NEFE K-12 Feedback & Eval v3

K-12 Financial Education Graduation Requirements

IMPLEMENTATION POSITION PAPER

Feedback and Evaluation

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

Background The National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) conducted multiple interviews with key stakeholders from states across the country at different stages of the implementation of legislation on financial education requirements. From these interviews, NEFE determined the top four challenges and opportunities states face when transitioning from the enactment of law to practice. These policy papers analyze the current issues, best practices, challenges and opportunities, and recommendations for improving the access, quality and impact of financial education implementation for all. These papers focus on a few examples of implementation and are not intended as a comprehensive review of all 26 states that have passed requirements as of the timing of this publication. This paper looks specifically at the issue of feedback and evaluation.

Introduction In NEFE’s Five Key Factors of Effective Financial Education, the fifth factor, evaluating impact, notes that data collection and touchpoints with teachers and students provide crucial insight into areas where the graduation requirement and course instruction can be improved.

1.

Collecting data/feedback from teachers/students on personal finance course BACK TO PART 1 A feedback loop of evaluation in perpetuity!

√16 = 4

2.

Analyze data/feedback from teachers/students for key findings

Adjust and improve existing programming accordingly

2

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

NEFE recognizes there are outstanding questions about the best ways to evaluate financial education intervention. Along with its partners in the financial education field, NEFE has dedicated time and resources to develop and validate evaluation tools. Regarding K-12 financial education graduation requirements, considering and implementing even the most basic evaluation is progress and provides a foundation for states to improve and validate their evaluation measures.

THIS PAPER explores challenges and opportunities with implementing evaluation tools, examines case studies of student and teacher evaluation at the state level, and reviews potential avenues for states to fund and facilitate evaluation efforts. By addressing concerns around student assessments specifically, states can conduct student evaluations without leading to a “teaching-to-the-test” approach. More information about designing this type of evaluation can be found in NEFE’s Financial Education Evaluation Toolkit.

Current State While many organizations that offer youth and adult financial education learning interventions have methods for collecting data on their work to fuel improvements, the majority of states that have passed K-12 financial education graduation requirements do not have evaluation measures in place to assess the effectiveness of the newly required course. At the end of 2024, of the 26 states that have passed these requirements, only three require students to take an end-of-course assessment of their personal finance knowledge. In addition to student assessment gaps, there is also a lack of teacher assessments for both knowledge and confidence. Both student and teacher evaluations provide crucial insights for administrators and practitioners, yet rarely are both present.

3

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

State Examples TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT In order to support teachers and ensure their training is adequately preparing them for success in the classroom, states have attempted to evaluate educators’ personal finance knowledge from professional development in various ways.

UTAH: The state graduation requirement to take General Financial Literacy (GFL) was in place for six years before Utah made two key adjustments via legislation. In 2014, the state passed Senate Bill 40, which implemented an endorsement required for teachers to teach the course and a new end-of-course assessment mandatory for all students. Using three years of data from this assessment, as well as surveys conducted with teachers and past graduates, Utah published a report through the state auditor’s office analyzing the first 10 years of the GFL requirement. Though not a landscape assessment by name, this report displays what such an assessment can look like for other states. This report details how teachers felt overwhelmed by the amount of financial education resources available. The state responded by creating a website of curated resources and lesson plans for teachers, illustrating how evaluation can help support educators.

NORTH CAROLINA: As part of the professional development courses run by the North Carolina Council on Economic Education (NCCEE) and prescribed by the state, teachers complete pre- and post-tests around their training. The NCCEE is now responsible for sending quarterly reports to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, per the state contract. Together these two initiatives mean the NCCEE will have consistent points of contact with teachers and will regularly report to the state on teacher preparedness and sentiment. These models demonstrate multiple ways states can gauge teacher sentiment and needs to improve the requirement for future students.

STUDENT KNOWLEDGE Evaluating student progress and knowledge is a crucial part of this evaluation work. While most states have yet to establish clear tests of student knowledge, some have done so. Though Alabama was not a focus of these policy position papers, it is one of the few states that recently amended its graduation requirement to include a student test, requiring districts to report these results to the Alabama Department of Education. Notably, a passing score on this exam is not required for students to graduate. The Alabama Department of Education also created the exam over the course of a year, so it is unclear what—if any—validation was conducted on the exam itself. While Nebraska does not have a mandatory student test, it does require school districts to report to their school board on student progress related to the personal finance requirement.

4

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

UTAH: Utah has successfully utilized post-tests for students, the findings of which are included in the previously linked GFL Program Review conducted by the state auditor.

Through this post-test, the state has insights into general proficiency gains, demographic differences in the efficacy of the course and more. The GFL Program Review mentions two interesting points regarding student evaluation: not all students take the post-course test, a valuable finding made possible by this high-level evaluation, and the post-test, though useful, lacks deeper insight into the knowledge gain of an individual student without a pre-test offered before the course. Further insight shows that having “bookend” assessments for both students and teachers provides more understanding of their training/learning effectiveness.

This is another example of Utah utilizing evaluation to reveal areas for improvement in its financial education programming to improve future classes.

A key point to consider when it comes to student tests, and one that is broader across K-12 education, is whether students should be required to pass an end-of-course exam to pass the course.

NORTH CAROLINA: A student assessment is not required to complete the course in North Carolina, which is seen as a partial strength because it allows teachers to be flexible with their instruction. The reality for many teachers, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, is that “teaching-to-the-test” with standardized tests can be a major constraint on educators’ ability to contextualize the material. If teachers are mainly worried about having their students pass a standardized test, this could prevent them from taking creative approaches to the material.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT The previous sections of this paper covered ways in which states have utilized teacher and student evaluations to gauge the effectiveness of ongoing efforts. In all of these instances where assessments were utilized, states have revealed imperfections in their requirements. This section is a reminder that evaluations in the implementation process are critical and that revealing areas of improvement should not reduce support for the requirement itself. The positive impact of a financial education graduation requirement increases over the years since implementation, which should be top of mind for state officials as they work through these improvements.

CONTINUOUS TOUCHPOINTS AND LONGITUDINAL OPPORTUNITIES Teacher and student evaluations allow states to collect additional data and provide ongoing teacher trainings. In North Carolina, the NCCEE designed pre- and post-tests for teachers’ professional development. These tests found that teachers desired ongoing trainings or webinars to get updates on the material to ensure they were staying current with instruction. This led NCCEE to develop a monthly webinar for certified teachers, a positive development that will help support educators who have already completed their initial training. Utah recognized the need for ongoing trainings and made its biannual

5

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

In North Carolina, the NCCEE designed pre- and post-tests for teachers’ professional development. These tests found that teachers desired ongoing trainings or webinars to get updates on the material to ensure they were staying current with instruction. This led NCCEE to develop a monthly webinar for certified teachers, a positive development that will help support educators who have already completed their initial training.

teacher training conference available to educators who already have their GFL endorsement, establishing a way for teachers to receive updated training. Both examples show how states can support personal finance teachers by recognizing that they need ongoing training to stay current.

For student evaluations, states have an opportunity to use tools like an end-of-course test or a landscape assessment to provide the basis for longitudinal research on the outcomes of past graduates. Financial education is a relatively young field. Considering that state financial education graduation requirements are even younger, longitudinal research is lacking on the long-term outcomes of students who took financial education before graduating high school. This type of data can have great value to states and the financial education field as a whole, providing insight into the financial health of high school graduates and young professionals in the workforce. While this is an opportunity for states to expand upon evaluation efforts, student evaluations are not a priority compared to the other evaluation measures mentioned throughout this paper.

UTAH: The 2018 report from the Utah auditor’s office shows how the student end-of-course test can be utilized to find insight into student performance and knowledge gain. The report details the results of three years of the test and looks at different student sub-groups, showing how students from various cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds have engaged with the material. Utah can use this model to compare the results of this student assessment over a longer period. The auditor’s report also included surveys from past high school graduates who had taken the GFL course, providing insight into the knowledge gain of past students years removed from the instruction. Moving forward, Utah will be well-positioned with these data that may provide further insights into the financial needs of young professionals in the state who had previously received financial education in high school.

6

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

Challenges/Opportunities TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Early in the implementation Professional development, phase, the first opportunity for feedback and certification and ongoing evaluation is during teacher professional training also can be moments development. Here, formative evaluation is to collect data from teachers appropriate in order to improve processes. to facilitate evaluation. These Utilizing professional development to prepare touchpoints provide insight teachers is essential for the success of a into topics teachers may be personal finance course, and research shows struggling with, areas of training that well-prepared personal finance teachers that are already strong, and greatly increase knowledge gain for their parts of the training that can be students. Professional development, certification improved. and ongoing training also can be moments to collect data from teachers to facilitate evaluation. These touchpoints provide insight into topics teachers may be struggling with, areas of training that are already strong, and parts of the training that can be improved. David Anderson, president and CEO of W!SE, a nonprofit organization specializing in financial literacy programming and teacher certification, highlighted the importance of this requirement:

“

Twenty-six states do or will soon require high school students to complete a stand-alone course on personal finance before graduation. Assessing the financial literacy of these students upon completion of the course through a national standardized test is, therefore, more important than ever. It is equally important that teachers receive the training they need to teach the subject matter. Ideally, these teachers should earn a financial literacy certification to demonstrate their proficiency to do so.

”

STUDENT KNOWLEDGE: Similar evaluation is needed for students in order to gauge the effectiveness of current instruction, assessing both processes and outcomes. This evaluation could take the form of a pre- and post-test at the beginning and end of the course. This strategy would allow states to see how the course is received by students as compared to baseline knowledge via pre-test and could offer additional insights when data are disaggregated by school districts or the student population. While this type of evaluation provides substantial value to a state in analyzing implementation efforts and areas of

7

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

potential improvement, there are genuine concerns about end-of-course tests forcing teachers into a “teaching-to-the-test” approach. This is a valid issue and must be considered when choosing how to execute student assessments, as “teaching-to-the-test” in personal finance can hinder the ability of educators to contextualize concepts in the classroom.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT: At its core, evaluation identifies successes (summative evaluation) and highlights areas of needed improvement (formative evaluation).

This means that evaluation, especially for states early in the implementation process, will reveal areas where personal finance training and instruction fall short. In addition to the specific evaluation tools around teachers and students, states may consider a landscape assessment once the requirement is in effect. A “landscape assessment” in this context is an extensive analysis of how the requirement takes shape on the ground, looking at strengths, weaknesses, developments in the field and suggestions based on these findings that can help improve programming. States may see the reveal of weaknesses as a threat to their new requirements, as evaluation will certainly show imperfections. However, when evaluation methods are incorporated and prioritized, the goal of achieving effective financial education becomes clearer and more achievable. States can improve their efforts through feedback and assessments from teachers and students.

CONTINUOUS TOUCHPOINTS AND LONGITUDINAL OPPORTUNITIES: When teachers are offered continuous training and student assessments are collected over the years, states have the opportunity to develop longitudinal studies with the data. For teacher assessments, in addition to gaining insights into teacher training and the needs of teachers in their classrooms, states could also implement survey questions about teachers’ sentiments regarding finances in their own lives. Research strongly suggests that this will provide information about how trainings may increase the financial well-being of teachers, evidence that states can reference as part of the benefits of teacher training. As for students, having each class take a post-test provides insight into how the instruction of the personal finance course can be improved. Post-tests designed to collect quantitative data (similar to the CFPB’s High School Financial Capability Survey) can be paired with surveys collecting qualitative data, helping to contextualize post-test scores and evaluate student selfperceptions. This strategy can help states measure the self-identified financial well-being of graduating students in addition to their financial capability.

Student longitudinal data systems currently exist in numerous states that recently have passed financial education requirements, creating an opportunity for states to track students post–high school into postsecondary education and the workforce to better understand the long-term potential benefits of financial education. State departments of education and their partners can work with higher education institutes to include financial education data in longitudinal data systems to track student outcomes over time. Concurrent enrollment students present a good starting point for data piloting in these states.

8

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

Recommendations TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Utilize pre- and post-tests around teacher professional development to measure knowledge gains and identify areas for improvement.

Establish a level of reporting and accountability from school districts to state departments of education. This will help identify a clear picture of how teacher training efforts are taking place across the state and can be done without being overly prescriptive. It is possible to respect the dynamics of local control while collecting these reports to strengthen trainings.

Collect teacher surveys from ongoing trainings to gather feedback directly from the classroom, inform future trainings and create a feedback loop to support teachers.

STUDENT KNOWLEDGE Establish student pre- and post-tests around personal finance courses to measure student knowledge gain, collecting valuable quantitative data. States should use caution when considering whether a student must pass the exam to graduate. Alternatively states can consider allowing students to test out of the course with a certain pre-test score.

Attach a survey portion to the end-of-course assessment to collect qualitative data on student sentiment, confidence and self-perceived knowledge gain.

Look to validate student assessments to ensure that they are measuring knowledge gain and sentiment as intended.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Remain steadfast in support of this new graduation requirement in light of any revealed areas of improvement. The requirement will become more impactful in time, and these evaluation measures are a means to achieving that.

Consider a landscape assessment in the future, considering all of the data above and examining differences across districts.

9

FEEDBACK AND EVALUATION

CONTINUOUS TOUCHPOINTS AND LONGITUDINAL OPPORTUNITIES Employ ongoing teacher trainings as a way to continuously gauge teacher sentiment and experiences. A personal finance teacher’s experience with their students may change over the years, and these changes are worth capturing to update teacher professional development.

Consider utilizing data from student assessments to serve as the foundation for longitudinal studies in the future. State universities could prove a valuable partner in this venture. Alternatively Utah’s audit of its requirement could serve as an example to follow.

Summary Evaluation is a core part of improving any program or course, and this is no different for new financial education graduation requirements. NEFE recognizes that there are many outstanding questions around evaluation in the financial education field, in addition to larger questions about standardized testing across all of education.

© 2025 National Endowment for Financial Education® (NEFE®) 10