In this podcast, I am joined by my elder son, James, to ask a deceptively simple question: why do schools prepare young people for examinations but not for adult life?
James describes arriving at university with a student loan and an overdraft, yet almost no understanding of budgeting, saving, rent, debt or credit. We discuss why this absence of financial education particularly disadvantages many young people.
But, as we noted, the problem goes well beyond money. Schools often steer pupils towards university without helping them decide what work they might enjoy or whether another route would suit them better.
At the same time, essential skills such as writing professional emails, preparing reports, making presentations, understanding tax and using spreadsheets are frequently neglected during formal education, but most are required by many employers
Then we considered how financial literacy could be integrated into mathematics through practical examples involving interest, VAT, borrowing and household budgets before moving on to discuss how artificial intelligence will transform employment, and why students must learn to use AI critically rather than treating it as a substitute for thought.
Finally, James proposes a National AI Skills Service and a new way of judging schools: not simply by examination results, but by whether their pupils flourish in adult life.
We covered a lot of ground.
This is the audio version:
There is no Debate Ammunition for this video.
There is no transcript for this video, but this is my summary of our discussion:
In my latest podcast, I was joined by my elder son, James Murphy. We explored a simple question: why do schools spend so much time preparing young people to pass examinations, but so little time preparing them to live as adults?
I began by explaining why I wanted James to join me. Not only had he been working with Funding the Future on a wide range of projects, but he also brought the perspective of someone who has experienced the school education system much more recently than I have. I thought it was important to hear a younger voice, particularly because many of the conversations on my channel inevitably reflect my own generation.
I invited James to begin with financial literacy. His answer was striking. He admitted that when he arrived at university, despite having completed school and college, he had almost no idea how to manage money. He had been given a student loan and an overdraft, but no one had explained budgeting, saving, managing rent, or simply making money last until the end of the month. As he reminded me, he quickly spent everything he had before eventually learning the hard way.
I responded by admitting that, as his parent, I probably bore some responsibility myself. I had assumed he knew much more than he actually did. I had ended up teaching him budgeting simply by refusing to provide more money whenever he ran short. Looking back, I realised that many parents probably make exactly the same assumption because they believe schools must surely have covered these issues already. Clearly they have not.
James then widened the discussion. He argued that poor financial education was not simply about budgeting. It affected people's ability to save, avoid unnecessary debt and plan for major life events such as buying a home. He also made an important point about class. Young people from wealthier families often receive informal financial education from parents or professional advisers. Those from working-class backgrounds frequently do not. The education system therefore reinforces inequality instead of reducing it.
That led us naturally to the subject of debt. I suggested that many young people are offered overdrafts or credit cards without ever being taught how credit really works. James agreed. During a cost-of-living crisis, borrowing can appear to be an easy answer, but without understanding interest rates, repayment schedules or credit scores, many people can find themselves trapped in long-term debt almost before they realise what has happened.
Our conversation then turned to careers advice. James was critical of his own experience. He felt that almost every discussion at school revolved around one destination: university. There was very little encouragement to think seriously about what kind of work someone might actually enjoy, whether university was the right route for them, or what alternatives existed.
As I listened to him, I realised there was a common thread running through everything we were discussing. Schools do a poor job of teaching young people how to earn money, and an equally poor job of teaching them how to manage it. Careers advice is weak. Financial education is weak. Practical issues such as taxation, self-employment and personal finance are largely ignored. Instead, the system seems designed almost entirely around getting students to university.
Having identified the problems, we began discussing solutions. James argued that practical skills should not be treated as optional extras but should be woven throughout the curriculum. Financial education could become part of mathematics. Students should learn budgeting, savings, borrowing, accounting and spreadsheet skills using real-world examples instead of abstract exercises.
He also argued that schools devote too much attention to traditional academic subjects without showing their relevance to modern life. He was not dismissing literature or history, but he pointed out that nobody had ever taught him how to write a professional email, prepare a report or produce a presentation. Those were skills he only acquired once he entered employment.
He even questioned whether all students benefited equally from spending large amounts of time on highly abstract mathematics when many never saw any practical application. He believed that connecting mathematics with entrepreneurship and everyday financial decisions would make the subject much more engaging for many pupils.
The discussion inevitably moved on to artificial intelligence. James argued strongly that AI will transform almost every career. Young people therefore need to understand not only how to use it effectively but also how to think critically about what it produces. AI should become a tool for learning, not a substitute for thinking.
I found myself agreeing with much of what he said. Looking back at my own education, I reflected that many of the topics I had studied had proved of remarkably little practical use. By contrast, simple ideas such as percentages could have been taught through real-life examples, like calculating VAT or understanding pricing. That would have made mathematics far more meaningful than simply learning techniques in isolation.
We then discussed how schools themselves should be judged. James proposed something rather different from the current obsession with examination results. He suggested assessing schools according to the long-term outcomes achieved by their pupils. Where were people ten or twenty years later? Had education genuinely prepared them for adult life? He believed that following people's later careers would tell us much more about the effectiveness of education than examination league tables ever could.
Of course, I then asked the inevitable question about funding. Schools already argue that they are under enormous financial pressure. James suggested that responsibility should not fall solely on schools or local authorities. Instead, he envisaged a partnership involving central government and the private sector, particularly financial institutions, supported through an additional levy. I suggested building on the apprenticeship levy, although James felt that any new funding should complement rather than replace existing arrangements.
Finally, James outlined what was probably his most ambitious proposal. He suggested establishing a National AI Skills Service to coordinate practical education, financial literacy and AI training across the country. As we discussed the idea, I realised that it reflected something I have argued for many years. Education should not be divided into isolated subjects taught in silos. Real life does not work that way, and neither should schools. Budgeting, communication, technology and practical problem-solving all reinforce one another.
By the end of our discussion, I found that we agreed on rather more than I had expected. Although we approached the issue from different generations, we both concluded that education remains too narrowly focused on academic achievement and far too detached from everyday life. If schools are genuinely to prepare young people for the future, they need to teach far more than examination subjects. They need to equip people with the practical knowledge, judgement and confidence that adult life actually demands.
Poll
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The best financial literacy training in this country I’ve seen is delivered too late – by citizen’s advice bureaus up and down the country like the excellent one I worked with in Nuneaton & Bedworth a while back – when people have go into serious trouble. And look how underfunded those are.
Not sure about a levy – ‘the polluter pays’ is a bit like a levy and look at how polluters get out of that – it becomes something that becomes tradeable and ‘negotiable’ instead and a tool for lobbyists.
There certainly needs to be sovereign intervention from the government/state on these issues – if parliament is the source of all law, then it has to produce the rules that provide the justice/fairness and must finance that justice. This is something that has been eroded in order to develop markets in debt and indebtedness – and we know who they benefit.
The lack of intervention/education is by design because the political system has been bought and rendered blind by those who benefit from ignorance/poor education. The State – in hand with its new funders (the rich) – has been closing minds – not just about finance but global warming and a whole host of other stuff we should be concerned about, that leaves us easy and compliant to exploit in the name of profit. By all means try a levy, but the rampant corruption of politics must also be confronted and dealt with.
Thank you
Thank you both/all for a most important article!
Might the assumption that state formal education is “organised” to aid the student rather than the state’s political parties and their backers be, to write the least, questionable?
Might it be that in a financialised state, in which the dominant, apparently muti-party held economic theory is Neoliberalism/Austerity, it is reasanable to educate some 97% of the student population so that they are unquestioningly gullible and easy to exploit financially?
Might the fundamental purpose of Neoliberalism be the exploitation of the majority of a population?
Most to all the suggestions in your article could and should be relatively easily used if the dominant attitudes of those with power//control over current state education permitted such.
Might it help stiudents, and our whole society, if Socio-Economics, including valid finanial attitudes, skills and knowledge, were given the prominence and status of science?
I can agree with much of that.
However, teachers are under a lot of stress, are under paid, and are no longer respected. The schools are under resourced, increasing struggling to afford the basics like heat and light. There are many cases of older teachers forced out, not because they are bad but simply because they are paid more. And they are replaced by younger teachers who are cheaper but a lot less experienced.
The problem is that education, like every other public service has been degraded by austerity, whilst inequality is one of the highest in the developed world.
Let’s not blame teachers, who I’m sure would like to do more, when the problem is resource allocation.
Much to agree with, Tim. Why did we as a society so downgrade teaching as an occupation?
My cynical response to the downgrading of the teaching profession – because over 75% of teachers are female.
You may be right
Interesting discussion although I think this format works better when the two participants are in the same room or frame. This looked like you were in different towns.
I didn’t expect the conclusion for this one which was for more to be done by the government, and by sticking ‘National’ in front of the policy proposal I suppose the idea is that provision would be central government. Would have betted against this to be honest.
Why?
Morning Richard
I might say, ’twas ever thus. I went to a grammar school in the 1970s. Education was purely academic. It was assumed that all the other stuff was going to come from your parents. I didn’t get any of that other stuff -I had to learn it the hard way. Careers advice? Hopeless. No attempt to explore options, or to disect any of my choices to see if I really understood what I was doing. The result? Multiple false starts and unnecessary difficulties.
I have long thought that all schools should have in their curriculum something along the lines of “life skills”. Money management definitely, but also something one might call, broadly, “citizenship”. The consitution, parliament, law (in a practical sense), voting and other forms of political engagement… in short, the whole general business of being a functioning responsible adult…
We agree…
My children’s secondary schools (and I think nationally) had lessons in “Citizenship”. (1972-2000) This was seen as a soft option, not examined in any way, and many simply didn’t turn up. It was well meant and a practical failure.
Anyone remember General Studies O level (done in 6th form) – 1969-71)? The aim was thinking and discussing rather than rote learning.
And no one took it seriously. And we need to do so.
Schools do a pretty bad job at preparing students to live independent lives as adults
You mentioned financial skills – earning, and tax, and budgeting. Income and expenditure. The difference between instant gratification (and instant regret) and delayed gratification. Earning rather than paying interest, saving rather than borrowing. How savings and pensions and mortgages actually work.
But also a simple things like nutrition, and cooking from basic ingredients rather then convenience foods. The importance of exercise.
How to work productively. Not just being told what to do but anticipating what needs to be done. Resilience in the face of setbacks. Self reliance and self regulation. Using email (and writing letters, and filling in forms) and writing a CV. Using word processors and spreadsheets and presentation skills. How to participate in or run a meeting. Advocating for yourself rather than staying silent. Learning to hear what people mean not just what they say. Critical thinking and evidence and judgement. Identifying misinformation and disinformation.
Much to agree with
What do we forgo, then?
“What is the most important practical skill schools fail to teach?”
All of the above….. and more!
This does mean we need to clear the deck of a lot of stuff currently taught – and everyone will have a reason for why their bit should not be cut! However, it must be done.
Realistically, rather than “all of the above” perhaps we could say “let teachers decide”?
Much to agree with.
Surely, teaching our children the most important things in life is the responsibility of the parents.
The only reason we exist is to produce the next generation and prolong the life of the species.
What could be more important in life?
I didn’t vote in the poll as I think 3 of them matter hugely. However i think there is a little bit missing. Certainly using AI critically, but I think that could be expanded to treating all information sources critically. Don’t believe everything you read in newspapers or see on the news. Understand that suppliers of ‘news’ have their own agendas.
Fair comment. But if you teach it once, would it not open the idea everywhere?
Teach sums, not mathematics, in schools. I’ve said this before, and will doubtless say it again. When people, even children, have an incentive to learn something, they will do so. Produce stall holders used to be amazingly fast at mental arithmetic — now they have calculators it takes longer. And people doing football pools came up with combinatorial maths at a high level. Gamblers understand risk and probability much better than they were ever taught. And so on. If you aren’t using something you learnt, it will fade away until you can’t use it any more. And, on an unorthodox note, I think Latin, which helps a lot with spelling, is more useful to most than calculus.
Thank you