Students’ production of curricular knowledge: perspectives on empowerment in financial capability education

Introduction: The boundaries of financial capability education

The relatively new subject area of ‘financial capability’, also called ‘financial literacy’, now features regularly in the discourse on formal education in many globalized economies (Miller et al., 2009). Personal finance courses have typically been offered through employers, community groups or by credit counselling agencies; only recently has financial capability become a stand-alone component of formal schooling for young adults (Vitt et al., 2000). In the UK, students ages 16–19 at post-compulsory educational institutions across England and Northern Ireland have the option to take an ‘AS’ Level course on financial capability. This article presents findings from a study which examined the impact of one such financial studies course introduced in 2002–03 academic year.

The relative newness of this curriculum (and those now offered by other providers) warrants an investigation into the impacts of such courses on young people’s understandings of personal finance, their financial practices and future aspirations. Related calls for introducing financial capability education in school curricula, such as the proposed ‘personal, social, health and economic education’ (QCA, 2009) national curriculum in the UK, make this an appropriate moment to enter into dialogue concerning the boundaries of this domain.

The boundaries of financial capability education have been emerging over several years, but are not yet clearly defined. In one sense, the boundaries are wide and encompassing, shaped by a discourse that positions financial capability as an essential component of life, at least in western societies such as the USA (Cutler and Devlin, 1996; Jump$tart Coalition, 2008; OECD, 2005; Vitt et al., 2000), Australia (OECD, 2005) and the UK (Citizens Advice, 2001). The educational policy problem is framed in terms of a lack of basic skills in personal financial management among certain groups, such as young people. More specifically, this discourse sets the boundaries for financial capability education at an individual, consumer level. For example, one of the earliest definitions of financial literacy was provided by the National Foundation for Educational Research as ‘the ability to make informed judgments and to take effective decisions regarding the use and management of money’ (Noctor et al., 1992). More recently, Vitt et al. (2000), in a US study of personal financial literacy, defined financial literacy as ‘the ability to read, analyse, manage and communicate about the personal financial conditions that affect material well-being’ (p. 2). Referring more specifically to financial education, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) argues:

Financial education is the process by which financial consumers/investors improve their understanding of financial products and concepts and, through information, instruction and/or objective advice, develop their skills and confidence to become more aware of financial risks and opportunities, to make informed choices, to know where to go for help, and to take other effective actions to improve their financial well-being. (OECD, 2005: 13)

Financial capability has also been framed in policy discourse in terms of particular practices:

Financially capable consumers plan ahead, find and use information, know when to seek advice and can understand and act on this advice, leading to greater participation in the financial services market. (HMSO, 2007: 19)

Notably, these definitions exclude or de-emphasize economic understanding (Davies, 2006) and moral debate (Lucey, 2007) when establishing the boundaries of financial capability education.

In this article, we argue that the emphasis on individual consumer level action and participation restricts the options available to young people in terms of how they see themselves as financially capable citizens. Moreover, we find that the domain as currently defined means that students’ expressions of empowerment are aligned with psycho-social notions of self-efficacy and voice rather than civic and economic engagement. From this perspective, financial decisions are consumer decisions rather than political, economic, cultural and social decisions.

In an effort to promote dialogue on the boundaries of financial capability education, we consider various perspectives on empowerment and their potential for reframing the discourse on financial capability education. This exploration is grounded in students’ ‘subject talk’ expressed in research interviews through which students make explicit ‘the rules of specialised communicative competence’ (Arnot and Reay, 2007: 319) in financial capability. The focus of the analysis is on ways of knowing about personal finance and being financially capable. By acknowledging the subject positions evoked in this ‘subject talk’, whereby subject positions refer to the implied relation between the subject and the object of an object-driven activity (Williams et al., 2007) such as personal financial management practices, we provide an analysis of different perspectives on empowerment in financial capability.

A framework for understanding the relationship between knowledge and empowerment

Given the age of our study participants, many of whom were still living with and were supported financially by their parents, a nuanced account of empowerment and ways of engaging in personal finance was needed. For example, we considered empowerment in terms of voice, such that students’ discourse implied empowerment when they described themselves as co-participants in family financial decision-making and in financial discussions with others. We also considered empowerment in terms of expressions of self-confidence, which students tended to attribute to their improved knowledge of financial products and budgeting practices.

Most definitions of ‘empowerment’ entail some form of agency and power over circumstances and actions (Parpart et al., 2003). To engage with this view of empowerment, we drew on the concept of perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), such that empowerment refers to a person’s confidence in their ability to organize and take action to solve problems or carry out related tasks (Tennyson and Nguyen, 2001). Implied in this definition is a view of agency as the ability to take action. Drawing on socio-cultural perspectives (Bakhtin 1981; Holland et al., 2001) we propose refining this view of empowerment by defining agency in terms of the ways individuals creatively employ knowledge in what Holland et al. call ‘improvisations’ (2001: 17). Empowerment is thus evident in creative solutions to novel problems and circumstances, where creativity involves a degree of reflection (e.g. critical reflection on society and/or on the social self). Cultural resources are considered a crucial component of this creative work.

A key cultural resource we examine is what we refer to as cultural models of personal finance. Cultural models (Gee, 1999) are understood to be storylines that help to define typical or normal social practices and hence enable us to identify the range and type of knowledge expressed by students with regards to personal finance. By developing a framework for empowerment based on cultural models, we are also able to acknowledge different forms of empowerment. For example, we recognize empowerment when Ayesha, from our study, says:

When you go into a bank now and look at their products, you know what they are talking about and you know what APR means properly, all their terms and conditions. Normally you are confused so you think about the product, but now it’s just … if you go with your Mum or your Dad, you can tell them so you don’t have to wait in a big queue at customer services to explain it to them.

Being knowledgeable about the rules of personal finance has given Ayesha a sense of confidence and agency. We consider Salima’s decision-making regarding money saving to be an example of improvization (Holland et al., 2001). That is, Salima reformulated a dominant financial practice, weaving it with a personal (and, as implied later in the interview, cultural) practice of saving within the family:

Yes I actually save a lot of money now, I do a lot of saving. I don’t have an account I have actually saved money with my mother. I give it to her and she saves it for me now. I think it’s a bit safer than an account because then I could go and take the money out, but with my mum she just won’t give it [to] me.

However, we argue that a form of empowerment that is qualitatively different from consumer-oriented empowerment is worthy of consideration when deciding the boundaries of financial capability education. This other form of empowerment is viewable from a critical literacy perspective (Freire, 1993) and would mean students become agents of knowledge production. As agents in knowledge production, young people would thus contribute to re-framing and critically reflecting on socio-economic systems. Although beyond the scope of the curriculum we studied, we suggest that a critical form of empowerment has the potential to support non-dominant groups’ agency in contributing to knowledge production in society at large. Moreover, we argue that an analysis of knowledge is essential to addressing possibilities for empowerment through education. An analysis of one curriculum, as it was voiced by the students who participated in it, is presented here as an exploration of these possibilities.

Data and methods for the study of curricular knowledge production

The course unit in Financial Studies is an optional course for students attending post-compulsory schooling in the UK, aged 16–19. The curriculum materials straddled both generic and practical financial capability knowledge as well as more specific knowledge about finance that would be relevant for students considering a career in the financial industry. This career focus was more evident in the second-year follow-up course while the first year of the course addressed the key practices of financial capability outlined in our introduction: financial and future planning, budgeting and saving strategies, assessing different financial products, and risk assessment. However, throughout the curriculum, an emphasis was placed on individual decision-making with regards to future aspirations.

The analysis is based on interview data obtained as part of a longitudinal study of students, which surveyed and interviewed three cohorts of students. The sample for this analysis includes 30 students from 11 different institutions across the UK who participated in two or more interviews, 10 and 22 months after the first-year course completion. This allowed us to examine the students’ learning trajectories over time and observe patterns of knowledge or understanding as they progressed through the course(s) and beyond. In the semi-structured interviews, lasting approximately 30 minutes, students were asked about their personal financial management practices, aspirations and impressions of the course. All interviews were conducted in person with the exception of follow-up interviews in 2007 with students who had moved on from the school or colleges where we initially interviewed them, which were conducted by telephone. All interviews were transcribed by experienced transcribers and cross-checked by the research team. Qualitative data management software, Atlas.ti, facilitated coding of our interview data.

Our sampling strategy aimed for diversity based on type of institution (e.g. sixth form college ¹ or state secondary school), region of the UK and location (e.g. urban, rural, semi-urban). The sampling of the first cohort of students to participate in interviews was done by convenience, based on volunteers present on the day of our school visit. Thus, although the sample includes a diverse group by ethnicity, class and gender, we are not claiming to have a representative sample of UK youth. We also recognize a bias to university-oriented student participants who were considering careers in Business, Finance or Accounting. Although the course was an elective option open to all students, competing course requirements meant that it was primarily students who were undecided or were studying Business, Accounting or Media, Art and Design who opted for this course.

Rather than provide a survey analysis of students’ knowledge of finance, our aim with the analysis of the interviews was to examine meaning-making and learning trajectories. The questions we pursued included: what kind of participation does the financial curriculum afford and constrain; and how does this foster critical awareness of personal financial management and empowerment? The analysis involved first a holistic reading and then thematic coding with regards to knowledge of finance expressed explicitly and implicitly. Patterns in the coded data regarding financial knowledge were then analyzed for emergent cultural models and subject positions. Cultural models became a focal point as storylines that (a) help to identify what patterns of behaviour or practices are considered normal financial practices and (b) imply subject positions of individuals in the world of finance. By looking across the sample of coded interviews, we were able to identify sets of cultural models of personal finance shared by these students. The robustness of our codes is supported by separate analyses utilizing these codes with other cohorts of students from the sample (Davis et al., 2008).

Analytically, we draw on the concept of cultural models (Gee, 1999) to examine the particularity of knowledge in the context of one financial capability curriculum. An analysis of cultural models also provided insights into implied subject positions which enabled us to consider the different forms of empowerment possible within the boundaries of the current discourse of financial capability education. As argued by Holland and colleagues, cultural models, or what they call ‘figured worlds’, will ‘carry disposition, social identification, and even personification just as surely as they carry meaning’ (Holland et al., 2001: 271). In other words, cultural models of personal finance evoke particular subject positions in relation to personal financial management and economic practices. We note that cultural models can be identified in interview discourse by attending to expressions of identity. That is, in expressing oneself as a particular kind of person (Gee, 1999), the student draws on or evokes particular cultural models. For example, in presenting oneself as knowledgeable about finance, a student will draw on a particular storyline about what it means to know about personal finance.

Thus, we distinguish identity (the student’s ways of being and presenting oneself as financially knowledgeable or capable) from subject position (the researcher’s assessment of the implied positioning of the student vis-a-vis society and the financial industry) in order to critically examine the impact of the course. For example, in describing oneself as financially capable, a student may reference knowledge about different financial products, which we interpret to imply a consumer subject position. By contrast, a student who referenced knowledge of economic systems evoked a cultural model that positioned him in a way that potentially allows for empowerment defined in terms of critical engagement in cultural productions of knowledge (Carlson and Apple, 1998).

Knowing and doing personal financial management

We present first our analysis of the different ways of ‘doing’ finance and being financially capable, as interpreted from students’ interview discourse. These cultural models of personal finance are then considered in terms of subject position and empowerment.

Perspectives on empowerment through the lens of cultural models

The cultural models of personal finance identified above indicate that personal finance entails an awareness of financial products and services available but can also mean adhering to principles of practice to avoid debt, manage money or invest money. In these cultural models of personal finance, a common subject position of a consumer was implied. However, differences can be explored in terms of the kind of consumer they evoked and the different forms of empowerment they imply.

The dominant form of empowerment that we interpreted was that which best aligns with the concept of perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). That is, knowledge could be applied in making consumer decisions. For example, Ayesha stated:

I have to buy car insurance and stuff, I actually knew what some of the things were, like APR and interest rates and everything. So I looked at it in a different way … When you’re actually calculating how much interest you’re paying over the long term. When you look at other things normally you just think, the first thing that you see you just go with it. But [the course] helps you look around more as well.

For Ayesha, consumer awareness meant she could be more critical of products offered to her:

Whereas before like if you went into a bank or somebody came to your door offering you things, you would be drawn into them, because you don’t know what it is so you listen to everything. But you know when they say something and you are confused about it, you tackle them, so you question them back.

Another student, Julian, described for us a recent financial decision in which he bought a suit on sale, ‘haggled’ for a student discount and also signed up for a store credit card to get a further discount. He expressed himself as ‘consumer savvy’ when explaining how he applied what he learned from the course in making this decision:

So generally I do just rule [store cards] straight out but knowing how they work and knowing that I can ring up tomorrow and I can pay it off my credit card bill there and then without worrying about it, I made that choice knowing that I could do it, whereas I didn’t know before. Before I wouldn’t have done it because I wouldn’t have known I could ring up tomorrow and pay it off and cancel it which is what I intend to do.

The excerpt implies empowerment in the expressions of agency in reformulating the knowledge presented in the course in the context of his personal financial practices.

Another way we interpreted empowerment from expressions of perceived self-efficacy was in students’ claims of knowing how to ‘stay above’ debt. As Ahmed noted:

obviously I know what kind of debt you can get into with credit cards and stuff like that … we’ve been taught like to read, you know, thoroughly and all that before we actually, you know, make our decisions and obviously to read it doesn’t cost us so obviously I know what to do to come above it.

Entailed by his statement is a financial world that can trap you in debt if you don’t read documents thoroughly. These expressions of self as financially capable were sometimes grounded in personal experience, such as when Helen told us, ‘Well I don’t like being in debt because like with my family being in debt before it wasn’t pleasant.’ However, she also noted that the course informed her about ways to avoid debt: ‘Well when we were doing the pensions last year that’s made me think well I can’t start pensions say when I’m 25 or something because I might not have enough money. I need to start it as soon as possible so I have enough money for the future.’

A form of empowerment also enabled by consumer awareness was expressed in terms of having voice in matters of finance. For example, Helen in Year 2 said:

It’s also given me a chance to like offer some advice to my mum and dad and family with their money because like I know more financial products and what happens like if something goes wrong, who to see when it comes to money, like going to the ombudsman and stuff like that, which I didn’t know before but now I do.

Thus, even if the students were not in a position to engage in personal financial practices, they expressed confidence in relation to personal financial decisions based on their status now as informed consumers. However, common across all of these forms of empowerment was a subject position of a cautious and frugal consumer.

The student who knew about investing could evoke a subject position as a different kind of consumer – an entrepreneur. For example, Peter expressed his knowledge of products as well as principles of risk taking which underpinned his investing practices:

think I’ve learnt about investment companies and ways to … more riskier ways to invest your money like investment companies and, you know, I knew what shares were but how to do that and like the first 100 and such like. I mean I think that’s – The course has helped in that respect, but I haven’t got any money to invest so …

What makes this cultural model distinct is the kind of consumer it assumes – not a cautious consumer but rather a consumer who takes risks with an eye to getting something better for their money in the future, and not someone who buys products for direct use (and need) but rather considers purchases as a form of investment. Empowerment emerges from this cultural model due to the sense of self-actualization with regards to their personal finances implied. As the term entrepreneur suggests, this cultural model was often expressed by students who wanted to enter business or finance careers or had income to invest from their family. For example, Salima commented that the course made her more aware of things she had not learned in her business courses:

stuff like current accounts and stuff where you know you could earn, you could earn interest and stuff and I’ve learned quite a lot about banks and building societies … I was aware that, you know, you could save money and stuff but I wasn’t really aware what the whole thing was about and investing. I got one or two investing. Because I do business as a course I was a bit aware, but I wasn’t fully really informed.

The perspective on empowerment implied here aligns with the notion of power that is enabled by wealth, a commonly accepted source of power (Galbraith, 1983). All of the forms of empowerment discussed so far are individualized accounts of financial practices. We turn next to another more critical (and atypical) perspective on empowerment that engaged with broader societal and economic conditions.

Critical knowledge and another perspective on empowerment

An alternative form of empowerment that we identified in our data seemed to build on a form of critical knowledge and was not based on the principles or product knowledge we have described above. In fact, it is because this kind of knowledge was such an anomaly that we consider it important to explore. The subject talk that diverged from the typical consumer talk emerged in response to a question we asked all students in the 22-month follow-up interview: ‘Can you tell me, what meaning does money have for you?’ In his response, Carl struggled with this, as did many students, prefacing his response with, ‘I find it hard to put it into words. It’s like …, I’m stuck on that.’ While most students responded with references to knowing the value of money and spending less, Carl attempted to ‘find the words’ and reflected on money as follows:

So if, say, I don’t know, like, say the poorest people in the country and the richest, they both go down because, if inflation goes down, they both go down. You’re not … I really can’t get words out … Yeah. It’s the way countries like, like America’s got like loads because they’re one of the richest countries and they just … it’s, it might be because they’ve got a lot of people there, I don’t know. I haven’t really thought into it … There’s that, and then there’s loads of different things coming out of it like personal money … like ‘personal’ is to just live rather than buy things. And then there’s like, businesses and stuff who use money to like, run the businesses and buy stock and … There’s loads of stuff. It all goes up to, like, the whole country, when it’s all got … people buy stuff from businesses. The businesses buy stuff from, like, bigger businesses and then that goes, like, into the country eventually.

In his response, Carl presents a cultural model of finance that considers a systemic view of finance, connecting ‘money’ to personal choices, but also to businesses and national economies. He distinguishes ‘needs’ from ‘wants’ in his reference to the ‘personal’ aspect of money, but does not take this to be the only aspect of money. We selected this quote because Carl shows awareness of layers of finance, from the personal to the global economy. In this quote, Carl evokes a cultural model that differs from the others in that he is not limiting his understanding to consumer practices. Rather, he is commenting on financial systems. This cultural model of finance, which portrays a systemic view, also suggests a different subject position to that of a consumer. His reflections betray a curiosity for why ‘countries like America’ are ‘one of the richest countries’ and the ways rich and poor countries are linked to a global economy.

The discourse example provided by Carl represented a qualitatively different subject position and we have characterized this difference in terms of the knowledge or cultural model evoked. We argue that critical cultural models are distinct in that they afford multiple and diverse subject positions and also acknowledge systemic features of finance. Access to these types of cultural models, as metacognitive and meta-practice reflections, offer a re-positioning of the individual-as-consumer within the context of broader social relations. That is, Carl positioned himself as a consumer who is aware of perspectives that are afforded by those positioned in the system in ways other than as consumer. Although not necessarily critical of inequalities in financial systems, this shift in subject position opens up possibilities for empowerment in the form of critical literacy (Freire, 1993).

Discussion

Financial education, like all types of education, is about empowering individuals so that they are better equipped to analyze diverse (in this case, financial) options and to take actions that further their goals. (Miller et al., 2009: 2)

The above quote comes from a recent World Bank report in which the authors present the aims of financial capability education in developing countries. The notion of ‘empowerment’ expressed by these authors aligns with the form of empowerment we heard expressed by most of our sample. The kind of knowledge considered necessary for developing greater financial capability, as expressed in the World Bank report and others (Jump$tart Coalition, 2008; OECD, 2005), tends to place emphasis on product information, appreciation for risks, awareness of terms and conditions, and knowing where to go for help. All this knowledge, and the dominant cultural models we also heard expressed by students in the optional financial studies course in the UK, position the learner as a consumer. While this kind of knowledge did afford students greater confidence and empowerment in terms of having a voice and agency in financial decision-making and supported self-actualizing engagement in various financial practices (or intentions for future practices), the consumer subject position sets boundaries on what counts as financial capability in ways that limit the potential for empowerment. The form of empowerment implied is highly individualized and hence misses a potentially valuable link between personal finance and citizenship. In order to examine these possibilities for empowerment, we have delineated different forms of knowledge or cultural models of personal finance. We found that Young’s (2008) conceptualization of curricular knowledge helped to distinguish types of financial capability knowledge in terms of: knowledge of the powerful, powerful knowledge and critical knowledge.

Firstly, Young’s (2008) notion of knowledge of the powerful encompasses students’ talk about knowing the different financial products available. We found students talked about applying this knowledge to inform practices and ways of being financially capable. However, reports of shifts in practices typically were not just associated with this kind of informational knowledge, but combined with more principled knowledge. Young (2008) refers to this type of more theoretical and abstract knowledge that can be applied to new contexts as powerful knowledge. Thus, in addition to the more specific, procedural knowledge typified by the knowledge of the powerful, we also identified a second type of abstract powerful knowledge in students’ talk about financial capability. Powerful knowledge included principles about planning ahead and exploring their options and needs before deciding on a product.

The combination of powerful knowledge and knowledge of the powerful afforded students’ empowered subject positions as savvy consumers, as individuals who stay out of debt, or as future investors and entrepreneurs. The combined knowledge allowed for informed choices and decisions with regards to their (and in some instances, their family’s or friends’) personal finances. However, it became clear that further conceptual distinctions were needed in order to capture another quality of powerful knowledge as defined by Young:

Powerful knowledge provides more reliable explanations and new ways of thinking about the world and acquiring it and can provide learners with a language for engaging in political, moral, and other kinds of debates. (2008: 14)

Although we noted that students did talk about applying knowledge in new ways of thinking, references to political and moral debates were atypical.

For analytic purposes, we propose a third type of knowledge – critical knowledge. We refer to critical pedagogy literature (Freire, 1993; Luke and Gore, 1992) in order to define the third type, which captures the kind of political and moral engagement that Young attributes to powerful knowledge. Critical knowledge encompasses knowledge of the ruling class and also principles, but implies a more extensive range of knowledge than what is entailed by the other two types. That is, this type of knowledge goes beyond the boundaries of what is typically defined as legitimately part of the domain. More specifically, in this study, we found that the boundaries of personal financial knowledge were typically defined by consumer practices. Students who diverged from this were those who talked about financial practices at a state or institutional level. This form of knowledge – critical knowledge – also implies another form of empowerment, distinguished by its underlying cultural model of power. While the cultural model of power entailed by dominant discourse, and this course, is ‘a view of power as “power over” institutions and resources to make things happen’ (Parpart et al., 2003: 7), critical knowledge entails a cultural model of power that encompasses this view but also considers power in terms of control over ideologies (Van Dijk, 1998). Rather than aiming to support students in exerting power over personal finances, this form of empowerment means supporting them in questioning who has power over others.

The importance of this critical perspective has been noted by Gee (1996), who argued that, although students are well served by the ‘culture of power’ (Delpit, 1988), there is a danger in the internalization of those rules if this precludes explicit examination of and critical reflection on those rules or norms. Such a critical perspective requires a meta-awareness and critique of the goals, values and norms entailed by the rules and/or cultural models which construct what is normal or expected. Critical knowledge and practices problematize social structures and practices (Lankshear and McLaren, 1993: 367). For this critical perspective to be achieved, students would need to ‘gain a tapestry’ (Gee, 1996: 280) of connected knowledge, beliefs and ideas.

We recognize that cultural models of personal finance expressed by these students did not problematize the ways financial and economic systems structure possibilities in and expectations for personal financial management among individual citizens. However, our analysis of the ways students made sense of personal finance reveals the current boundaries of financial capability education and offers insights into cracks in those boundaries where critical education is possible. Specifically, critical knowledge of personal finance affords the reconfiguring of ideological meaning systems, and hence, ultimately, the ways young people will engage with the world of finance. A key feature of the cultural model of personal finance as critical knowledge is the implied subject position which went beyond the consumer position to consider an observer-of-the-system position.

We argue that while confidence or even perceived self-efficacy and applications of context-independent knowledge (Young, 2008) are essential for learning the ‘culture of power’ (Delpit, 1988) and being able to translate that knowledge into practices these are not sufficient for critical empowerment. Rather, an empowered self-position is one that allows for critical, metacognitive awareness as well as self-reflection. Reflections on the self as a citizen are afforded by cultural models of personal finance which present the financial world beyond consumer practices to include knowledge of ideologies, the practices of financial institutions and world economies, and broader individual goals and aspirations. Such cultural models offer potential starting points for critical deconstruction of ideological constructs, such as those which dichotomize public and private financial interests (Farnsworth, forthcoming).

The basis of our argument is that power (and empowerment) is distinctly connected to knowledge. Our aim has been to provide an analysis of knowledge that can inform a dialogue about what constitutes financial capability education and the place of empowerment in the curricula (Agnello and Lucey, in press). We propose that such a dialogue begins with knowledge and the subject positions afforded by cultural models. We also offer the notion of critical empowerment as a form of empowerment that draws upon knowledge about financial and economic systems, in particular on knowledge about how these systems are shaped by ideologies and practices of states and institutions. This perspective on empowerment does not contradict notions of empowerment as power over the self in the construction of the self and knowledge (Harding, 2004), but suggests that the knowledge (and the implied subject positions) considered to be of most worth need to be re-considered (Apple, 1991). Moreover, it suggests that the domain of financial capability education is currently limited by an individualistic and consumer-oriented focus. Our concern is similar to that which Faulks (2007) raised in regard to citizenship education – a concern for ‘the neglect of an ethic of interdependent care’ (p. 131). A systemic view of financial practices perhaps needs to be encompassed within the boundaries of the domain of financial capability in order to enable financial empowerment among a diverse citizenship.

Conclusion

The analysis presented a range of cultural models which young people may draw upon in constructing their personal financial management identities as ways of being financially capable. These cultural models were the expressed (implied or explicit) storylines about ways of knowing and doing personal finance and being financially capable. Students taking a financial capability course reported on ways that the knowledge gained from the course included greater product awareness and changes in personal financial management practices. From this analysis, we identified a relationship between knowledge and confidence – students’ expressed confidence was justified by the application of newly gained knowledge. We also identified a relationship between knowledge and empowerment such that different forms of knowledge informed different ways of being empowered – by having a voice, feeling self-efficacious to solve problems creatively, or envisioning oneself in a financially powerful position.

The analysis provided insight into the boundaries of knowledge assumed by this curriculum and informed our interpretations of empowerment as it was implied in the ways students talked about learning from the course. The dominant forms of knowledge entailed in this course (product awareness and personal financial management principles) afforded a form of empowerment that implied confidence, agency and self-actualization. This form of empowerment, however, was considered different from empowerment afforded by another type of knowledge – critical knowledge. Drawing on socio-cultural theories of knowing (Freire, 1993; Gee, 1996), we defined critical knowledge (grounded in interview data) as the complex cultural models which viewed the ‘figured world’ (Holland et al., 2001) of personal finance from multiple subject positions. Carl’s cultural model of personal finance moved beyond the individual to consider practices of nations and financial industries, positioning himself in relation to the object-drive activities of economic systems.

In exploring the boundaries of financial capability, we have been drawn to the question: Is there a relationship between personal finance and financial systems, and even economic systems, which suggests that knowledge of these systems should be part of the curriculum? Carl suggests there is a relationship. For Carl, money was something that circulated in global economies, not just something you spent on life’s essential items, although this was part of his view. Although Carl did not detail ways in which this perspective informed his financial practices, there is a potential for linking personal financial decisions to global economies and inflation. For example, he may decide how to spend his money based on who (or what nation) would most (or least) benefit. This, we argue, offers a more critical perspective on personal finance – one that takes into account the broader social, political and moral implications of individual actions. It also means he can engage in civic discussions about economies and economic systems. This offers another form of critical engagement through having a voice in cultural and economic decisions (Davies, 2006) and knowledge production.

This analysis suggests that certain cultural models of personal finance offer potential for critical empowerment because of the multiple subject position they entail. Including such critical knowledge in personal finance curricula can re-position the individual student from consumer to critical participant in financial systems. Such a subject position creates a space for young people to be engaged not only on a consumer level, but also at the level of citizenship and democratic participation in financial practices and policies. One implication of this research is then that educators could expand the boundaries of financial capability curricula to include critical knowledge – knowledge of businesses and economies as dynamic systems of relations. Notably, consumer-oriented forms of knowledge and empowerment would not need to be thrown out with the bath water. We found that a sense of empowerment was afforded through expressions of the knowledge of the powerful and powerful knowledge (Young, 2008) in terms of consumer practices, individual choice and confidence to act and participate in personal finance. Building such confidence may be a necessary part of developing critically aware individuals, particularly among young people who are not fully accepted as contributors to the economy (or knowledge production). What Carl’s interview shows us is that a more comprehensive cultural model can be made relevant to young people, inspiring a curiosity for the study of economics. Our contribution to the debate over the boundaries of a personal financial management curriculum is this: more complex cultural understandings of financial systems should be included, and access to this type of critical knowledge should not be restricted to those with career aspirations in finance or business, but should be considered part of the knowledge required for informed citizenship.