It is frequently argued that the knowledge of money distribution should be taught to school students alongside other subjects. I partially agree with that nuanced position on the statement. The ensuing discussion will outline the principal arguments underpinning this stance.
One of the main reasons why I am in favour of this view is that money literacy teaches responsibility from a young age. For example if a child is given pocket money, he is responsible to decide where to spend, whom to lend or how much money to put aside. He/She starts thinking about consequences if money is distributed in a wrong way and it will formulate a financial discipline. Another reason is that learning at school might become a stepping stone to adulthood. When the child understands how the budget works, what the expenditures or income are, he/she will be able to avoid himself/herself from living paycheck to paycheck in the future. If people are money literate from schools, results will be visible in a long term way, leading the country to an economic growth where citizens are aware of how to invest money effectively.
Admittedly, opponents of this view might claim that managing money should not necessarily be learned within a whole school curriculum as a separate subject, but might be taught by family members. In most of the cases financial habits are formulated within the household and school lessons might remain as only abstract theories without any practical experience. Another reason is that the school curriculum is already overloaded and subjects about finance might tighten time for basic academic sciences such as math or chemistry, which are more universal. Nevertheless, finances should not be ignored during school years; because the benefits are far more significant.
In conclusion, although certain counter-arguments merit consideration, I maintain steadfast in my conviction that money management should be learned at school. Because it teaches responsibility which plays a huge role in children’s life.