3 terrible reasons for not teaching financial education in school

Financial education classes aren’t required for high school students to get a diploma in the U.S. for several reasons—all of them really dumb. Here are a few:

Standards aren’t standard: High school curricula are often packed with required courses in basic subjects like math, science, English, and history. There’s not a lot of room for other subjects, and financial education may not always be seen as a priority compared to these core subjects. Schools vary from one place to another, and what’s considered important isn’t the same everywhere. While some states/regions might prioritize financial literacy, others may focus on different life skills. But if you ask me, wood shop and home economics should take a back seat to learning how to handle your finances.

Lack of resources: Introducing a new subject like financial education requires resources—including teachers, curriculum, and materials. Many school districts already face financial issues, making it difficult to introduce new subjects without having to sacrifice some other area. And frankly that’s disappointing and a little ridiculous.

Political reasons: Educational priorities are often influenced by politics. Some policymakers and educators might prioritize other aspects of education over financial literacy, believing they’re more critical for student’s futures. But that’s more than crazy if you ask me.

Fortunately, there is a growing recognition of the importance of financial education, and efforts are being made in many places to incorporate it into school curricula. And there are champions who are arguing that teaching students about money management, budgeting, saving, investing, and understanding financial products is crucial for their long-term financial well-being. That’s an argument I can get behind.

John Pettit

John Pettit

John Pettit is the Managing Editor for CUInsight.com. Web: www.cuinsight.com Details