REFERENCES 61 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 61 THE ADOPTION OF SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOL FINANCIAL LITERACY CURRICULUM MODULES David Fehr 1 Abstract This article explores the implementation of sophisticated financial literacy teaching materials developed specifically for a high school audience in a high technology environment. Considerable research has been devoted to understanding both the general reasons that innovation does or does not get adopted by the target population and the specific aspects of implementation of new curriculum materials at the high school level. Recent work evaluating successes and failures in the implementation of new curricula for foreign languages, mathematics, physics and general science is reviewed in order to draw inferences that may assist in an implementation program for financial literacy modules. Questions of the following types are addressed: Are there risks to the teacher in adopting novel curricula? Does extensive professional development need to accompany new curriculum adoption? Are there psychological hurdles that teachers need to address before adoption? Are there institutional impediments? How does teacher work environment affect adoption? Introduction On December 1, 2005, the Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) Center for Financial Studies (CFS) was awarded a grant from the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) Investor Education Foundation entitled, Financial Literacy Training for High School Students. The purposes of the grant were (1) to develop for the high school audience eight self- contained curriculum modules that focus on investor literacy topics and (2) to implement the curriculum modules in conjunction with the Montgomery County (Maryland) Public School (MCPS) system. The impetus for the grant came from a successful high school field trip program at SNHU‟s CFS. The CFS is a state-of-the-art, high technology academic trading room that SNHU built in 2001. From the beginning, the university decided that the Center should provide services to the southern New Hampshire community at large, as well as our university community. To that end, we invited local high schools to bring students to our campus, and our CFS, on field trips. At the field trip events in the CFS, we deliver various financial literacy lessons, taking full advantage of the specialized assets in the Center – thirty individual trading stations with dual monitors, electronic data boards and stock ticker, and sophisticated audio visual equipment. Financial literacy topics range from diversification and investment for retirement to effective credit card management. The lessons are highly interactive and hands-on. In most cases, the students are doing computer analysis within the first ten minutes of class, typically using internet calculators, worksheets and data sources. The Center has hosted about thirty-five field trips, servicing almost 600 students, since it opened in 2001. These sessions have been very well received by both students and teachers. In fact, the field trip program has become self-sustaining. The same teachers bring new students to the CFS every year and sometimes every semester. It soon became clear to us that virtually all 1 Director, Center for Financial Studies, Associate Professor of Economics/Finance, Southern New Hampshire University. 62 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 62 of the value-added in our field trip program could be delivered in any internet-ready computer room. This opened an opportunity to “export” our concept beyond the CFS by delivering the lessons anywhere an internet-ready room was available. Discussions with the NASD Investor Education Foundation led to the decision to formalize the development of the curriculum materials in order to insure that each module contained not only the subject matter, but also teaching strategies and ancillary support materials for the teachers. The eight financial literacy modules are 2 : MODULE KEY TOPICS Creating and Monitoring a Diversified Stock Portfolio Advantages of diversification; conceptual discussion; selecting a diversified stock portfolio across industry sectors; monitoring and tracking your diversified portfolio (10 pages) Investing for Retirement Conceptual discussion; determining retirement income needs; establishing a saving pattern to meet retirement needs; discussion of retirement financial vehicles (14 pages) Portfolio and Risk Management Advantages and disadvantages of dollar cost averaging; portfolio rebalancing strategies; laddering to achieve desired cash flow patterns (9 pages) Asset Allocation and Security Selection Understanding risk tolerance and risk capacity; presenting alternative asset allocation strategies based on the risk assessment; security selection to pick investments within an asset class (10 pages) Investing in Mutual Funds Structure of mutual funds; advantages and disadvantages of mutual fund investing; narrowing the available mutual funds to make an investment choice (18 pages) Internet Resources for Bond, Bond Mutual Fund and Exchange- Traded Fund (ETF) Investors Exploring bond investing; bond mutual funds; understanding ETFs (exchange-traded funds) (11 pages) Personal Financial Statements Creating a net worth statement; creating an income statement; developing a budget; building an emergency fund (13 pages) Selecting a Financial Advisor Identifying a qualified financial advisor; working with your advisor; understanding advisor fees; dealing with financial advisor problems (10 pages) 2 The eight financial literacy modules along with ancillaries are available in their entirety at http://www.snhu.edu/1566.asp. Handouts suitable for distribution to students are also provided. Please note that the modules are branded under the FINRA Investor Education Foundation label. After the completion of our NASD project, NASD merged with a related regulatory body to form the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). We were asked to re-brand our modules accordingly. http://www.snhu.edu/1566.asp 63 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 63 During the grant period from December, 2005, through early fall, 2006, we prepared the eight curriculum modules and visited MCPS several times to beta test selected modules in high school classes, to discuss the modules with teachers and staff, and to set the stage for the potential adoption of the modules by MCPS teachers. As with our field trip programs at SNHU, teachers, students and academic staff were enthusiastic about the curriculum materials 3 . Discussions with the teachers generally focused on minor refinements to the modules, and more importantly, how the curriculum materials would mesh with existing courses. During this time period, we also received high quality feedback from the NASD Foundation on module content. As a final deliverable for the NASD grant, we met with relevant MCPS teachers (primarily those teachers currently working in the individual schools‟ Academy of Finance programs) for a full day training session to review module content and to assist with implementation. At this event, we: Provided all participants with a CD containing all curriculum modules and ancillaries, Delivered our versions of the classroom sessions for two modules (Creating and Monitoring a Diversified Stock Portfolio and Investing for Retirement), and Presented selected lessons from the other modules. While most teachers indicated that they intended to implement some of the material in their upcoming classes, follow through to date has been spotty. Certainly the rate of adoption has not been consistent with the level of enthusiasm that the teachers projected for both the materials and the financial literacy program. The research herein explores factors that could contribute to this seeming inconsistency. The purpose of this inquiry is to study aspects of the adoption of new curriculum by high school level teachers, including an evaluation of potential impediments to adoption. The next section reviews the relevant literature and relates it to the adoption of our financial literacy modules. Academic research that has addressed new curriculum adoption for the high school disciplines of foreign languages, mathematics, physics and general science is highlighted. This is followed by very brief synopsis. Even as the primary objective of our NASD grant was to prepare the curriculum modules, the Foundation made it quite clear that the ultimate distribution and adoption of the modules was of paramount importance. The Foundation decided to fund the development of the modules, because the modules would support the Foundation‟s stated goal to educate young people in investing for retirement and in acquiring related financial skills. Both the Foundation and our project team, however, understood that this initial grant was meant as a precursor for follow-up work by us or others to actively promote distribution and adoption of the modules. The present study provides background research for the marketing/distribution phase of this project. Literature Review Relating to the Adoption of Financial Literacy Modules Rogers (1995) presents a comprehensive evaluation of the adoption of innovation, and is a primary reference for much recent research on the topic. He explores how innovation propagates through a target population in a wide range of fields, studying elements which can 3 The grant budget and work plan did not include the preparation and administration of a formal evaluation instrument for the modules. 64 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 64 both promote and impede the adoption of the innovation. Adoption could be affected by attributes that are internal to the innovation and features that are present in the external environment. Relevant internal attributes of an innovation include specific features of the innovation itself that might correlate with the rate and level of adoption. Attributes of this type considered by Rogers include: Are the ideas and mechanisms in the innovation superior to existing solutions? Is the innovation complex and therefore difficult for new users to understand? Are both costs and benefits to the innovation readily observable? Is the mechanism of the innovation compatible with or similar to existing solutions? Emphasizing this internal attribute evaluation approach, Fehr and Bristol (2006) report on the adoption of three complex financial innovations. By examining the internal attributes of (1) “real” option valuation techniques, (2) a proposed new paradigm for financial consulting predicated on the widespread use of sophisticated financial instruments, and (3) fixed income valuation systems based on complex extensions of the Black-Scholes methodology, Fehr and Bristol were able to mount arguments as to why these innovations have had a very poor track record. The present research does not concentrate on internal attributes to evaluate the adoption of the financial literacy modules by high school teachers. While the modules are sophisticated in the sense that they make creative use of internet websites, end users of the curriculum are comfortable with internet applications. Further, the financial concepts in each lesson are not complex but, in fact, quite elementary. The goal of our financial literacy program has always been to provide basic information in a format that will resonate with the high school audience. Our emphasis is to explore issues external to the attributes of the financial literacy curriculum that will negatively impact adoption by high school teachers. For example: Are there risks to the teacher in adopting novel curricula? Does extensive professional development need to accompany new curriculum adoption? Are there psychological hurdles that teachers need to address before adoption? Could there be institutional impediments present? How do selected modules impact the overall curriculum? How does the teacher work environment affect adoption? Cuban (1999) lists five impediments, some of which are based on technology issues, to the adoption of new curriculum by high school teachers: Contradicting advice from experts Inherent unreliability of technology Intractable working conditions Demands from others Policymakers‟ disrespect for teachers‟ opinions 65 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 65 While our financial literacy curriculum modules have only a modest technology component, is it possible that the technology causes teachers to hesitate to embrace the curriculum? Cuban notes that most teachers use computers much more extensively at home than at school, suggesting that the technology issue is not one of computer “phobia.” In fact, the first of Cuban‟s five impediments, contradicting advice from experts, speaks to one possible explanation for the hesitancy by teachers to adopt a technology-laden curriculum. Over the past twenty plus years, advice from experts has changed regularly. Cuban catalogues the progression from BASIC language programming to word processing and spreadsheet programs to hypertext approaches. While this is the reality of a rapidly changing computer/technology environment, it nonetheless imposes “learning curve” costs on teachers, which they increasingly may be unwilling to pay. Further, teachers often perceive an inherent unreliability of technology which complicates adoption if teachers anticipate that adequate technical support at the high school will not be sufficient or available. At some point, teachers may refuse to face the inevitable software and hardware issues that arise. Realities of the day-to-day work environment for most teachers impact adoption decisions for both technology-based and conventional curriculum. Intractable working conditions such as heavy teaching loads, multiple class preparations per day, a considerable grading load and large classes could well be impediments to new curriculum adoption. In addition, teachers are responsible for classroom discipline, may be accountable for student performance on standardized tests, and have further responsibilities to their school district and state. Given these demands from others, they may have neither the time nor the energy to undertake new curriculum adoption. Finally, Cuban suggests that teachers hesitate because of policymakers’ disrespect for teachers’ opinions. It is clearly counter-productive for teachers to be dictated to on curriculum and other academic matters. In fact, Cuban argues that technology and curriculum use implemented by fiat by administrators usually leads to unsatisfactory results. Our approach to the implementation of the financial literacy curriculum modules is to address elements over which we can have some control. We have encouraged teachers, students and staff to provide feedback on our modules, and have built in considerable beta testing in the initial phases of the curriculum development process. Regarding the technology itself, we‟ve had few problems during the beta tests and virtually no hesitation from teachers. We have made clear to the teachers that internet connections may be slow and/or dropped, that the format of the relevant web pages may change through time, and that close coordination will be required to insure that students progress through the lessons at the same pace. Russell (1998) considers impediments to adoption that may be driven by teacher attitudes. Her reference point is the introduction of a new mathematics curriculum. Issues of concern to Russell include: Teachers may not want to learn to use the new curriculum. Teachers may not be prepared (academically) to teach the new curriculum. Teachers may believe that a traditional textbook approach is superior. Teachers may not want to learn a new pedagogical approach. Teachers may not want to explain curriculum changes to parents. 66 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 66 Russell concludes that regular teacher training and professional development lead to the highest probability for success in addressing these teacher issues. Curricular innovation is less likely to be successful if it is mandated and more likely to be successful if teachers are part of the entire process. Even though we have built teacher training and consultation into all phases of our project, concern for the academic preparedness of teachers is appropriate. For example, Bristol, Fehr and Tripp (2003) report that less than 20% of social studies teachers in the state of New Hampshire have completed more than a single college-level economics course, but are nonetheless certified to teach economics. In our beta testing, it appeared that some teachers were not fully comfortable with the subject matter. The logical response is surely more training and professional development. Russell also explores how the use of the novel curriculum itself may be an attempt to compensate for unprepared teachers. Is it possible to give teachers highly scripted teaching materials and expect that the “materials themselves will improve student learning”, independent of the quality of the teacher? Russell concludes that this approach is dangerous – the curriculum change will likely be cosmetic only, with students not reaping the full advantage of the new curriculum. Further, teachers may well view the new curriculum as an „activity” and not a serious component of learning when the curriculum is substituted for teacher responsibility. It has been suggested to us by some teachers and administrators that inclusion of a regimented teaching script (including jokes and asides!) would promote the adoption of our curriculum. While we have attempted to make the modules teacher-friendly, including glossaries, lesson plans, handouts and complete ancillaries, we have not gone the fully scripted route. We believe that the teacher must be an actively engaged partner in both the adoption and delivery of the curriculum. Having built the case for investing resources in comprehensive teacher training and professional development, Braslavsky (1999) presents insights as to how the training itself could affect curriculum adoption. Her description begins with the concept of „isomorphism” in teacher training – the tendency for teachers to be trained solely in their fields of specialization. Limited interdisciplinary training carries the potential for a compartmentalized and rigid outlook by the teachers. If true, teachers would likely be less inclined to adopt new and novel curriculum. Further, at a more macro level, secondary education would be seriously fragmented if each teacher concentrates entirely on a specialized academic discipline. Braslavsky argues that isomorphism will be reduced only if teacher training concentrates on “horizontal learning”. The current versions of our financial literacy modules and the format of our presentations to teachers may not go far enough along these lines. While we have not observed rigidity of the type described by Braslavsky, we expect to become more creative in our interdisciplinary efforts. For example, we have considered approaching mathematics teachers to use some of our covered financial techniques, such as interest rate mechanics, as case examples in their math classes. Brown and Campione (1996) describe characteristics of successful instructional programs that promote learning in innovative environments: Emulate research Probe Engage in critical thinking Reflection Our modules were developed with these attributes in mind. Using our Creating and Monitoring a Diversified Stock Portfolio module as an example, students research industries and 67 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 67 stocks to construct a suitably diversified portfolio (emulate research), are questioned as to the criteria that they used in the selection (probe), are asked to justify individual stock selections based upon the chosen criteria (engage in critical thinking), and set up ongoing monitoring of the portfolio to assess the decisions made (reflection). Similar components are present in all eight curriculum modules. The Annenberg Media Learner publication, Workshop 4 - Reworking the Curriculum, argues that teachers may not feel “safe” in adopting novel curricula. Teachers may perceive political pressure to stick with traditional approaches to learning. The Workshop argues that, in these situations, school administrators, particularly the principal, must be a “courage provider” to make it safe for teachers to adopt the new curriculum. To date, this safety issue has been a non- factor in our program – we have not sensed any element of academic risk from the viewpoint of the teachers. In addition to Russell‟s (1998) presentation on the adoption of new mathematics curriculum, selected studies have looked at curriculum adoption in foreign languages (Rose, 1977), general science (Center for Curriculum Materials in Science, 2005), and physics (Cushman, 1998). In the foreign language teaching profession, Rose (1977) contends that there is often considerable “separation” between university educators and high school teachers. He suggests that this can arise as high school teachers often deal only with elementary aspects of the discipline (based upon working with beginning learners), while their university counterparts operate at higher levels of instruction. Since the university community often has a primary role in developing new curriculum, this potential antagonism can present a meaningful hurdle in the adoption process. We have not experienced this phenomenon in our financial literacy work but agree with Rose that the best way to improve communication between such groups is with comprehensive in-service teacher education programs conveniently scheduled for all parties. In general science, the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science (2005) suggests that it is important that curriculum materials be sufficiently flexible so that teachers can tailor and adapt the materials to meet their individual needs. Further, the curriculum must be responsive to teachers‟ different levels of preparation and prior knowledge. Also, teachers must understand and embrace the underlying rationale for the innovation to be comfortable migrating to the new materials. As such, the curriculum materials should not be “handed down from the master”, but rather teachers should be integral to the entire adoption process. As with our other references, the policy recommendation is to provide comprehensive professional development for teachers. Our modules do allow for great teacher flexibility. In fact, teachers have been actively courted so that their feedback is reflected in the final draft of the curriculum materials. In her examination of a new high school level physics curriculum, Cushman (1998) reinforces many of these points, including the need for “courage” to adopt novel curriculum, concern for the level of teacher preparedness and interest, the importance of lessons in which students participate actively, and the importance of high quality teacher training. Synopsis An overriding theme in virtually all of the academic references cited above is the need for comprehensive and ongoing teacher training and professional development to facilitate new curriculum adoption. Based upon work with the Montgomery County Public School system, we 68 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 68 concur with this emphasis and conclude that comprehensive teacher training is the single best step to foster adoption of the financial literacy curriculum modules. During an approximately six month period, we provided teachers with three opportunities to review module content, to evaluate pedagogy, and to receive training. Two of these sessions included students; one session was for teachers only. Because of our NASD grant provisions and the grant timeline, each of the three potential training opportunities also included wide ranging discussions of module strengths and weaknesses as well as their appropriateness for a high school audience. These latter activities were helpful in the development of the modules and complied with the grant requirement to beta test the modules at the MCPS system. While teachers impressed upon us the importance of module related professional development and training, our grant format did not allow us to concentrate solely on training. As such, these grant requirements diluted our capacity to provide and evaluate peer-to-peer teacher training. Now that beta tested final versions of the modules are available, the natural next research steps are to explore (1) how best to provide teacher training and (2) whether such teacher training is sufficient to promote wide spread adoption of the curriculum. Our project sponsor, the NASD Investor Education Foundation, is also well aware of the need for comprehensive teacher training. The Foundation recently sponsored the 2006 report of the National Association of State Boards of Education Commission on Financial and Investor Literacy entitled, Who Will Own Our Children? Recommendation #3 of that report, Ensure that teachers and/or staff members teaching financial literacy concepts are adequately trained, states: “The Commission recommends that states, school districts, and/or schools provide the resources to ensure that individuals teaching financial and investor education concepts are adequately prepared. This includes providing the professional development needed to meet the goals identified for the curriculum. The Commission also envisions that state boards of education contribute to preparing teachers by encouraging recertification”. A related area of future research will investigate the availability of funding to support face-to- face teacher training. When we explored possible funding from the NASD Investor Education Foundation for peer-to-peer teacher training, the Foundation hesitated based on a concern that training of this type is not the most cost effective approach. Our understanding was that the Foundation prefers to support a professional marketing/distribution program in order to reach a large audience of teachers at a lower per capita cost. We chose not to submit a grant application to the NASD Foundation to fund module distribution along these lines, because we were unable to devise a marketing strategy to which we attributed a high probability of success. Various related research avenues suggest themselves. Is there an alternative marketing strategy, as opposed to the more expensive to peer-to-peer training, that promotes significant curriculum adoption? Do other Foundations and other suppliers of funding have a similar cost/benefit approach? Is there a way to dovetail training with the award of continuing education teacher credits, making a peer-to-peer approach more palatable to all parties? For example, would individual teachers and/or school districts be willing to share costs with Foundation support, if continuing education credits are awarded? Given the considerable financial resources and developmental efforts already committed to the modules, it will be important to address these module training and distribution topics in further research. 69 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 69 REFERENCES Annenberg Media Learner.org. Workshop 4 – Reworking the Curriculum, http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/principals/materials/workshop4.html. Ball, D. L. and D. K. Cohen. (1996). "Reform by the Book: What Is-Or Might Be-The Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform?" Educational Researcher 25. 9 (1996): 6-8,14. Braslavsky, C. (1999). “Some Consequences of Adopting a New Identity for the Secondary Education Curriculum”, Final Report, chapter VI, Secondary Education Curriculum in Latin America: New Tendencies and Changes, International Bureau of Education. Brown, A.L. and Campione, J.C. (1996). “Psychological Theory and the Design of Innovative Learning Environments” in L. Schauble & R. Glaser, Innovations in learning: New Environments of Education. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbraum. Bristol, K., D. Fehr and G. Tripp (2003). “Using an Academic Trading Room to Enhance Economics Literacy Training”, Southern New Hampshire University Center for Financial Studies Working Paper No. 2003-06, http://www.snhu.edu/1564.asp. Center for Curriculum Materials in Science. (June,2005). National Research Agenda, AAAS Project 2061, http://www.project2061.org. Cuban, L. (1999). “The Technology Puzzle”, Education Week, August 4. Cushman, K. (Nov, 1998). “What‟s Out There? Curricula that Support Essential School Ideas”, Horace, vol. 15, no. 2. Dede, C. (2000). “Emerging Influences of Information Technology on School Curriculum”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol.32, no. 2, pg. 281-303. Fehr, D.W. and K. Bristol (2006). “Hiccups in the Adoption of Innovation for Complex Financial Models”, Advances in Financial Education, vol. 4, 23-39. Killion, J. P. (1996). "Staff Development and Curriculum Development: Two Sides of the Same Coin." Journal of Staff Development, vol. 14, no. 1, 38-41. National Association of State Boards of Education Commission on Financial and Investor Literacy (2006). “Who Will Own Our Children?” http://www.nasbe.org/financial_literacy.htm. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 5 th edition, New York: Free Press. Rose, R. (Sept, 1977). “Bridging the Gap: College FL Departments and High School Teachers,” ADFL Bulletin, vol. 9, no. 1, pg. 37-38. http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/principals/materials/workshop4.html http://www.project2061.org/ 70 JOURNAL FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATORS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, SPRING 2008 70 Russell, S. J. (1998). “Mathematics Curriculum Implementation: Not a Beginning, Not an End”, Hands On!, vol. 21, no. 1. Russell, S. J. (1996). "The Role of Curriculum in Teacher Development", In Reflecting on Our Work: NSF Teacher Enhancement in K-6 Mathematics, Eds. S.N. Friel and G.S. Bright. Lanham, MD: U P of America, pg. 247-254.