Schools Should Be Required to Teach Basic Investing Skills and Finance
Round one: acceptance
Round two: main arguments (no rebuttals yet)
Round three: rebuttals and additional arguments
Round four: final rebuttals and conclusion (no more additional arguments)
It's quite obvious that Americans, no matter adults or children, lack basic knowledge when it comes to investing and finance. According to http://articles.latimes.com..., in a study, "Barely 1 in 2 people knew that a single stock is not safer than a mutual fund, which holds many stocks." Many American adults, including parents, are clueless when it comes to investing and often do not have good financial skills. This can lead to many people going into debt and not knowing how to manage their money wisely. This can be shown in a report in http://www.foxbusiness.com... , which stated that "The proportion of adults spending less dropped to a low this year -- to 29% from the high of 57% in 2009 -- as one in three adults report they carry credit card debt each month. Fifteen percent of people roll over at least $2,500 every month on the credit cards, according to the survey. This habit seems to contradict the result that shows lack of savings is a top financial worry among respondents."
You said that you believed a child's family should teach the child financial and basic investing skills. However, from what we've seen from the average American population today, it seems like a child's family would not even be qualified to teach them finance and investing skills, as the family probably does not have much knowledge on these subjects. This is why we need to instill basic finance and investing in our schools, as these classes would be vital for a child to be able to know how to grow more money from their current money with their investments, be more aware of the financial world, and know how to manage their money. After all, if every citizen in America knew the basics of investing, they could know how to make more money and have financial freedom by making money based off of their investments.
Well, round 02 has been opted for main argumentative speech. I showed my stand in the first round, so no more necessity with that. Let's get started.
My burden of proof on the current position is to show that families should play a more important role rather than schools in tesching these basic real life knowledges. See these in the next section, Constructives.
Round 02 Argument Re-compilation
In January 2012, there were 8.2 million pupils attending 24,372 schools in England. The number of teachers in schools in England is published as part of the annual statistical first release ‘School workforce in England’ [ https://www.gov.uk...]. The latest data is for November 2011. In November 2011, there were 438,000 teachers in state-funded schools in England on a full-time equivalent basis. In response to the questions relating to education policy, the structure of the department and school funding. How would you deal with these large number of students and less number of teachers in the schools? https://www.gov.uk...;.
In your argument, you stated that you believed that families are the better for teaching finance because of how families can families can teach finance in a way that the child can understand and that some family members can be very knowledgeable when it comes to finance and investing. However, both of these arguments are inaccurate or are not complete. If family members were a better source for teaching, then why even have school at all? Why not just have family members teach instead of a school? Family members should not be relied on to teach finance because of these reasons:
1) Not every student has the same type of family. Some students might not have family members that are not home or able to teach them most of the time, and others might have family members that are irresponsible and are not very good at teaching them finance. This is why families should be a supplement to students'. Students learning about finance should learn it in school so that every student can get a good amount of knowledge about finance, no matter what their families are like.
2) It is more likely than not that a student would not have family members easily available that do not have a good amount of knowledge on finance and investing. http://www.cnbc.com... noted that " In a Retirement Income Literacy Survey conducted for The American College of Financial Services last year, 80 percent of the respondents received scores of 60 or lower on financial questions about retirement. Just 20 percent received what amounted to a passing grade." http://www.usatoday.com... has also shown that many Americans do not have a good amount of knowledge on financial topics. While some countries may have a population with more financial literacy, many other countries don't, so schools should teach finance and investing so that all students, no matter how much their families know about finance, can get a vital amount of financial knowledge.
Teaching financial literacy in schools would be even more vital for undeveloped countries, as the students there would probably have poor families with even less knowledge about financial topics like investing. Families in underdeveloped countries usually do not have a high amount of education, so schools should be relied on more to teach financial literacy, as they might be a student's only source for learning about finance and investing.
While school might add a lot of pressure to students, schools are still here to teach and help educate children, so school would be a good source for teaching financial literacy. Once again, if schools weren't that great at teaching, then why have them at all? Why? Because schools can still be a good source of learning, and if every student learns about finance and investing, then a student's group of friends will be less likely to be financially irresponsible, which would lessen the amount of negative peer pressure around the child. Overall, schools should teach finance and investing skills.
Sadat_Hossain forfeited this round.