Jump to content

Teaching Kids Finances


Texsox

Recommended Posts

Forbes Article

The purpose of the badge isn't to transform scouts into investment whizzes, but to get them acquainted with the fundamentals of personal finance. It's the kind of background many Americans may wish they had today, as they scramble to understand the impact of the financial crisis on their savings.

 

Along with the "Stock Market Game" that some schools use in the classroom, it seems that we should be doing even more to prepare our kids to be adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said, I don't know how many times in here... high school curriculums should REQUIRE a full class on basic finance in order to graduate. It staggers me that many students graduate high school not even knowing how to balance a checkbook, or knowing the basics of what a mortgage is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 09:17 AM)
I've said, I don't know how many times in here... high school curriculums should REQUIRE a full class on basic finance in order to graduate. It staggers me that many students graduate high school not even knowing how to balance a checkbook, or knowing the basics of what a mortgage is.

 

I agree, but when you look over what is already required, it is tough to fit in more required courses. Low math and science scores? Add required courses. Fat kids? Require more PE. Teen pregnancy? Sex Ed.

 

My solution is longer school years. A four week "minimester" in June or August that addresses stuff like this. It would be required during two of the three High School summer vacations. Health, Finance, etc. Or complete a private program approved by the school district. It could even be on-line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 11:04 AM)
I agree, but when you look over what is already required, it is tough to fit in more required courses. Low math and science scores? Add required courses. Fat kids? Require more PE. Teen pregnancy? Sex Ed.

 

My solution is longer school years. A four week "minimester" in June or August that addresses stuff like this. It would be required during two of the three High School summer vacations. Health, Finance, etc. Or complete a private program approved by the school district. It could even be on-line.

Eh, I think its important for kids to play in the summer. Even high school kids. I'd rather see fewer electives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 10:32 AM)
Eh, I think its important for kids to play in the summer. Even high school kids. I'd rather see fewer electives.

My kids were down to 3 electives over 4 years.This would give them (1) three month break and (2) two month breaks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 11:37 AM)
My kids were down to 3 electives over 4 years.This would give them (1) three month break and (2) two month breaks.

they took only 3 elective courses over 4 years? Wow, I must admit, I hadn't realized that was the case. I was taking 3 music classes a semester in high school, and also managed to fit in an extra year of science, an Aeronautics class, and a finance/econ class that wasn't required.

 

I guess things have changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 11:04 AM)
I agree, but when you look over what is already required, it is tough to fit in more required courses. Low math and science scores? Add required courses. Fat kids? Require more PE. Teen pregnancy? Sex Ed.

 

My solution is longer school years. A four week "minimester" in June or August that addresses stuff like this. It would be required during two of the three High School summer vacations. Health, Finance, etc. Or complete a private program approved by the school district. It could even be on-line.

 

Nope. Both teachers and students need that time.

 

A minimester would lack the focus that you'd want. No one would want to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 10:57 AM)
Nope. Both teachers and students need that time.

 

A minimester would lack the focus that you'd want. No one would want to be there.

 

School calendars in other countries have shown there isn't anything magical about 11 weeks versus 7 weeks off. If humans truly needed that much of a break from their jobs, we'd all have three month vacations instead of two weeks. Imagine a bricklayer or accountant can work 50 whole weeks a year, but teachers can only work 38? And, knowing teachers outside of school, almost all are working jobs during the summer. They are already teaching summer school, or taking seasonal jobs.

 

Even with the current schedule there are kids who will not want to be in class.

 

NSS,

I guess I should have been clearer, there is such a pressure for various college tracks, where to earn the distinction you need 4 years of math, science, and English. 3 years of a foreign language, two years of fine arts, two years of PE. Then health, and a couple I can't remember, that left 3 open electives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 12:07 PM)
School calendars in other countries have shown there isn't anything magical about 11 weeks versus 7 weeks off. If humans truly needed that much of a break from their jobs, we'd all have three month vacations instead of two weeks. Imagine a bricklayer or accountant can work 50 whole weeks a year, but teachers can only work 38? And, knowing teachers outside of school, almost all are working jobs during the summer. They are already teaching summer school, or taking seasonal jobs.

 

Even with the current schedule there are kids who will not want to be in class.

 

NSS,

I guess I should have been clearer, there is such a pressure for various college tracks, where to earn the distinction you need 4 years of math, science, and English. 3 years of a foreign language, two years of fine arts, two years of PE. Then health, and a couple I can't remember, that left 3 open electives.

 

You'd face major resistance, it'd just never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 12:25 PM)
You'd face major resistance, it'd just never happen.

I know, the proposals have been around for 40 years.

 

Summer schools are already setting record attendance as kids try to get a head start on college. So it is happening, it just isn't required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 12:07 PM)
School calendars in other countries have shown there isn't anything magical about 11 weeks versus 7 weeks off. If humans truly needed that much of a break from their jobs, we'd all have three month vacations instead of two weeks. Imagine a bricklayer or accountant can work 50 whole weeks a year, but teachers can only work 38? And, knowing teachers outside of school, almost all are working jobs during the summer. They are already teaching summer school, or taking seasonal jobs.

 

Even with the current schedule there are kids who will not want to be in class.

 

NSS,

I guess I should have been clearer, there is such a pressure for various college tracks, where to earn the distinction you need 4 years of math, science, and English. 3 years of a foreign language, two years of fine arts, two years of PE. Then health, and a couple I can't remember, that left 3 open electives.

 

Unless you come up with an extra 20-25% of pay to compensate teachers for working year round, the NEA isn't going to allow this to happen, no matter what studies show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 06:49 PM)
Unless you come up with an extra 20-25% of pay to compensate teachers for working year round, the NEA isn't going to allow this to happen, no matter what studies show.

 

Summer school is already being taught and paid for, so the cost increase would not be the full amount. Plus it would not be year round, as I mentioned just four more weeks. It cuts the summer vacation from basically 12 weeks to eight for two of the three summer vacations a student receives. Teacher would receive 8 weeks off during the summer, a couple three weeks during the year (Christmas and Spring Break) So they would be working about a 40 week calendar. At least in Texas, 180 days of class is the minimum, this would bring it to 200. In overall terms, we would be looking at about a 10% or less increase. Depending on subjects, and thinking of things like the finance course, which many H.S. teachers may not be certified for anyways, it may not even need to be certified teachers. Perhaps internships from college Ed programs. I'm just kicking ideas around, there are other hurdles no doubt, but just mandating more and more required courses without any additional time, has issues as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 12, 2008 -> 11:52 AM)
Summer school is already being taught and paid for, so the cost increase would not be the full amount. Plus it would not be year round, as I mentioned just four more weeks. It cuts the summer vacation from basically 12 weeks to eight for two of the three summer vacations a student receives. Teacher would receive 8 weeks off during the summer, a couple three weeks during the year (Christmas and Spring Break) So they would be working about a 40 week calendar. At least in Texas, 180 days of class is the minimum, this would bring it to 200. In overall terms, we would be looking at about a 10% or less increase. Depending on subjects, and thinking of things like the finance course, which many H.S. teachers may not be certified for anyways, it may not even need to be certified teachers. Perhaps internships from college Ed programs. I'm just kicking ideas around, there are other hurdles no doubt, but just mandating more and more required courses without any additional time, has issues as well.

 

Summer school is a small fraction of a full case load. Less than 10% of students take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My high school, one of the top in Michigan, mandated 6 courses a semester, and optioned to take a 7th, but if u played a sport it was impossible to take that course. After a history/government/social science class, language, math, english, science, not to mention most students a music class, you usually only had 1 class open for electives and required classes like art, PE (which u needed 2 semesters total of, one of which was covered if u played a sport for a full year), and health, so really you didnt have much chance to take an elective. Yes, you could just take the bare requirements to graduate, like three years of science, but many colleges shun that.

 

My Senior Year last year:

 

AP English (Year)

AP Govt (Sem) - Advanced Law (Sem)

AP Statistics (Year)

AP Latin 5 (Year)

Trailblazers (Year)

The Optimist (School Newspaper)

 

So I had two electives because I decided to not take Physics, and I am not in music, plus had all my requirements fulfilled so I was able to continue takeing Newspaper, which I was an editor on.

 

Trailblazers was a class where we drove each day to an elementary school and tutored a student there for the year, great experience there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 11, 2008 -> 01:15 PM)
Forbes Article

 

 

Along with the "Stock Market Game" that some schools use in the classroom, it seems that we should be doing even more to prepare our kids to be adults.

 

Me and a few other kids were picked to do that in fourth grade. Me and my group all picked the hot stocks like lucent technologies. The other group picked their favorite stores. We got killed. Ain't that a b?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 11:58 PM)
Me and a few other kids were picked to do that in fourth grade. Me and my group all picked the hot stocks like lucent technologies. The other group picked their favorite stores. We got killed. Ain't that a b?

I used to be an intern for Lucent before they folded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...