Money circulation has been in existence for a long time. Around 700 B.C., the first western culture had started to use coins (National Center for Financial Learning 1). Everyone should be capable of handling money; there have been many generations since the creation of money yet people still do not know how to manage it. “The average American household is $137,063 in debt according to the federal reserve” (USA Today 1). It has been approximately 2720 years since the start of money and there is still no money management system to help people control the yearning desire to buy items. Financial literacy is an enormous issue among the populous; people need to be able to know how to use money if they want to succeed in their life. Not only should people learn about financial literacy but, it should be a mandatory class in all high schools. In many high schools, students are required to take a class that teaches them about business essentials. So why not teach them how to manage money as well? The students cannot possibly run a business without learning how to utilize their money. The financial literacy class can be incorporated into the business essentials class or even made into a new class. There really is no downside to people learning about financial literacy. However, many try to argue why teaching high schoolers is not the best ideas such as they need to be taught sooner, it is too easy to learn to be taught in a classroom and, that there would be no control on how the schools do it. Financial literacy should be a mandatory class in all high schools, this is because it has fantastic effects in improving the capabilities of money management; Financial literacy programs should be taught to high schoolers, have an easy concept in the classroom, and be done on a national scale.
Financial literacy should be a mandatory class, that should be prepared for high schoolers. First off, the argument against teaching financial literacy in high school is not that financial literacy is a bad topic, just that high school is not necessarily the right time to learn about it. It is better to teach a high schooler than perse a middle schooler or a kid in elementary school. The opposition suggests that even high schoolers can not fully comprehend the ideas presented from financial literacy (Geddes and Steen 4). Even then, it is better to teach someone who has more experience than not. The sole reason for high schoolers not being able to completely grasp the concept of financial literacy it is better to teach them than a 6th grader. Furthermore, people are not going to want to learn about financial literacy outside of high school when they are older, neither college nor a study class. It is not likely that many people would take a course if they feel either they already know the subject or that they are not required to take the course; in high school, students have to learn, they have to study, and they have the capabilities to do so outside of high school there is no drive whatsoever. It is not like the classes are going to be teaching the students about “ how to use a credit card” or something else, it will deal with what the teenagers are going through such as: how to do taxes, starting off on a job, investing for college, and so on (Forté 4). The courses would have to be centered around a high schooler, people learn differently, there can not be the exact same subject taught to every other age group and ask them to understand everything completely. It would have to be simple as well, teaching them about doing 401ks and Roth IRAs right off the start would not be the right way to introduce the program. Also, after high school, most people would start to be on their own so it would only make sense to teach them the responsibility of their money right before they need it. If they are taught financial literacy while in elementary or middle school then they would not have the drive to gain responsibility as they do not need it yet. It only makes sense to teach financial literacy to a high schooler as they will need responsibility and will be able to comprehend it better. If they were taught any younger, they would not be able to fully comprehend the financial literacy and understand why they need the responsibility. If they were already out of high school, then it would be too late to fix what they had already done and not everyone would have the desire to go to a class to learn about it, the program would fail. The opposition also argues the fact that it is too easy to be a class for high school.
Financial literacy should be taught in the classroom because there are lots of different subjects to go over about it. The first point is pretty obvious, teaching financial literacy is better than not teaching it. There is just too much to explore to not make it into a class, it is not like they can only be taught the basics, it can go into money management in a business, with a spouse, and many other scenarios. Something needs to happen to improve this devastation of people not knowing how to manage their finances because it is only getting worse; “there is a lack of understanding of financial systems and the complexity of financial services and products, suggesting low financial literacy levels among American adults and youth, and has led to an increased call for more financial education and responsibility” (Forté 2). People need to be taught about it in a classroom, it is a serious issue among adults and most people will not learn about it on their own; “Americans are largely unprepared for major life events such as retirement, college education, and unexpected emergencies” (Forté 1). Honestly, not everyone is going to learn about it outside of high school unless they have to, which is why it should be a mandatory class in high school. Even if there are some programs offered outside of school Forté suggests that these are outdated; with most of them being created in the 2000s. In order to teach teenagers about money, the programs need to be up-to-date and focused on what they are about to start in life. The main reason people would take a class about financial literacy is not for fun, but because they need to in order to have a successful life. Financial literacy should be a mandatory class in high school, and their needs to be government standards to make sure it is done right.
Financial literacy programs would need standards in order to succeed nationwide. For this argument, the opposition attacks the point that there can not just be a school employ it and have everyone do what they want. This would have to be enforced nationwide which is why it would and can be established by the department of education; “The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."” (Department of Education 1). A scenario would be that the Department of Education establishes a law to make teaching financial literacy mandatory in high schools, then equip the schools with the means necessary to do so. There are a lot of financial education programs throughout the country, yet most of these are failing tremendously; “national standards for financial education have not been established, which could leave the country’s youth unprepared for the global economy of the twenty-first century” (Geddes and Steen 4). There needs to be a national standard in order for an educational program to succeed nationwide. Newer and more well-prepared standards need to be put into place in order to thrive in our educational program. There are many countries in our world today that already have successful financial literacy programs. New Zealand for example, is on its way to being the best in the world; The teaching of financial literacy has become quite common in New Zealand and seems to be working at a very high success rate (Bond 1). A program in the United States of America could even be loosely modeled off of the New Zealand program; “the ABC guide on how to roll out financial literacy in the classroom” (Bond 1). It is a simple guide to success on teaching financial literacy in the classroom. The “A” stands for attitude, it is so the students have the right mindset in working with such a serious topic (Bond 1). The “B” stands for build-it, schools need to build their own program to fit the demographics of the students in order to make sure they get the correct teaching (Bond 1). Finally, the “C” stands for content, the schools need to have all the help possible in order for the students to learn, there needs to be material and teachers dedicated for the students to have access to (Bond 1). The whole point of the program, as laid out by Bond is not to give super strict content to follow but making teachers feel as though they can teach it, and giving easy content to learn from. A program for classrooms around America would need to make it friendly for both the teachers and the students to learn together and provide a clear standard.
Financial literacy should be taught inside of high schools around America. People are not saving enough money to deal with such gigantic events; people are spending more money than ever on items that they do not need. Something needs to happen to improve this tragedy. Without anyone who knows financial literacy, there would probably not be a monetary system capable of being used to support people. It is so important to make sure everyone knows about financial literacy so we can continue to have money. Geddes and Steen point out three main reasons of concern for teaching financial literacy; Those are teacher training, high schooler experience, and consistent prerequisites (4). The first concern is about how many teachers are not equipped or prepared in any way to teach these new courses, so that will take a lot of time and money to accomplish. The second concern is that high schoolers may not fully comprehend debt management and other difficult to grasp subjects. The last concern is that schools will need to have different levels of teaching depending on where they live so it would be hard to coordinate all of the schools. Even though these are concerns, it is better to teach a high schooler something that they may not fully understand, than to not teach them it at all. The teachers are going to be trained at the same time as the students. High schoolers are the best demographic to teach it to as they are going to need the knowledge soon enough after schooling. Consistent prerequisites would not be a problem as it could be done through the Department of Education. Financial literacy needs to be taught in schools; there is nothing in the opposition’s arguments that say financial literacy is bad, just arguments saying it would be hard to accomplish such a large program.
Financial literacy should be taught in all high schools across of the United States. There is basically only one advantage for teaching financial literacy in schools, people knowing how to manage their money. There may be only one advantage, but this advantage is a massive one. The disadvantages are not saying that the program would ruin education or anything, they are just saying it would be hard to put into place. That is why it should be done through the Department of Education, and make a simple program for both teachers and students to learn from. As stated earlier, New Zealand has a simple “ABC” program, and their financial literacy rates have skyrocketed. Everyone would benefit from high schoolers learning financial literacy because it would help them handle money which could keep them out of debt, and improve the economy. Overall, even though a financial literacy program may take some time to put into place, it would be a great benefit to all students if they learn how to manage money.