The link between a quality, effective teacher and student achievement is strong and growing (Brophy & Good, 1986; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). A link between teacher involvement in policy and curriculum development, and policy implementation success has also been identified (Handal & Herrington, 2003; McLaughlin, 1987, 1991). Despite evidence of the centrality of the teacher in student and policy implementation success, there is little evidence of teacher role or teacher voice in the growing movement to develop and implement financial literacy policy.
As part of his dissertation work, Dan conducted research on teacher attitudes about teaching financial literacy (including policy implementation and professional development questions) and teacher understanding of core financial concepts. He surveyed classroom teachers in two school districts in two states. Among his findings: this population of teachers was very supportive of the inclusion of finanical literacy in the K-12 curriculum; teachers at all grade levels (elementary, middle, and high school) believe finanical literacy instruction should begin at the elementary level; teachers strongly support professional development that improves their finanical literacy; teachers are not sufficiently financially literate. He also found evidence of curriculum saturation overload. While supportive of finanical literacy, some teachers in this investigation expressed concern about adding more curriculum requirements. One participant remarked: "When do we get to say uncle?"
Read Dan's dissertation here:
Dan recently teamed with the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) to distribute a similar survey (measuring teacher attitudes about teaching financial literacy and teacher understanding of core financial concepts) to active CalSTRS members. More than 2,700 teachers participated.
Read Dan's survey findings here:
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59-69.
McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
McLaughlin, M. (1991). The Rand change agent study: Ten years later. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education Policy Implementation, (pp. 143-156). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
Palardy, G., & Rumberger, R. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cummulative and residual effects of teachers on future student achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
|Support Pollinate, the teacher financial literacy project. Even $5 will help us get the pilot Pollinate program off the ground!|