Financial Education: A policy win?

George Vlachonikolis

The government’s recent Curriculum and Assessment Review recognized the need for more financial education in UK schools. For the first time, money matters will now become a statutory element of the primary National Curriculum, and there is an increased emphasis on applied financial skills in secondary schools. This represents a formal policy “win” for advocates who have long campaigned for such things. However, the promises risk being largely symbolic. This article argues that many practical barriers persist, and it is unclear whether the policy changes will lead to any real impact.

The campaign for financial education

Last year’s Curriculum and Assessment Review mentioned the words ‘financial literacy’ or ‘financial education’ 48 times. It devoted a full page and sub-section of around 1,000 words to the topic. The need for more financial education was explicit: “it is vital that the curriculum provides young people with appropriate financial education from an early age.” Long overdue, this acknowledgment is the kind of policy moment campaigners had been hoping for for years:

• 2011 – In the wake of the 2007–08 financial crisis, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Financial Education for Young People is launched, eventually growing to nearly 200 members and a wide network of supporting organisations.
• 2014 – Financial education becomes compulsory in the Citizenship curriculum for 11–16-year-olds.
• 2016 – An APPG inquiry asks whether the ‘job done’ was truly done; the answer is a resounding no. But limited educational reform since then means that curriculum and content has stayed largely static for a decade.
• Today – Evidence shows only a third of children recall learning about money in school, leaving many young people with low levels of financial capability

Interestingly, the Review makes no references to the APPG’s work. Instead, much of its cited research comes from the government’s own Money and Pensions Services (MaPS). More interestingly, the Review stats that financial education owes its inclusion to public input: “through responses to our Call for Evidence, our review of existing research, and public engagement and polling, we have heard repeated concerns that certain areas of applied knowledge and skills require more attention within the curriculum.” In other words, this was a public-led inclusion; the people have spoken.

A policy win on paper

I was one of those people who responded to the Review’s call for evidence. I specifically asked for:

• Financial education in primary schools
• Financial education to be decoupled from the maths curriculum
• The development of much better resources for teachers

These priorities align closely with the APPG’s long-standing concerns. The group has consistently highlighted where financial education should sit within the curriculum and the need for leadership (or financial champions) to drive its effective delivery.

And so, on the fact of it, the Review delivers on all of these points and it should be considered a clear ‘win’. Its key recommendations include:

• Financial literacy becomes statutory at primary level. A new Citizenship programme of study will be the primary home for financial education.
• Not part of mathematics: The Review explicitly states that while numeracy remains important, applied financial skills (budgeting, managing money, using financial products) are best taught within Citizenship, not maths,
• Supporting resources: The Review emphasizes the value of materials such as those created by Oak National Academy to exemplify effective teaching.

The Review is a policy win on paper. So why does it feel so hollow?

Will it reach the classroom?

And this is when I become a pessimist, because I know how this plays out. Despite the government’s promising recommendations, little is likely to change in practice. At primary level, teachers will now be expected to teach money skills on top of everything else, without any extra training or time allocation. Instead, they may simply re-label existing activities (like PSHE lessons, themed assemblies or worksheets during maths week) and call it Citizenship. They might have access to a generic PowerPoint from Oak Academy, but it won’t add much ‘spark’ to their lesson and it will be used sparingly, if at all.

At secondary and post-16 levels, good practice will remain isolated and often driven by a single committed teacher. In some schools, there may be some early momentum and the creation of small elective lessons, but because financial education is not part of any formal qualification, it will often be the first thing cut when staffing, funding or timetable pressures arise.

For me, the likely outcome is predictable: the government will claim success because the policy exists and schools will claim compliance because it is in their schemes of work – but young people will continue to leave education with low levels of financial capability. The hard truth is that financial education needed a far stronger push than it got. If the subject is not assessed and not fully resourced with training, timetabling and clear ownership within the school, it simply will not happen – and any solution must start from that reality. The Review was a soft win at best.