State Senate Democrats have introduced SB 6219 "Providing for financial literacy education [for public school students]"
"Financial literacy" means the achievement of skills and knowledge necessary to make informed judgments and effective decisions regarding earning, spending, and the management of money and credit.I agree that high school graduates would be better equipped for the world if they knew more about money and finance. But financial literacy is unattainable to those without basic mathematical skills, the teaching of which is a more urgent priority. Besides, the idea that the legislature's anti-business Democrats, who are responsible for out-of-control spending and the foolish mismanagement of the state's public pension system, have any credibility when it comes to making "informed judgments and effective decisions" about money is just plan laughable.
The bill, by the way, is not accompanied by any cost analysis.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 10, 2006 03:00 PM | Email ThisStefan, how can you expect a member of Washington's teacher cadre to be able to teach any financial skills when most have no clue as to the very basics of finance, to include what the Federal Reserve does? Washington's teachers are poorly equipped to wander into this area without adult supervision.
Posted by: Libertarian on January 10, 2006 03:34 PMIn my school, we got the teachers griping. Kids can't even balance their checkbook when they get to high school. Shouldn't that at least me a minimum?
And then one teacher very sheepishly looked up and said- "wait for ten year because we are really addressing basic math in the grade schools".
Now, you guys tell me that it ain't happening.
Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2006 04:08 PMIf you think education is expensive, try ignorance. If the R's had proposed it, you'd just say too bad the dumb D's won't approve this because the R's proposed it.
Either it's a good idea or it isn't. Which is it?
Posted by: Ivan on January 10, 2006 04:32 PMLet me clear this up for you-- it's a bad idea. (So-called "Public Education" is also a bad idea, but that's another topic.)
Posted by: libertarianobserver on January 10, 2006 04:38 PMIvan, the idea is a good idea, except it only takes about an hour to teach the basics. The rest is all practice, practice, practice. Kind of like sex education.
Posted by: huckleberry on January 10, 2006 04:39 PMGOoPs teaching the Constitution! Yoinks!
Posted by: BigTime on January 10, 2006 04:49 PMBigTime, that was just plain stupid.
Posted by: Mike H on January 10, 2006 05:01 PMSorry, but you are the one who is missing the point. Please consider: Students get to high school. They might have jobs. They might have a need for disposable income. They might have learned basic math skills, and they might not have learned them.
But with adulthood and personal responsibility looming, suddenly even students who might not have taken math seriously now have all the motivation in the world to do so. Should we then deny them? These are real-world skills we're talking about here, not some moonbat holistic concept.
Huckleberry is on the right track to say that it takes practice, practice, practice. But today's world of consumer finance requires somewhat more than "an hour or so to teach the basics," especially for kids who have not faced these decisions before.
Not all financial decisions are complex. They vary. Would you promote ignorance, then?
Posted by: Ivan on January 10, 2006 05:16 PMGOOPERS create problem. GOOPERS say "what problem?"
See the difference?
Posted by: 666 on January 10, 2006 06:20 PMIn high school, we could apply the same deductions and reward savings and investment.
Posted by: Gary on January 10, 2006 06:24 PMNo, but I would teach them to do basic math before teaching them how to balance a check book or figure interest rates. There's no point in teaching them how to balance a check book if they don't understand the basic math needed to do it first.
All I'm saying is you have to learn to walk before you can run.
BigTime/666/J. Abrahmoff/headlice/or whatever your name is... that was still mindless drivel of a 4th grade level.
Posted by: Mike H on January 10, 2006 06:45 PMAll people learn at different rates and in different ways. Some people don't "get" certain data points, or frames of reference, or concepts, or make certain connections, till later in life.
I'm only saying that many financial decisions are based on nothing more than basic arithmetic, and you never know which kids are going to grasp a certain idea at a certain time. It simply isn't predictable, and in my experience, it just isn't as linear as you seem to think.
It just isn't right to say that because some kid didn'tl earn A at a certain time, that therefore he can't learn B till he learns A. Learning doesn't always occur in the sequence that you might expect.
If we can use personal finance education to reach kids in school who might not learn it in any other way, I say go for it. This isn't a "left" or "right" thing. This is our kids, and our kids' friends, we're talking about.
Posted by: Ivan on January 10, 2006 07:27 PMUmmm... you do realize you just contradicted yourself, don't you?
Posted by: Mike H on January 10, 2006 09:50 PMWhere are the parents? My children had jobs and they had a checking and savings account by the time they were 12 years old. Half of what they earned or received as a gift was put into a savings account and they balanced those accounts every single month. They earned enough to buy a few shares of stock and were able to buy their own cars and pay for a few semesters of college themselves.
Again I ask, where are the parents here?
Posted by: cc on January 10, 2006 10:45 PM""I know some of you want to cut taxes. So did I.""
So Did She.....So Did She......
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
And she want's to teach financial management to our children.
My kids will continue in private schools thank you!
Posted by: GS on January 10, 2006 11:01 PMThat, however, is not an excuse to spend so much time teaching "multi-culturalism" (whitey sucks), "earth first" (businesses rape the land), "diversity" (sodomites are cool) and other agenda-driven garbage in lieu of grade school math, science and English.
You also write, spell and punctuate quite well, Ivan. Are you over 50 or did you attend private schools?
Posted by: Saltherring on January 11, 2006 06:38 AM
Even if kids don't learn much math, it still is useful to understand things like credit, and interest rates - at least teach them enough to know that they shouldn't max out their credit cards and just pay the minimum payment indefinitely...
Of course the teachers may not be very qualified to teach the subject, but if the curriculum is well written, it could still be useful.
Posted by: JustSumGuy on January 11, 2006 08:47 AMDon't go there with me, buddy. Because for me, "agenda-driven garbage" is forcing kids in public schools to listen to someone read the bible, and say grace before eating their snacks. Too bad if you don't like hearing that.
That was life when I was a kid, and yes, I am a proud graduate of, and a strong supporter of public schools. I'm paying for them, and I'm making sure my daughter gets the best education my tax dollars can buy.
Posted by: Ivan on January 11, 2006 08:49 AMyour'e not getting your money's worth. Or mine, for that matter.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on January 11, 2006 09:08 AMMy apologies for misspelling your name. I really have to remember to preview before actually posting!
Posted by: libertarianobserver on January 11, 2006 09:09 AMI reserve the right to judge for myself whether or not I am getting *my* money's worth. I do not presume to decide that for you. That wouldn't be very libertarian, now would it?
Posted by: Ivan on January 11, 2006 09:30 AMNo kid should get to high school without basic math skills. If kids were in a class appropriate for their level of knowledge then the schools could teach to the level of the grade.
The trouble is kids will not be held back as it might "hurt their feelings". They now realize how much it is hurting their lives forever by not hurting their feelings a bit in the formative years by teaching performance counts more than feelings. The instinctive response of the Ds is to throw more of our money at it.
Posted by: fred on January 11, 2006 09:43 AMInteresting isn't it, that as soon as you mention the socialist agenda of indoctrinating "multi-culturalism", "earth-first" and "diversity" in public schools, the lefties go for the throat of such horrors as Bible-reading and prayer, although both were discontinued in Washington state public schools in the early 60's.
We're talking now, Ivan, not the 60's. Socialists, legislators, leftist school boards and the NEA/WEA have rendered the public schools unfit to provide basic education. If you're comfortable with paying taxes for that, you're part of the problem.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 11, 2006 09:48 AMWrong as usual. I'm part of the solution. I volunteer in my daughter's school, and work to make it better. I enforce study habits, hold her to a high standard, and raise the bar -- just like any responsible parent would do.
Her teachers have been competent, responsible and accountable, in my experience. Sorry if your experience is different, but that's not my problem.
My daughter's teachers have done well by her, and therefore I support them. That means I support the WEA right down the line. And if you don't like that, my friend, well you can jolly well jam it.
Posted by: Ivan on January 11, 2006 10:10 AMThose mean, gready, selfish Repubulicans that want to improve the overall system so that it is good for everyone are such idiots!
Posted by: fred on January 11, 2006 10:13 AMIf you truly believe you're getting your money's worth out of so-called "public" education, I have some real estate in Florida I want to sell you.
The role of high school in my opinion is not to prepare kids for the real world. That is the job of parents first, and college second. High school's role is to prepare a kid for whatever secondary education they decide to pursue. After the ubiquitous "basic skills", there needs to be more focus on critical thinking. Because for the vast majority of people, it's not the P-value you learned in statistics or the Pythagorean theory that employers are going to look for you to provide.
Posted by: Palouse on January 11, 2006 12:47 PM