# Teaching Financial Management to our kids



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

Here is a great example of how schools can make financial literacy easier for young people. It is put together by the Government of Canada and as a teacher I am going to implement it in my high school. Not too user friendly for the older generation but if you have teens at home it is worth taking a look at. Try registering on as a student to take a look at how well it's put together.
It is called THE CITY and you can access it at www.themoneybelt.gc.ca


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Thanks for the post. Question is, how do you get them to "want" to do it?


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I personally feel that schools and parents need to do more to teach their children how to save and manage money. I support any efforts that steer us in that direction and question why this wasn't started decades ago. 

I took a quick glance at the link above and didn't find it very intuitive, but I didn't spend much time there either.

The uphill battle is twofold. Parents of children being born today tend not to be the best money managers as evidenced by the threads we've seen here and the records amount of debt being carried by this generation. What kind of message does that send to our children? Secondly, our entire society seems to be driven by advertising and consumption of goods. Especially electronic goods. Everyone has to have every type of electronic device that comes out. Putting aside the serious environmental impact of this, they are marketing this stuff to children earlier and earlier all the time. Their parents are also hooked up into all this cr-p. What hope and motivation is there for kids to manage money when it's so much more fun to spend every cent they have + rack up debt, as their parents have done? These are very powerful forces for any educational program to teach children to resist.

I'm not overly confident about our ability to teach these valuable concepts but I definitely support and agree with any efforts to start teaching money concepts at a much earlier age than ever before.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

> I personally feel that schools and parents need to do more to teach their children how to save and manage money. I support any efforts that steer us in that direction and question why this wasn't started decades ago.


 To remind you.... my mother (I am 69) showed me her high school home economics text book. It had mortgage/annuity, sinking fund and present value tables ( 100+ pages) They were required to do calculations/lookups which enabled them to determine some pretty useful stuff such as.... "you are 35, you have $5000 saved, you earn $15000 and plan to retire at 65. What should you be saving every year, how large will your saving be at retirement, and what kind of retirement income would you expect?"

Granted, inflation was disregarded, likewise taxes, and I don't think OAS/CPP was around back in the early 30s... but remember this was a (girl's) home ec class fercrissakes, computers/calculators didn't exist then!


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> ...I'm not overly confident about our ability to teach these valuable concepts but I definitely support and agree with any efforts to start teaching money concepts at a much earlier age than ever before.


I am pretty confident that many of the financial habits are like other habits - a combination of environment and heredity. Making it a mandatory subject in school might just confirm it as something to avoid.

The teaching of "home ec" was based on the assumption that the woman was at home. Did Steve invent RRIFmetic because his mom was taught "home ec"?


----------



## spirit (May 9, 2009)

*Be careful of stereotypes*

It seems that the latest rant is against babyboomers and how they ruined the economy for the younger generation. I am a babyboomer. I am also a child of immigrants. When the media of the 60's was portraying all teenagers as drug addicted dropouts I was waiting tables and putting myself through university. Along with many of my friends. I hopefully passed on my frugality to my kids. They graduated without debt and have made good decisions regarding careers and homeownership. Look at your own kids and grandkids. Or nieces and nephews. Are they good kids? I'll bet most of them are. I work with high school students. Many of them are great kids who know the value of working hard. Will they make mistakes. Absolutely. Will they learn from them. Probably. Just like us. For every news story of some idiot who borrowed too much money there are many who were careful and lived BTM. This is the attitude I have in my classroom with my students. No one is hyping product only providing them with information which many of them know is given with no ulterior motive. Giving them marks for their work doesn't hurt.


----------



## petulantfem (Dec 13, 2010)

I definitely would have benefited from some money management classes in high school, though I'm not sure how seriously I would have taken it at the time. I worry about my kids growing up and getting into financial trouble, because I did - and not because my parents taught me bad habits. My parents are great with their money, paid off their mortgage in 5 years and very rarely carry any kind of debt. They have a considerable nest-egg, despite raising and putting 7 children through post-secondary education.

But they also never talked to me about money, saving, interest and debt, and long term ramifications of financial decisions. I don't know if they just assumed that I would handle money like they did? Though it probably would have been in one ear and out the other back then; I was that kind of teenager. 

Anyway, I wasn't a bad kid but I was clueless about money. I always had it in my head that I would pay for things I bought in the present at some obscure, "later" date, when I "had money" ... ie, payday - though I never took into consideration that all of that pay would already be alloted elsewhere.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

A new post on an old thread:
Financial literacy classes welcomed in schools, experts suggests courses start sooner

_While numerous resources exist to help teachers incorporate financial literacy into their lesson plans, they generally have not formed a mandatory part of most high school curriculums.
That will change in Ontario next month as an overhauled Career Studies course rolls out in the province's high schools. The new course outlinefor the mandatory Grade 10 class contains an explicit focus on financial literacy and says students will be asked to develop a budget for their first year after graduation._


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The big problem I see is that most teachers have no clue as to a financial education. My kids had to do the budget exercise, but they had to include things like the entire cost of a car, not financing. They also did a stock investment section, the one with the highest returns in 3 months got the best marks. Way to teach gambling, not investing. One of the teachers didn’t even know how a mortgage works and she has one. 

Having an average teacher teach finances and investing is like having them teach brain surgery. They could do it, but I wouldn’t trust what they produced. I told my kids to ignore everything they said in that class. They knew more about the subject, having grown up in the environment than most adults.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Your kids are an exception though JAG. Kids without that support at home (or indebted, spendthrift parents as role models) deserve some basics. There are certainly teachers who shouldn't teach financial literacy (or French, or history, etc), but there are also competent teachers who I expect would gravitate towards teaching it. That is up to the principal and effective deployment of school resources, incl staff. Some schools are better at that than others. An engaged parent council (not just engaged in fund raising) can help.
Anyway, I'm glad to see some focus on it again in schools.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

That’s my point, most people don’t know enough to develop a curriculum, let alone teach it. Sag to say there are way more Sags like people out there who seek jobs than people who can understand financial matters.


----------



## Freedomeer (Jan 3, 2018)

I have several teachers in my family. They are the last people I would want teaching financial literacy. Use Visa to get the points, but don't pay it off in full....doh! Cause those points are so valuable compared to the 19% interest.

I think it needs to be a more open topic at home. People don't seem to discuss money matters with their kids. Parents shouldn't expect to offload all of their kid's learning to the school system. 

My parents never made over 40k for most their careers. No problem becoming millionaires because they were able to say a very important word..."No". That is something they taught me. My siblings on the other hand seem to have different genes.

As someone mentioned above, it do also think genetics has something to do with a saving. Me and my cousin are wired the same way vs a lot of my family can't seem to look to the future.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Money and investing are boring subjects. Face it, people would rather spend it than learn how to earn it. Look at how many people on this board alone don’t want to do the work required to earn it.

With my kids, we always talked about money and investing. When we went shopping we looked at prices, but related it to the amoung of product you got, not just the sticker price (Hey, this bag is on sale for $1.99 for 100g, but this bigger bag (200g) isn’t on sale for $2.99...buy the one not on sale). When I was looking for properties, I’d sometimes take the kids with me to look (they were thrilled...not). When we bought clothes, we’d always start in the clearance section, never forced to buy anything, just the place we started. When they wanted something we discussed the practicality of it (I told the story of my kid who wanted a nerf gun that used different bullets than what we already had). I’d discuss clients in my business, especially problem ones and how I had managed them...my kids often rolled their eyes at me growing up.

They never got an allowance, they got a vending machine and very little guidance, they had to figure it out for themselves how to run it as a business, but they also were slightly spoiled and they knew it. They never feel entitled to anything, that was very clear from the beginning and with rewards comes responsibility (My kids always carried their own sports equipment even at a young age (I was carrying their siblings usually) and weren’t allowed to complain about getting up for early practices (It’s not my sport and I too had to get up, if they complained, I could easily end the sports). Housework and chores are part of being in a family. The fridge doesn’t stock itself, dishes and clothes don’t wash themselves and no one is going to pay you to do it in the future, so don’t expect payment now. 

Funny thing is, it sunk in. Not only that but, despite the fact that they still roll their eyes at some stories, they actually appreciate the lessons they’ve learned. They are frugal, but not cheap. They appreciate quality, they will buy “toys” (disposable, junk stuff that can bring short term pleasure), but usually only when on sale. They know a good price from a bad one, they know how to run a business, and they have an excellent work ethic.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Funny thing my math teacher in HS was very financially literate, she was also staunchly anti-union.

Honestly my fear with teachers creating a financial literacy program is that it would get hijacked by political advocates, rather than be true financial literacy.

Look at Ontario, the teachers are outraged that they'd have to pass a basic grade 6 math test.
"The test will have two sections. Around 70 percent of the testing will cover basic math such as fractions and percentages, the Globe and Mail reports. The other 30 percent will be an evaluation of their teaching methods that they use in the classroom. Teachers will need a mark of 70% or higher in each section in order to pass. "

The counter opinions talk about quadratic equations and calculus not helping in kindergarten.
They teach fractions in Grade 1, I can't understand any argument that a teacher shouldn't be able to pass a test on fractions and percentages.

Now I have a question, if the unions position is teachers are scared they'll lose their job, because they are unable to perform basic math, do you really expect them to be able to explain how a loan works?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> Funny thing my math teacher in HS was very financially literate, she was also staunchly anti-union.


Where was that? Seems to me that many - if not all - Canadian provinces, have had teachers' unions since the dawn of time. They don't always call them that. Some are called teachers' "federations" and other euphemisms, but they are unions just the same. So, in many places, one could not be a teacher, yet be "staunchly anti-union". Bit of an oxymoron.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’ve got a kid going into grade 5 this year. They aren’t happy with their abilities in math. They are really getting into buying houses for some strange reason (grabbed a book off my shelf about flipping houses and started reading it without any encouragement, maybe because of their older brother buying his place), but feels they don’t know enough math.

Yesterday we went into McDonald’s to get a drink (their treat since we are on “vacation”). My kid went up to the till and gave the guy exact change including tax for the drinks. He gave my kid back some change. My kid couldn’t understand how, even with a till, he couldn’t do the math (my kid calculated the tax in their head, not that it was hard). Calculating tax in our head is a routine exercise when shopping.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> Where was that? Seems to me that many - if not all - Canadian provinces, have had teachers' unions since the dawn of time. They don't always call them that. Some are called teachers' "federations" and other euphemisms, but they are unions just the same. So, in many places, one could not be a teacher, yet be "staunchly anti-union". Bit of an oxymoron.



Not really, I was in a union as a kid, I’m anti-union. I didn’t get a choice to join or not, it was forced on me, just like they forcibly took union dues right out of my paycheque. I heard there was a option to donate your dues to charity if you didn’t agree, but my union refused to elaborate on that option.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It was my observation that when a union workforce has a small number of "anti-union" people, they happily accept the wages and benefits the union negotiate.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Not really, I was in a union as a kid, I’m anti-union. I didn’t get a choice to join or not, it was forced on me, just like they forcibly took union dues right out of my paycheque. I heard there was a option to donate your dues to charity if you didn’t agree, but my union refused to elaborate on that option.


Yes, I understand the point about being forced to join. I was in a union once working a summer job in Toronto as a high school student. But it's one thing to bite the bullet as a kid and tolerate temporary union membership, and quite another to be a supposedly mature, thinking adult, who professes to be anti-union, while spending long years snout down in the union trough. The term "hypocrite" comes to mind in such case.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

sags said:


> It was my observation that when a union workforce has a small number of "anti-union" people, they happily accept the wages and benefits the union negotiate.


A buddy of mine went into a sales job at Telus and had to join the union. He was unhappy about it but went along because he liked the work. Joining a union is like joining a company. You have to accept their rules.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When I was involved with the union, I had some people ask if they were required to join or could opt out.

At that time, my answer was that they were allowed to donate their monthly dues to a recognized charity, but they still had to remain members and the union had to represent them regardless if they paid dues or not. I don't know if the laws have changed since then.

I also counselled them that if they found out, other members may not be happy and consider them as "freeloaders" on the dues they pay each month.

As a union rep it wouldn't be me who revealed the information as I knew enough not to invite those kinds of problems onto my own head.

Personally, I would advise people to find work with a non-union employer if they don't want to join a union.

The dilemma is the union workplace may be attractive to the employees in the first place due to the negotiated wages and benefits that are in place.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> Personally, I would advise people to find work with a non-union employer if they don't want to join a union.
> 
> The dilemma is the union workplace may be attractive to the employees in the first place due to the negotiated wages and benefits that are in place.


True on both counts. But if you elect to jump on board, better to shut up with the anti-union sentiment. You have then sold out and it's simply nonsense to profess to be staunchly anti-union.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In manufacturing there is a noticeable difference in wages between union and non-union workforces, but it the construction industry where there is a huge difference.

The big unionized companies get all the big jobs and government work and pay twice the salary of non-union companies.

When people talk of jobs in the trades.........I think they best find one in a union environment if they want the wages that are often bandied about.

Those estimated wages tend to be based on union scale wages, so they are a little deceiving.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> True on both counts. But if you elect to jump on board, better to shut up with the anti-union sentiment. You have then sold out and it's simply nonsense to profess to be staunchly anti-union.


Absolutely, ....that would be my advice.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> Yes, I understand the point about being forced to join. I was in a union once working a summer job in Toronto as a high school student. But it's one thing to bite the bullet as a kid and tolerate temporary union membership, and quite another to be a supposedly mature, thinking adult, who professes to be anti-union, while spending long years snout down in the union trough. The term "hypocrite" comes to mind in such case.


I don’t recall any job postings saying it was a union position. When I applied for a job, I applied to a company, not a union. What was worse, the union I got into was corrupt and took a big bribe to lock in low wages for several years. My supervisor was the guy who led the group who kicked out the union and replace them (guess he didn’t learn his lesson with the first union).

We had no choices but to join a union, you have no choices but to pay the union dues, we had no say in the negotiations they did, nor any choice in getting “screwed” (my supervisor’s opinion, not mine) by the union. I was there for the job. Oh and they were locked into a bad contract for a long time thanks to the bribe, even the new union couldn’t fix that, not that I’m sure they even tried.

Fortunately, I didn’t have to suffer through a long life as a union employee. I still kind of feel bad for my supervisor who worked there for years before I got hired and, as far as I know, worked there long after I left.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Unions are democratic bodies.

Everyone votes on everything from leaders to negotiating platform to contract ratification, to spending the money to defend a union member in a work related matter.

As in all democracies, everyone doesn't get everything they want, but if enough members are in agreement they have influence and can make changes.

Pretty well all unions hold monthly membership meetings at the local level. If people want to make changes they can attend those and propose changes.

If there is no benefit to union membership, I doubt they would exist very long.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> I don’t recall any job postings saying it was a union position. When I applied for a job, I applied to a company, not a union.


My situation was the same. I was 16. What did I know about unions? I only started to learn when I saw union dues deducted from my first paycheque.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

i suppose the difference is, I’m not afraid to negotiate my own salary, been doing it most of my life with every contract. I’m also not afraid to walk away if I don’t feel like I’m paid enough. Difference between being competent, and thus valued for your abilities and being incompetent and needing union protection to keep you earning money though tricks like seniority.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Who would you negotiate your salary with ? 

In a company of any size, you would never get close enough to a decision maker to wave at them as they drive by.

If you are working for Omar the tent maker, you probably could go talk to Omar about a raise.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Mukhang pera said:


> Where was that? Seems to me that many - if not all - Canadian provinces, have had teachers' unions since the dawn of time. They don't always call them that. Some are called teachers' "federations" and other euphemisms, but they are unions just the same. So, in many places, one could not be a teacher, yet be "staunchly anti-union". Bit of an oxymoron.


Ontario.
The teachers union here is incredibly political, and they don't really care about the teachers, and definitely don't give 2 *** about the kids.
I had teachers that really cared, they ran multiple activities, stayed late, or worked through lunch to help kids.
The unions have often banned or discouraged such practices.

Teachers who care, don't like the anti-student attacks being directed by their union "leaders".


To bad we don't have freedom of association in Canada.
Specifically, you should not be forced to join a particular political activist group to get a government job.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You want all the benefits of wages, benefits, seniority rights and advocacy of a unionized workplace, without the union part ?

Teacher unions don't run the schools. There is a hierarchy of governments and school administrators that do that.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’ve done some teaching over the years at local colleges and university. Fortunately i didn’t have to join the union as I only taught a few specialty courses. It’s not an easy job. I had to really work on figuring out how to get the information across. The problem isn’t just knowing the information, or knowing how to teach, it’s figuring out the students as well. Many of them are so indoctrinated into the education system that they just try to figure out what they need to regurgitate to pass the test without understanding the material. Even if they are interested, you need to figure out how they learn, some people learn by listening, some need visual, some need tactile, some need engagement. Finally, they need to understand the concepts as opposed to the specifics, so that they can apply what you’ve taught to a wider area.

Most professional teachers I’ve met don’t bother to deal with these issues, that’s why the students are almost zombies by the time they graduate. They’ve been trained to push a button, and not think. Good union employees.

One of the reasons I put my kids into different programs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> You want all the benefits of wages, benefits, seniority rights and advocacy of a unionized workplace, without the union part ?
> 
> Teacher unions don't run the schools. There is a hierarchy of governments and school administrators that do that.


I guess you've never had to work in a union shop.
Seniority rights? You should get more just because you've been there longer?
Nothing about performance, responsibility or your productivity. 

Advocacy? 
Sorry, politics belongs in political parties, not labour unions.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Wonder how non-union people get high wages, and benefits...I know merit usually ensures employment, but union folk wouldn’t know about that. I know plenty of non-union people pulling in higher wages than union ones...but they are probably just in my imagination.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Wonder how non-union people get high wages, and benefits...I know merit usually ensures employment, but union folk wouldn’t know about that. I know plenty of non-union people pulling in higher wages than union ones...but they are probably just in my imagination.


Good non union employers pay their staff as much as they can, while ensuring a healthy stable company.
Union employers are governments, which just hike taxes to make sure they get the union vote. They don't care about performance, efficiency, value etc.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

This thread makes some sweeping generalizations and does a disservice to the good teachers that do exist. If no one here has ever been taught, or had their children taught by one, you have my sympathy.

The children they teach are indeed our future, but if you have nothing supportive to say or do, that's your problem.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

teachers union in Chicago are trying to tax users using the exchange to fund their pensions. They do not seam to under stand when you use extortion they will simply leave & set up shop somewhere else.

The government is not efficient. Teachers get paid stat holidays only have 194 school days in Ontario. They do not have to be productive while being paid tax payers money. Most teachers have had no experience in how the real world works. If they are not worth their salt they are subsidized by the tax payer.

Teachers might be good @ teaching kids how to leach from the tax payer.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

lonewolf :) said:


> teachers union in Chicago are trying to tax users using the exchange to fund their pensions. They do not seam to under stand when you use extortion they will simply leave & set up shop somewhere else.
> 
> The government is not efficient. Teachers get paid stat holidays only have 194 school days in Ontario. They do not have to be productive while being paid tax payers money. Most teachers have had no experience in how the real world works. If they are not worth their salt they are subsidized by the tax payer.
> 
> Teachers might be good @ teaching kids how to leach from the tax payer.


That's the thing with government union monopolies, they know they don't have to perform.

That being said, I had excellent teachers, my kids have had good to excellent teachers. 
I know many people who are teachers, or who have teachers in their families.

They tend to be a bit self important and not realize that they have a difficult job, the non-teaching world is in many ways more difficult

Yes they get a nice long vacation, and good pay and benefits, I think that's why the situation with Ontario teachers is a bit better than other jurisdictions, it's a job people actually want.

That being said, some of the policies in education are a disaster.

They actually have these crazy point systems for "full time", so there are teachers who've been "part time", but teaching and working pretty much a full day. But if the school doesn't have the extra bit of budget, they'll sit there as a 0.8 teacher for years. Which is crazy.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> That's the thing with government union monopolies, they know they don't have to perform.
> 
> That being said, I had excellent teachers, my kids have had good to excellent teachers.
> I know many people who are teachers, or who have teachers in their families.


 It was not that long ago there were no good teachers in Canada. If there were good teachers they would have not aloud the teachers in the schools to smoke & take away some life & vitality away from students. The teachers that smoked in the schools were no better then Hitler & his gas chambers. The teachers that stood by & watched were they part of the problem or part of the solution ?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I know many good teachers who Have financial issues...they need a raise to survive. I don’t want them teaching my kids about finances. I, on the other hand, can afford to do any job I want, even if it doesn’t pay. Getting a union job is not financial advice.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I won't put teachers down as my kids have had some great teachers and not so good ones. Just like in any work there are good ones and bad ones. Some are good with their money some are bad. 

I have been really questioning whether anyone outside of myself can teach my kids about finances. There might be a couple here that I would trust, but what I am seeing is the information and materials out there isn't great. I think teachers or anyone could teach it if there was a good curriculum to follow. I have been involved with programs at the school, with banks, and companies that are supposed to specialize in teaching financial literacy with kids, and in extra-curricular groups, and I have to say I have been disappointed with at least one thing with each one. Maybe I am too picky, and something is better than nothing, but I find I have had to unteach my kids stuff that they learned.

Here are some examples:
- For math, kids where learning fractions. Where asked what they would do with $100K (or some number like that). My kid took 1/100 for some fun stuff now, 9/100 for general spending in the year 1/10 for charity and then the 80/100 was saved for future and invested. She got spoken too for not spending all of her money as the teacher thought she was taking a shortcut. Fortunately, my kid explained how she would use her save which was to invest in an in-trust account now, hoping to earn 5% a year, given her $4k to spend yearly, and then when she was old enough buying a rental apartment with the other part of the capital. Every other kid did the assignment 'right' and their fractions added to 100% spent. The teacher was great and took the time to ask my child her thinking, instead of giving her crap like a previous teacher. She just told me to continue on with my teaching as she couldn't change hers.
- Had an "investment' firm come speak to our girls for guides about budgeting and saving. It was pretty good as kids earned 'candy' that they could choose to spend/eat right away or wait and invest, make more candy. They had budget categories with choices for spending which great. Until, they scared that crap out of the kids by going into insurance and everyone should have whole insurance as the equities was too risky they would lose everything. If they weren't an insurance firm pushing their product I would have been fine. 
- At school, the kids got into teams to create invest portfolios for 3 months competing against other kids. The winners were the ones that had pure speculation from the news, and were gambling their investments. The whole activity taught kids to find the stocks with the biggest volatility and since it was only 3 months, go all in on one or two stocks. 
- Learning about budgeting, kids were given beans to divide into spend, save, charity. Then scenarios where brought up where they had to take money out of the various jars. However, kids had no choice if they wanted to spend or not. If they ran out of money, they were to go into their savings. The recommendations were 10% charity, 20% savings and 70% spending because things are expensive to live. All of the spending scenarios where discretionary like buying candy, going to out with friends, etc, no rents, food, or anything. So my child said she didn't see any use in those, but was told she had too. She commented that 20% is a low savings rate when you have parents that cover you needs. It should be closer to 50% if you want an early retirement. Nope, she was told that's just unrealistic. 


*sigh* I have more examples of programs teaching kids to be consumers but not thinking that much about the future. So, no I don't think it's just the teachers, I feel it is societal norms that are giving our kids the wrong message. I would say there is a small group of people that could teach our kids or help design the curriculum, but there would be a lot of push back on even the basics.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Plugging Along said:


> I won't put teachers down as my kids have had some great teachers and not so good ones. Just like in any work there are good ones and bad ones.


 Teachers will strike if they are not making enough money or getting enough benefits. Though I never have heard of teachers striking over their child abuse for teaching kids lies such as man made global warming. A prime example of what happens when you fill a child's with a junk heap of lies is Greta as is witnessed by her speech which shows has gone off the deep end.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

^ I think child abuse is more rampant in the home than at school.

I'm sure there a a few alarmist, enviro-nut teachers out there just like there are in any group (thunberg is a young alarmist, enviro-nut). But I think teachers largely teach to the curriculum so that is where criticism should fall.

Here is the Ontario Gr 1-8 Environmental Curriculum for your critique.

I think giving children an appreciation and connection to our natural world and the importance of environmental stewardship is important. There needs to be some balance to otherwise raising generations of entitled consumers.


----------

