Section IV:  Commentary on the Recommendations

 

This recommendation is designed to serve in a summary fashion the existing understanding of the processes involved in teacher training activities.  This is not an attempt to create new knowledge, but rather to explicate known good practices.  Because many teachers and school administrators are unaware of the extensive curricular models and training programs available to improve teacher’s understanding of economics and personal finance, this paper (see Appendix I) is a useful supplement to the other recommendations promoting increases in economics and personal finance in Missouri’s school, K-12.   

This paper states a set of general principles related to in-service education and a variety of tested models of teacher in-service training.  In addition, it cites a short list of research publications where additional relevant information is available.  Following that, it shows by sets of grade levels a great variety of curricular models and programs and materials related to in-service economic and personal finance education along with contact information about the providers of the services or materials. 

In order to increase substantially the conduct of economic and personal finance education in Missouri schools, it is critical that support be provided to school districts and teachers charged with accomplishing this work.  In-service education and an up-grading of teacher skills will be necessary to effectively equip teachers to conduct work previously not requested of them.  While there may be some expectation that other funds available for in-service education may be directed towards increasing teacher knowledge and skills in economics and personal finance education, it is important for the state to provide a sharp increase in financial support to allow this to take place. 

Based on other allocations for training and the size of the potential need for training in Missouri, two million dollars annually is requested in new funds for this work.  All of the funds will go to DESE for administration and decision about usage.  One million dollars is suggested to go directly to school districts designing their own teacher training programs in economics and personal finance education.  The only proviso of The Study is that this work should be directed towards implementation of the standards determined by DESE and that the work with teachers should be designed and/or conducted by experts in economic and personal finance education.  Experts are defined as individuals with experience and knowledge about alternative curricular models, state and national standards in economics and personal finance, and experience in designing and conduction teacher in-service education in both curricular areas.  

The second million dollars would go to DESE for conducting in-service education through colleges and universities, RPDC’s, and other organizations meeting DESE specifications.  Again there is the expectation that these efforts would be directed towards promoting training based on national standards and the reflection of those standards in the benchmarks developed by DESE.  It is expected that experts in economic and personal finance education will be used in conducting the in-service programs conducted by these groups.  

This recommendation does not contain a specific model for how the two million dollars is to be generated.  Rather it refers to an abridged analysis by school finance expert Dr. John Jones who has provided a wide range of consulting services to The Study.  Part of the analysis provided by Dr. Jones is directed towards listing alternative methods that could be used to generate the level of funding needed to support teacher in-service education in economics and personal finance.  The concept of a revolving fund that could serve the purpose of receiving money from a variety of sources appears to be a useful technique for managing a flow of funds.  See Appendix L for Dr. Jones’ analysis.   

 This recommendation is the key to increasing the importance of economic and personal finance education in Missouri’s schools.  Other recommendations are dependent on this one.  If only one recommendation were to be accepted, this would be the most important because it reorders priorities and establishes economics and personal finance as being of sufficient importance to have an increased weight on the MAP test.  It affects every K-12 student in every Missouri school every year.   All other recommendations flow from this decision.   

Recommendations One (Methods, materials, etc.) and Five (teacher certification) are moot points unless DESE accepts this recommendation which leads to a DESE-designed Show Me Standard and benchmarks.  Recommendation Two (funding) is unlikely to be approved by the General Assembly unless it is tied to explicit new initiatives in economics and personal finance teacher training programs.  Recommendation Four (a mandated high school course) could stand as a separate issue, but is greatly strengthened in concept if it is a part of a sequential program of stronger economic and personal finance education.

 To implement this recommendation, a sequence of events will have to be launched that clearly elevate economic and personal finance education.  A Missouri Show Me Standard would be defined and a set of benchmarks for economics and personal finance education would be delineated.  The standard and benchmarks starting on page 22 of this Final Report are offered as a starting point for DESE deliberations.  Internal and external DESE committees would be established following previous procedures before DESE could be prepared to plan modifications to the MAP tests reflecting these new expectations.  The only way to assure that schools across the state will fully implement and address the new benchmarks is if all know they are facing appropriate testing of the benchmarks on the MAP tests.   

Persons uninitiated in economic and personal finance education are often surprised to learn that children and youth before high school age can be expected to learn about these topics.  In fact, the ability to clearly demonstrate to primary teachers the wealth of knowledge they can impart to their students is one of the main reasons why the programs of Centers for Economic Education in the state have been so successful.  Teachers are delighted to find that they and their students can easily learn a wide range of useful skills and insights in economics and personal finance that they previous believed was too difficult. 

The existence of a ½ unit (semester long) mandated high school course is the perfect complement to the sequence of learning through the K-11 grades leading up to this course.  Because the MAP test for social studies is conducted at 11th grade, it is clearly appropriate for the Capstone Course in Economics and Personal Finance to be conducted at that grade level.  It is also appropriate for the state school board to consider, after reviewing relevant content descriptions, to consider allowing some other courses to fulfill the requirements for the ½ unit course.  Other classes in Business Education and in Consumer and Family Sciences could possibly meet these standards.  

In his paper prepared for The Study (see Appendix K), Dr. William Walstad notes that across the country only about 25% of students will ever take a college economics course.  Furthermore, in the last two decades it is clear that the only reason why increased numbers of students are taking an economics (which in some states includes some personal finance topics) course in high school is because it is mandated.  Walstad presents a significant amount of information that strengthens the case for establishing a mandated course.  Appendix J was written by Missouri high school teachers and contains a content outline for a proposed mandated course that meets the specifications outlined in the benchmarks in Section III page 22 of this Final Report.   

 An extensive survey was designed and sent by Dr. Tom Vontz (Rockhurst University) to 37 institutions in Missouri having authority to train teachers to meet DESE certification requirements.  These are frequently referred to as “teacher certification institutions.”  Dr. Vontz designed the survey instrument to obtain substantial information on current practices of those institutions in meeting the certification requirements of the State School Board as it relates to economics and personal finance.  With follow-up contacts Dr. Vontz succeeded in obtaining competed survey forms from 29 of the 37 institutions.  The final report on the survey’s findings is listed in Dr. Vontz’s report in Appendix E. 

The report makes clear that there are variations in the practices of the institutions.  In addition there is a significant willingness and interest in discussing possible modifications in those practices in the event of changes by the State School Board in certification requirements.  The survey was also successful in identifying on each campus persons interested in a continuing about possible changes in economic and personal finance certification expectations.   

Dr. Vontz makes five recommendations in his report for DESE consideration which have significant merit.  These recommendations deal with a range of topics from listing ways to improve the training of teachers in economics and personal finance education to continuing the dialogue to identify additional appropriate changes in pre-service education that would be helpful to new Missouri teachers.  This information has already been shared with DESE in anticipation of continuing dialogues that should precede changes in current certification requirements and the application of those requirements.