Financial literacy in the curriculum
Pitched as giving every young New Zealander the money skills to avoid debt, dodge scams and budget for life, by baking financial education into what schools must teach.
The Policy: National Education Policy — September 2023 →
What it does:
- Embeds financial education as a core part of the refreshed Years 1-10 curriculum, delivered mainly through maths and social sciences, with extra guidance for Years 11-13.
- Sets a phased timeline: financial maths is already in the new maths curriculum taught from 2025, the refreshed social sciences area becomes available to schools in 2026, and the content is required from 2027.
- Scales content by age: younger students (Years 1-5) learn needs vs wants, bank accounts, earning, spending and saving; older students (Years 6-10) tackle budgeting, interest, investment, taxes and insurance.
- Leans on existing providers rather than new teachers, with ten partners named including the Retirement Commission's Sorted in Schools, Banqer, MoneyTime, Young Enterprise Trust and the major banks (Westpac, ASB, Kiwibank, BNZ).
- Builds on a base that was already broad: Sorted in Schools alone reaches about 90% of secondary schools and kura, so the change is as much about making it compulsory and consistent as starting from scratch.
The result: National campaigned in 2023 on delivering compulsory financial literacy, framing its edge over Labour's near-identical pledge as faster, cheaper delivery that would not burden teachers. In office, Education Minister Erica Stanford and Commerce Minister Scott Simpson formalised it in April 2025, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis arguing early skills would help people avoid "really difficult levels of debt". The commitment is largely on track but not yet fully delivered: financial maths is being taught now, but the broader social-sciences mandate only bites in 2027, so calling the promise finished is premature. It also rides on the wider curriculum overhaul, where early maths results are encouraging - 36% of Year 6 students met expectations in 2025, up from 28% in 2023 - though that curriculum has drawn its own criticism from maths experts.
The impacts to watch:
- Whether classroom teaching actually shifts behaviour. University of Canterbury economist Stephen Agnew points to a 2014 meta-analysis of 188 studies finding school-based programmes lifted savings but did little to cut loan defaults, and argues family habits matter more.
- Equity gaps. The Principals Federation warned that financial teaching will look "quite different" in low-income versus affluent schools, and the same research suggests benefits are weakest for lower-income families - the group the policy most wants to reach.
- Curriculum overload. Teachers and principals have repeatedly flagged that adding content means cutting something else, with the time and training to teach money topics well still uncertain.
This overview is summarised by AI from public sources. It may contain errors and is a guide, not the definitive record — we welcome corrections.
Where our research raises a question the policy doesn't answer, we put it to you — these are our questions, not government policy. Your vote stays anonymous even when you sign up (we use sign-up only to send you more things to vote on that you care about), and we report aggregated results only — the country's sentiment, never how any individual voted.
Key milestones
National confirms compulsory financial literacy pledge
Days after Labour launched its own plan, National's deputy leader and finance spokeswoman Nicola Willis confirmed National would also make financial literacy compulsory in schools if elected, calling it "something that we are committed to delivering". She argued National's advantage was delivery - doing it quickly, at low cost, and without burdening teachers or getting "trapped in the backroom bureaucracy", with a focus on practical knowledge about debt, banks and mortgages.
Principals warn of curriculum overload
As both major parties backed the idea, Principals Federation president Leanne Otene cautioned against an "additive" approach that keeps expanding an already full curriculum, asking how new content could be added "without adding more", and noting many schools already teach money skills. RNZ reported Erica Stanford, then National's education spokesperson, called Labour's timing "kneejerk" given the curriculum had just been refreshed and questioned how students weak in maths could learn financial concepts.
Experts: school lessons alone may not change money habits
Writing in The Conversation, University of Canterbury economist Stephen Agnew argued financial education in schools has real limits. He cited a 2014 meta-analysis of 188 studies finding such programmes lifted savings but had no impact on reducing loan defaults, and a 2017 review concluding benefits were weakest for lower-income families. Agnew argued parental modelling and family discussions about money are stronger predictors of financial behaviour than classroom instruction, in a country where household debt exceeds 170% of household income.
Government formalises financial education for Years 1-10
In government, Education Minister Erica Stanford and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson announced financial education would be embedded as a core element of the refreshed Years 1-10 curriculum, available to schools in 2026 and required from 2027. Younger students would learn needs versus wants, saving and bank accounts; older students budgeting, interest, investment, taxes and insurance. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said equipping children early would help them avoid "really difficult levels of debt".
Welcomed in principle, but questions on delivery
RNZ reported broad support alongside practical caveats. Retirement Commission learning lead Yasmin Frazer said critical maths and social-sciences concepts needed to be established early. Teacher Joe Bibby noted the trade-off that "any time you do more of one thing you have to do less of something else". Principals Federation spokesperson Heidi Hayward flagged uncertainty over implementation and warned the teaching would look "quite different" in schools serving low-income families compared with affluent areas.
Public reaction across platforms
Online reaction has been broadly supportive of teaching money skills in schools, mixed with scepticism about whether classroom lessons can outweigh home habits, debate over crowding an already full curriculum, and pointed comments that many adults could use the lessons too.
See the conversation:
Aggregated - individual posts are not cited.
Sources
- National official policy page ↗
- 1News - Money skills to be core element of curriculum, Govt announces ↗
- Retirement Commission - Sorted in Schools ↗
- NZ Herald - Budget 2026: new maths results show encouraging signs ↗
- RNZ - Election 2023: Labour would make financial literacy education mandatory ↗
- 1News - National also aiming to make financial literacy compulsory in schools ↗
- RNZ - Financial literacy policy has principals wary of curriculum overload ↗
- The Conversation - Financial education has its limits ↗
- Beehive - Transforming financial education in schools ↗
- RNZ - Year 1 school children to get a financial education from 2027 ↗