OECD is Right to Push Financial Literacy in Schools

SINGAPORE, August 17, 2026 — The OECD’s June 19 call for Singapore and Japan to join the PISA financial literacy assessment raises an important question about what education systems should prioritize. Both countries perform exceptionally well in PISA’s mathematics, reading and science assessments, yet neither participates in the optional financial literacy component. That matters because academic results do not necessarily show whether 15-year-olds can apply financial knowledge to everyday decisions. The OECD’s 2022 assessment found that 18% of students across the 14 participating OECD countries did not reach basic financial literacy proficiency. About 60% of 15-year-olds had a bank account or payment/debit card, and more than 85% had bought something online during the previous 12 months. Teenagers are already making financial choices, which makes financial education part of preparing them for adult life rather than an extra subject.

OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, is an intergovernmental organisation of developed nations.

Singapore and Japan already have established education systems and financial education programs, so the OECD’s recommendation should not be read as suggesting that either country has neglected financial literacy. The more useful question is whether their existing programs are producing the results they expect. An international assessment can show how students apply financial knowledge compared with their peers in other countries. It can also show whether lessons about wages, budgets, bank loans, saving and financial risks are helping students make sound decisions. The OECD found that students who had learned finance-related terms at school performed better in financial literacy, yet only about two in three students reported learning such terms at school. Teaching financial concepts and measuring whether students can use that knowledge are therefore two separate tasks.

Why Financial Literacy Matters

Financial literacy is not simply about knowing definitions. A financially literate teenager should be able to compare prices, understand borrowing costs, recognize financial risks, and assess an offer before spending money. Those abilities become more important as students gain greater independence. PISA’s financial literacy assessment examines knowledge of financial concepts and risks as well as the ability to make effective decisions and participate in economic life. The OECD’s results also connect financial literacy with financial behavior. Students with higher financial literacy were 72% more likely to save money and 50% more likely to compare prices before making a purchase.

Those findings support giving financial literacy similar attention to mathematics, reading, and science. A student can perform very well in mathematics and still struggle to understand interest charges, debt, investment risk, or the consequences of a financial decision. Financial decisions require more than arithmetic. They also require judgment and an understanding of information and risk. An assessment that examines these abilities can give policymakers information that standard academic scores do not provide. It can show whether students can take financial knowledge from the classroom and use it when making money decisions.

Measuring More Than Academic Scores

Singapore and Japan have much to gain from treating participation in the financial literacy assessment as a source of information rather than a contest. Their PISA results provide a useful basis for examining the relationship between academic achievement and financial knowledge. Singapore recorded an average mathematics score of 575 in PISA 2022, well above the OECD average of 472. Japan also ranked among the highest-performing countries in mathematics, reading and science. Yet neither country has comparable PISA financial literacy results because the assessment is optional.

Participation would give policymakers, educators and researchers another source of international data. High scores could provide evidence that existing financial education programs are working well, while lower scores could point to areas where students need more instruction. Neither result would take away from the educational achievements of Singapore or Japan. Instead, the data could show whether academic performance is matched by the ability to apply financial knowledge in everyday situations. That is a worthwhile question for any education system.

Image credit: SME BUSINESS REVIEW

Digital Finance Changes the Stakes

The financial lives of teenagers are changing. Online shopping, digital payments and financial products are exposing teenagers to financial decisions at an earlier age than previous generations. The OECD found that many 15-year-olds already use financial products and digital services. More than 85% of students in the 2022 assessment had bought something online during the previous year. These activities mean that financial education cannot wait until students become adults.

Students need to understand how money moves through digital platforms, how borrowing can create costs, why financial products carry different levels of risk, and how to assess information presented to them online. Schools cannot prepare students for every financial decision they will make, but they can give students the knowledge needed to make those decisions responsibly. Parents also have a role. OECD data found that students who discussed spending decisions with their parents performed better in financial literacy. Financial education therefore extends beyond classroom lessons and into the everyday decisions students make with their families.

What Singapore and Japan Can Learn

Singapore and Japan already have established financial education programs, making the OECD’s recommendation an opportunity to examine how those programs translate into student knowledge and behavior. Participation would provide comparable data that national assessments cannot provide on their own. The results could show where students perform well and where additional instruction could be useful. For policymakers, educators, and researchers, that information would remain valuable regardless of the scores.

Financial literacy should not be treated as a secondary form of education simply because it is assessed separately from mathematics and reading. Money affects nearly every stage of adult life, from paying bills and using credit to saving for retirement and assessing financial products. The OECD’s June 19 call brought attention to Singapore and Japan, but the underlying issue extends far beyond those two countries. Education should prepare students not only to perform well in examinations but also to make sound financial decisions after they leave school. Measuring financial literacy is one way to determine whether education systems are preparing students for that responsibility.