California could require kids to learn how to manage money. Should voters decide curriculum?
Stay up-to-date with free briefings on topics that matter to all Californians. Subscribe to CalMatters today for nonprofit news in your inbox.
School curriculum is usually the purview of education experts, but this fall it could be decided by California voters, who will vote on adding a new requirement for high school students: a one-semester class in managing personal finances.
California’s Secretary of State is poised to certify that the California Personal Finance Act is eligible for the November ballot, which would add financial literacy to the list of high school graduation requirements beginning with the class of 2030.
Students would learn about paying for college, online banking, taxes, budgeting, credit, retirement accounts, loans, how the stock market works and other topics. The issue is critical, organizers said, as students face a shifting economy and difficult decisions about college, careers and their futures.
“No one comes out of the womb knowing how to manage their credit score. It has to be taught,” said Tim Ranzetta, co-founder of a personal finance education nonprofit and a chief backer of the initiative. “And right now there’s a dramatic gap between what students know and what they need to know. We have to change that.”
Voters seem to agree with him. A 2022 survey of adults nationwide showed that nearly 90% support a financial literacy requirement in high school, and nearly as many wished they had taken such a course when they were students.
That’s not surprising, considering the financial woes many people incur. The average credit card debt in California is $8,366, the sixth-highest rate in the country, and 1 in 6 borrowers nationwide are in default on their student loans.
Financial literacy already in classrooms
But some education experts have pushed back, not because they’re opposed to financial literacy for students but because they question whether voters are best equipped to dictate what’s taught in classrooms.
Currently, the state’s History-Social Studies framework includes a one-semester course in economics, required for graduation, that covers much of the same material proposed by the financial literacy ballot initiative proponents. Financial literacy is also included in first, second and ninth grade curriculum. First graders, for example, learn that money can be exchanged for goods and services, and people make decisions about how to spend their money.
But Ranzetta said the curriculum, which was last updated in 2017, doesn’t focus enough on financial literacy. Personal finance is covered for only a few weeks in the economics course; the rest covers more abstract economic concepts like international trade, resource allocation and the benefits and drawbacks of capitalism. Individual teachers can choose how much they want to focus on certain topics.
State Superintendent Tony Thurmond wouldn’t answer questions about the ballot initiative, although he endorsed it. Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the State Board of Education, also wouldn’t answer questions.
Leaving curriculum decisions to voters is ‘a bad idea’
The proposed ballot initiative so far has almost zero opposition, but some are questioning the idea of letting voters — and not education experts — decide what students learn in the classroom. Ordinarily, curriculum in California is developed by a group of teachers and subject-matter professionals who serve on the Instructional Quality Commission, which meets publicly six times a year. New curriculum is subject to multiple reviews, edits and public vetting, ultimately going before the State Board of Education for adoption. Local school boards can adjust curriculum according to the needs of their students.
“Most voters don’t know much about education policy, and having them decide what can be taught in schools is a bad idea,” said Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at the University of Southern California. “We already have a process in place for adopting curriculum, and if people are unhappy with it there are plenty of avenues to have their voices heard — they can go to meetings, they can vote people out of office, they can talk to their representatives.”
Polikoff worries that adopting curriculum through ballot initiatives could set a dangerous precedent. Religious or anti-LGBTQ curriculum, for example, could be approved by voters, setting up costly and lengthy legal showdowns with the state Department of Education.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: