Is financial education doomed? Pupils don't care

Getting financial education on the National Curriculum was viewed as a major breakthrough by campaigners. It was meant to ensure that the next generation will avoid the financial mistakes of their debt-ridden, pension-neglecting parents, and take proper care of their own financial future. However, research has revealed that in reality, it has fallen well short of its potential.

The research, by Nationwide Building Society, spoke to teachers and found some worrying results. Only 26% of them actually taught it last year. Another fifth will do so this year. However, it's questionable whether this is worthwhile, as a huge number of them (39%) felt that having it in the curriculum would make no difference to how the kids see financial issues.
%VIRTUAL-ArticleSidebar-family-stories%
It also spoke to the kids, and the results were marginally more encouraging. Only 58% thought personal finance lessons would help them be more responsible with their money, but 74% said it made them think about saving.

What's the problem?

Pat of this is about the lessons themselves. 'Personal finance' has the capacity to be an incredibly dull subject, especially if it's taught by an adult who finds the whole thing tedious. Then it just becomes a fairly complicated version of maths, with some jargon thrown in for good measure.

Money, on the other hand, is a fascinating topic. We are forever talking about money for fun: from kids discussing how much they need to spend on the latest playground must-have, to their parents obsessing about house prices.

Start a lesson by telling the kids you know how to turn their allowance into a car, or how to be richer without trying, and you might just get them to listen. As Stephen Uden, Nationwide's Head of Citizenship, says: "Evidence from our research suggests that improvements could be made to make the subject more meaningful."

One of the points the pupils made was that 80% of them wanted lessons to be more interactive, and enable them to get more involved. Kids can play fantasy investments, run their own theoretical bank, set up fake businesses, or get involved in real money-making projects for the school.

Worthless?

Unfortunately, that's only part of the problem.

The other fly in the ointment is that even if kids pick up the basics, there's a chance that it won't actually make the slightest difference to them.

The academic research shows that better financial education doesn't lead to better financial decisions later in life. The current argument is that rather than school lessons, people need a kind of just-in-time financial education - reaching them just before they make a specific decision, and providing all the information they need in order to make that decision - in a way that's easy to digest.

Unfortunately, while this theory is all well and good, the incredibly low take-up of the Pensions Wise service goes to show that even if this information is free, impartial, and incredibly easy to access, people don't bother with it.

But what do you think? Does this demonstrate that we may as well give up, or do you think arming kids with the basics will help them understand the choices they are making when they get older? Let us know in the comments.

Education stories on AOL Money

Parents paying £32,000 more to live in good school catchment areas

Five celebrities who didn't need A-levels

Student squanders £58,000 college fund: blames parents