advocates the development of a “democratic curriculum” that is not geared towards university entrance, but rather one which “embraces the whole range of students’ needs and aspirations”. He even suggests the abolition of the whole testing and grading system, recommending instead a “ballot” system for university
admission. To him it is a moral obligation of the schools, in particular teachers, to make education accessible for all.
The subject-based structure of National Curriculum as well as the way in which content is selected and transmitted encourages differentiation and inequality in access to curriculum content. Therefore, there is a possibility that PFE provision will remain inadequate and inconsistent because of not only the nature of the curriculum change but also due to the structure of the National Curriculum.
Chapter summary
This chapter has focused on the discrepancies present in the conceptualisation of financial capability and outcomes of PFE. Although various definitions have been modified to reflect new thinking and evidence, there is no consensus on the best way to measure and define financial capability/literacy. The difference between the terms financial “literacy” and “capability” might be “cosmetic” (O’Connell, 2009, p.13), but the subtle difference in the conceptualisation of these terms has significant bearing on both the content development and effectiveness of financial education programmes. Moreover, the absence of standardised definitions and measures makes it difficult to assess the efficacy of PFE in improving financial capability. As such, there is a need for a consistent and mutually agreed definition as well as a standardised PFE curriculum especially in schools, since a curriculum is “a blueprint for what we want our children to become” (Johnson et al., 2007, p.22). A standardised PFE curriculum will provide coherence in theoretical concepts and uniformity in practice.
This chapter also highlighted the need to situate PFE outcome within the broader policy context. For financially capable behaviour to take place it needs to be supported by external factors such as access to financial resources and financial systems. Financially inclusive
policies are as important as financial education in ensuring financially capable behaviour. What use is financial knowledge and skills if access to financial systems and resources is restricted or non-existent?
This chapter also examined the history of PFE in the National Curriculum and explored the educational ideologies that underpinned the addition of financial education to the statutory curriculum. National Curriculum reform is built on different and at times conflicting educational ideologies. These have the potential to negate the impact of the PFE curriculum reform of 2013. The provision of financial education in the school curriculum is now statutory, but the subject-based structure and the result-oriented culture in schools have shifted the focus away from the core life skills, such as PFE. Moreover, the cross-curricular approach to financial education in the school curriculum reinforces PFE as a theme rather than a distinct topic or subject area - a status that PFE has had in the National Curriculum since it was first introduced. Additionally, when statutory guidance for the PSHEe curriculum is absent, the task of creating coherence between PFE delivery across the different subjects is left largely to the discretion of teachers, as discussed in the next chapter. Content coherence between subjects and within subjects is essential (Hargreaves, 1991; Oates, 2011) for equality of access and provision. Bearing in mind, previous evaluation studies on PFE delivery in British schools (FSA, 2006; Ofsted, 2008; APPG, 2011) it is not surprising that PFE curriculum reform has had little impact on PFE provision in schools (APPG, 2016; The Money Charity, 2016).
Whilst Chapter 2 examined the debates behind PFE that led to its inclusion in the National Curriculum, Chapter 3 analyses the policy enactment process. Organisational factors such as subject status and the “classification and framing” of subjects (Bernstein, 1975) and their
impact on curriculum policy enactment are explored in detail. These factors can influence the integration and embedment of financial education into statutory subjects by bringing micro level politics into play. The following chapter examines the power dynamics at all three stages of policy implementation – macro, meso and micro levels – that determine educational policy outcomes in schools.