Social Justice and the Gender Politics of Financial Literacy Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, financial literacy education received increased political attention worldwide as an important policy solution to achieve a variety of ends. Cloaked in the neo-liberal language of value-neutrality, financial literacy education presumes that individuals on a level playing field become "responsible" and "empowered,” motivated and competent to make financial decisions if given certain tacit knowledge. Through its naïveté, this type of financial literacy discourse perpetuates the false impression that choices, decisions and outcomes are the same for all. In this article, we describe the gender politics of contemporary financial literacy discourse, and analyze how it fails to explore women’s experiences in financial arenas by analyzing three popular Canadian financial literacy education curriculum resources designed for use in K-12 classrooms. We describe how these resources fail to acknowledge gender injustice by presenting content through discourses of “choice” and “value neutrality” that fail to critically examine the underlying assumptions crucial to social justice. By ignoring equity issues, these resources perpetuate inequity and marginalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".