Buying into Dominant Ideas About Wealth and Poverty: An Examination of U.S. and Canadian Financial Literacy Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In the wake of the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, calls for financial literacy education increased dramatically. In both the United States and Canada, the financial collapse and its aftermath saw a resurgence of personal finance programs and initiatives in schools. While financial literacy education continues to be introduced in U.S. and Canadian high schools through the implementation of financial literacy standards into social studies curricula, few studies have focused on the content and ideology of these standards. This study is the first to provide a systematic review of all available high school financial literacy standards across the United States and Canada. Purpose The purpose of this research was to render visible the hidden ideological underpinnings of financial literacy standards. Specifically, the study investigated what the discourse in the standards implied about individuals’ financial outcomes and what was made invisible about the ways in which people achieve or fail to achieve economic security and wealth. Research Design This study employed critical discourse and ideological analysis to examine state-sanctioned financial literacy standards from 43 high school social studies curriculum documents in the United States and Canada. Findings The analysis revealed that, overall, financial literacy standards framed financial wellbeing as a personal doing while neglecting to consider the broader social, economic, and political forces influencing financial outcomes. This research demonstrates how financial literacy discourses, rooted in ideologies of merit, often tell an incomplete story about the origins and determinants of both wealth and poverty. Conclusions The results from this study offer insight into how deficit thinking about economically marginalized individuals and groups continues to permeate educational discourse. In examining financial literacy standards in particular, this study contributes to existing research problematizing financial literacy initiatives and calling for more critical, inclusive, and nuanced approaches. This research also adds to scholarship unpacking the ideological assumptions embedded in state-mandated academic standards concerning wealth and poverty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".