Financial training has remained stable for ten years.

Schools and free schools had the opportunity to choose not to teach it when it was first introduced, and while some have done so, it does seem that the majority have not.

Only 38.5% of Gen Z respondents (those between the ages of 14 and 25) showed knowledge of the annual Isa contribution limits, compared to only one in three among millennials (aged 26 to 35), according to recent Foresters Friendly Society research.

Generation Z and millennials were equally divided in terms of their understanding of inflation, with 48% and 46%, respectively.

An intriguing finding, however, was that while twice as many millennials answered this question incorrectly as they did, one-third of Gen Z respondents admitted they didn’t know the answer instead of guessing.

These numbers are not only unexpected but also concerning because some might conclude that there would have been a more positive impact on young people’s knowledge of funds ten years after the introduction of financial education.

But is it because we haven’t done a good job of teaching it in schools or because it’s being taught too late?

This is consistent with an information treatment last week in which a number of proponents urged the government to give financial education in primary schools priority starting at an early age, claiming that it is presently in a “perilous state.”

Louise Hill, the chief executive officer and co-founder of Go Henry, a prepaid debit card and financial education app intended to teach children and teenagers how to manage their money, testified in favor of the education limited committee’s investigation into enhancing economic instruction.

I do wonder why we haven’t advanced, but what irritates me the most is that we are delaying teaching this until secondary school.

According to some research, 60% of kids don’t remember getting financial education, and when you look at how many kids understand interest rates, it’s under 40%.

In addition, the Center for Social Justice urged an “urgent consider” of how we approach financial education.

According to studies conducted by the think tank in 2022, better economic knowledge could have benefited two-thirds of young adults who were struggling financially.

It is concerning to see that so many students leave school feeling as though they don’t know enough given where we are in terms of education provision and reading statistics like these.

How we can remain stable on a subject that is so crucial ten years from now seems like an absurd idea to me.

I do wonder why we haven’t advanced, but what irritates me the most is that we are delaying teaching this until secondary school.

The difference between someone likely being scammed and people having the right questions to ask could be as simple as developing these habits at a younger age.

This has probably been said a million times by anyone who is passionate about teaching financial education to children, but for those who haven’t, here it is.

Cambridge behavior authorities reviewed earlier research to find out how kids learn about money in general and specifically.

They came to the conclusion that by the time a child is seven years old, cash habits, including the capacity for planning ahead, are typically formed.

Of course, this does not imply that if that glass is missed, children will be forced to live in debts and develop poor financial habits; this can always be influenced by a quality education.

But given this knowledge, it would seem that the simplest course of action would be to begin introducing the idea at a younger years.

Financial education is a longstanding talent, and financial skills are extremely valuable.

It has a magnificent effect when it is ingrained in conversations or daily life from earliest age.