What do the school subjects geography, history, chemistry, physics, biology, religion or philosophy, as well as physical education, have in common? For each subject, a higher number of teaching hours is allocated in each federal state compared to economic education, as evidenced by a comparison in high schools up to the tenth grade. Unfortunately, topics such as the functions of money, risk management, or financial products are frequently absent from the curricula in various school forms. A study conducted over two years ago revealed that in Berlin and Rhineland-Palatinate, in particular, such topics practically do not play a role in the corresponding school subject. Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, and Lower Saxony, with some concessions, give slightly more weight to economic education, with some other federal states following suit.

There are valid arguments made by many advocates calling for more financial and economic education in schools. The Hamburg Institute for Financial Services (IFF), which is associated with debt counseling centers, the Flossbach von Storch Foundation in Cologne, that was founded by Bert Flossbach and Kurt von Storch of the eponymous fund company, as well as numerous educational scientists endorsing an expansion of school education, are among them. The reasoning is clear: A basic understanding of finances is crucial for financial independence, avoiding over-indebtedness, and planning for retirement. The more people achieve this, the better for everyone. Consumer protection, aimed at balancing the information advantage of financial product providers, is hardly conceivable without an enlightened customer base. Moreover, finances play a role in many professions.

However, financial literacy in Germany is better than many believe, comparing favorably to other countries. In the latest study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Germany even ranks first. Adults in Germany are comparatively proficient in understanding concepts like inflation, risk diversification, interest, and compound interest, and they often exhibit healthy financial behavior by saving regularly, paying bills on time, and rarely financing everyday expenses on credit. Nevertheless, deficits persist even in the country of poets and thinkers: Many people still struggle with simple financial questions, millions are in debt, and participation in the capital market can still be increased. Solid financial knowledge can be part of the solution.

Instructional time is obviously limited. Thus, any new educational mandate comes at the expense of other subject matters. Some goals rightly take precedence: Reading, writing, and arithmetic are fundamental skills that shockingly many students barely master. But economic education should be placed on an equal footing with subjects such as natural sciences, history, philosophy, art, music, and sports.

It is worthwhile to scrutinize the curricula: Are economics and finance less important than every Goethe poem, biblical parable, art project, or gym activity? A cautious reduction should be possible without abandoning entire subjects. Whether finance and economics exist as a standalone subject, are connected to career orientation, or become a focus in subjects like politics and social studies is secondary. The crucial point is that economic education appears more frequently on curricula.

Unfortunately, even proponents sometimes find it challenging to demand a greater emphasis on curricula and teacher training. The federal government, in its key paper on financial education, does not mention the role of schools. Federal Minister of Education Bettina Stark-Watzinger and Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner (both FDP) have committed to the issue but hesitate to interfere in the sovereignty of federal states. This is politically understandable, but someone has to speak up nationwide as well. Economic education is important everywhere, regardless of the federal state.