WORKING PAPER NO. 2015-01

Gender and Student Achievement in Personal Finance: Evidence from Keys

to Financial Success

Andrew T. Hill

and

Carlos J. Asarta

WORKING PAPER SERIES

The views expressed in the Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Economics or of the University of Delaware. Working Papers have not undergone any formal review and approval and are circulated for discussion purposes only and should not be quoted without permission. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and should be directed to the corresponding author. Copyright belongs to the author(s).

Gender and Student Achievement in Personal Finance:

Evidence from Keys to Financial Success

Andrew T. Hill1,2 Economic Education Advisor

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Email: andrew.hill@phil.frb.org

Carlos J. Asarta3 Associate Professor & Director

Center for Economic Education and Entrepreneurship University of Delaware 102 Alfred Lerner Hall

Newark, DE 19716 United States

Telephone: (302) 831- 4868 Email: asarta@udel.edu

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the performance of male and female students participating in a unique and successful high school program called Keys to Financial Success. Using the Financial Fitness for Life High School Test (FFFL-HS) results from 965 students enrolled in a one-semester Keys course, we discover no gender gap at the overall pretest level. We find, however, a significant gender gap favoring female students at the overall posttest level, a result that is also consistent with the overall performance of students participating in the norming of the FFFL-HS Test. We conclude by suggesting that the use of a carefully designed personal finance course, taught by instructors trained on the specific curriculum covered in that course, is essential for providing equal learning opportunities to both male and female high school students.

JEL classification: A21, G00

Keywords: gender, gender gap, education, assessment, personal finance, K-12

1 The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia or the Federal Reserve System. 2 A PDF copy of the Keys to Financial Success Teacher’s Manual, and additional information about how to implement a Keys course, can be obtained by emailing andrew.hill@phil.frb.org. 3 Corresponding author.

1. Introduction

The gender question has received significant attention in personal finance education, with

findings typically indicating a gender gap in personal finance knowledge favoring male students

(Hanna, Hill, and Perdue, 2010). There are, however, a handful of research studies showing that

male and female students are capable of performing equally well in personal finance (i.e.

Walstad, Rebeck and McDonald, 2010). While gender-neutrality may be the result of well-

designed, administered, and evaluated financial education programs, such programs are difficult

to find even with the increased attention placed on financial literacy since the global financial

crisis of 2007-2009 (Asarta, Hill and Meszaros, 2014). So, what staple characteristics make

personal finance programs effective? According to Fox, Bartholomae and Lee (2005), successful

programs should be grounded in the five-tiered application and evaluation approach first

suggested by Jacobs (1988). Jacobs’ approach emphasizes the need for clearly defined content

delivered by properly trained teachers, and an evaluation process focused on rigorously

measuring pre- and posttest results collected using valid and reliable measures of student

understanding.

In this study, we first discuss the characteristics of a unique and effective high school

program called Keys to Financial Success, emphasizing its curriculum and teacher training

program. Then, we examine the performance of male and female students participating in a one-

semester Keys course using pre- and posttest results from the Financial Fitness for Life High

School Test (FFFL-HS). We discover that female students perform significantly better than their

male counterparts in one of the four FFFL-HS Standards, but that no gender gap exists at the

overall pretest level. Surprisingly, and in contrast with recent findings at the national level

(Butters, Asarta and McCoy, 2012), we find a significant gender gap favoring female students at

the overall posttest level, a result that is also consistent with the overall performance of students

participating in the norming of the FFFL-HS Test. We conclude by suggesting that the use of a

carefully designed personal finance course, taught by instructors trained on the specific

curriculum selected for that course, is essential for providing equal learning opportunities to both

male and female high school students.

2. Keys to Financial Success

The Keys to Financial Success curriculum and associated teacher training were

developed and implemented as a partnership between the University of Delaware Center for

Economic Education and Entrepreneurship and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. The

curriculum authors, along with the project coordinators, are economic educators on staff at both

the Center and the Reserve Bank. These educators have extensive knowledge and experience in

implementing curriculum development and teacher training programs aimed at increasing

teachers’ capacities to teach economics and personal finance in K-12 classrooms. Begun in 2001,

Keys currently reaches over 10,000 students in more than 150 high schools in Delaware, New

Jersey, and Pennsylvania. To date, more than 350 teachers have been trained to teach the Keys

program.

The Keys to Financial Success program was developed to address the following set of

specific gaps:

(1) In states, such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, where local school entities

(schools or school districts) make curriculum decisions largely on their own without mandates

from state or national authorities, the development and implementation of personal finance

courses and other interventions are usually made by committees of teachers and/or administrators

who do not possess much, if any, training in economics or personal finance. This environment

leads to each local school entity developing its own intervention with or without the required

knowledge base in personal financial education. Keys was initially developed to provide greater

efficiency for the implementation of new or revised semester personal finance courses in

Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey by providing a course plan developed by economic

education experts using the highest quality personal finance lessons available in the United

States.

(2) Beginning in the late 1990s, and continuing throughout the last fifteen years, the resources

available, often free of charge, to school entities for teaching personal finance to K-12 students

proliferated rapidly in the United States. However, the myriad of different personal finance

curriculum materials and programs adds confusion to teachers and administrators at the local

school level interested in increasing the personal finance knowledge of their students. And, often

without training in economics and personal finance themselves, they are often ill-prepared to

adequately choose between competing classroom resources for teaching personal finance. The

Keys program seeks to provide local school entities with a curated set of accurate lessons proven

to increase student knowledge of personal finance topics and concepts. And, furthermore, given

personal finance’s close ties to economics, the Keys curriculum materials all aim to teach

personal finance while ensuring that related basic economics principles are accurately explained,

maintained, and integrated along with the personal finance content.

(3) While a number of high quality curriculum materials that approach the teaching of personal

finance from the “economic way of thinking” existed before the development of the Keys

program, those materials (principally Financial Fitness for Life (FFFL)(Gellman and Laux,

2011) and Learning, Earning, and Investing (LEI)(Caldwell et al., 2004)) provided neither a

sufficient number of lessons to cover the full scope of topics required for a semester personal

finance course nor sufficient implied contact hours to span a typical American high school

semester. Furthermore, resources such as FFFL and LEI were developed in such a way as to

allow high school teachers to select individual, relevant lessons for either integration into

existing classes or for implementation as part of broader high school personal finance courses.

While this stand-alone approach provides required flexibility to allow teachers to make use of the

lessons most appropriate for their students and their specific class settings, taken together, these

lessons alone do not provide a cohesive plan for teaching a personal finance semester course.

More was needed. The Keys curriculum assembles FFFL and LEI lessons, along with materials

from other existing sources and some Keys-authored materials to create a cohesive, logical plan

for teaching personal finance to young people over a typical high school semester.

2.1 The Keys Curriculum

To address these three gaps, the Keys to Financial Success curriculum provides 52 high-

quality, easily implementable lessons, which approach the teaching of personal finance from the

“economic way of thinking” and, together, constitute a semester personal finance course. These

lessons are divided into nine themes: (1) goals and decision-making, (2) careers and planning, (3)

budgeting, (4) saving and investing, (5) credit, (6) banking services, (7) transportation issues, (8)

housing issues, and (9) risk protection. In Table 1, we report the correlations between each of the

Keys lessons and the relevant standards and concepts used in Walstad and Rebeck (2005). These

standards and concepts are based on the Jump$tart Coalition’s National Standards in K-12

Personal Finance Education (Jump$tart Coalition, 2002). Eight of the 52 lessons address the

income standard. Over 50% of the lessons in the Keys curriculum address the money

management standard. The spending and credit standard is addressed in 18 of the lessons. And,

nine of the lessons cover content from the saving and investing standard.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

The 52 lessons in the Keys curriculum cover all of the concepts listed in the FFFL-HS

Test. And, the content in all but one of the Keys lessons is assessed by the FFFL-HS Test. The

Keys curriculum places an emphasis on the “economic way of thinking.” In keeping with this

emphasis, 12 Keys lessons address the financial decision making concept and four lessons

address opportunity cost. Other areas of particular emphasis in the Keys lesson coverage include

determinants of income (six lessons), insurance, risk management (six lessons), budgeting (eight

lessons), costs and benefits of payment methods (seven lessons), and sources of credit (five

lessons). The Keys curriculum addresses a number of concepts, such as financial decision

making, opportunity cost, budgeting, and insurance, risk management, in multiple lessons across

different themes. This repeated coverage of essential concepts throughout a typical Keys high

school course seeks to ensure that students understand how to apply important personal finance

concepts and tools to multiple topics, including saving and investing and housing and

transportation issues.

As explained extensively in Asarta, Hill, and Meszaros (2014), the Keys to Financial

Success curriculum was developed mostly by aggregating existing, high quality lessons from

well-established sources. Two sets of lessons published by the Council for Economic Education

(formerly the National Council for Economic Education) comprise the largest share of lesson

material used in the Keys curriculum: the high school versions of Financial Fitness for Life

(FFFL) (Gellman and Laux, 2011) and Learning, Earning, and Investing (LEI) (Caldwell et al.,

2004). The 20 lessons selected from FFFL and the six lessons selected from LEI were all chosen

to be part of the Keys curriculum because they accurately approach the teaching of personal

finance while incorporating basic tenants of economics. However, these 26 lessons were deemed

by the curriculum development committee insufficient to fully cover all of the content embodied

in the nine Keys to Financial Success themes listed above. A further seven lessons from

Practical Money Skills for Life (VISA, 2000) are used, in whole or in part, in the Keys

curriculum to supplement the 26 lessons drawn from FFFL and LEI. And, the Keys curriculum

development committee wrote some original lesson content, which is used either exclusively or

in support of activities drawn from the sources listed above, in 23 of the 52 Keys lessons.

The Keys teacher’s manual includes a pacing guide to help ensure that teachers

implementing the program cover all nine themes in their course. This pacing guide is replicated

in Figure 1. Goals and decision-making (Theme 1) and risk protection (Theme 9) are each

expected to take one and a half weeks of classroom instruction. Careers and planning (Theme 2)

and budgeting (Theme 3) are expected to each comprise two weeks of a typical Keys semester.

The longest amount of class time, three weeks each, is expected to be used covering saving and

investing (Theme 4) and credit (Theme 5). Banking services (Theme 6), transportation issues

(Theme 7), and housing issues (Theme 8) are each expected to comprise one week of the

semester. Together, a typical Keys course is expected to include at least 80 hours of classroom

instruction over 16 or more weeks.

[Insert Figure 1 about here]

To further support student understanding of the competencies required to live a

financially successful life, Keys students investigate different careers and the human capital

required to get jobs in different fields. The students choose, for the life of the course, a career

that interests them and then, in different parts of the semester, investigate budgeting, saving and

investing, and transportation and housing issues in light of the income and other opportunities

and constraints imposed by their career choice.

Implementation of Keys to Financial Success does not rely on students having textbooks.

Rather, Keys teachers distribute photocopied materials from the Keys curriculum. And, the Keys

students are called upon to keep a portfolio of those materials. This approach yields two major

advantages: (1) Given the often rapid pace of change in financial markets and products, having

students develop portfolios of distributed materials creates a nimble curriculum, which is less

costly and more easily adapted to changes in the financial marketplace than the traditional

textbook-and-supplements approach to course implementation. (2) Textbooks are significant

capital investments for local school entities and they are used over and over again with multiple

classes. Therefore, most students leave a traditional class with no reference resource other than

their own notebook. Students who take a Keys course leave the course with their portfolios,

which they can use well after graduation from high school.

2.2 The Keys Teacher-Training Program

Teacher training is a pivotal part of the Keys to Financial Success program. Given the

Keys program’s semester-long suggested length, teachers new to the program have to be trained

to understand the structure of the program, the scope of the 52 Keys lessons, and the approach

undertaken within the individual lessons. The Keys to Financial Success Teacher Training

Program is offered for a week annually in July at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. The

professional development program is summarized in Table 2. In this program, teachers set to

teach the Keys course in the coming academic year are given 30 contact hours of professional

development training covering content presentations, hands-on computer lab work, and

demonstrations of all or part of 23 lessons from the Keys teacher’s manual. While the training

program does include some direct instruction on areas of personal finance content, the program’s

emphasis is on the structure and pedagogy needed to specifically teach personal finance using

Keys to Financial Success.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

The Keys authors and project directors are the presenters for the annual teacher-training

program. These economic educators have extensive experience teaching both in the high school

and college classrooms, developing K-12 economic and personal finance curriculum materials,

and training K-12 teachers to effectively teach economics and personal finance in their own

classrooms. These educators have either master’s degrees or Ph.Ds. in education, economic

education, or economics. The two content presentations—one on credit reports and scores and

the other on identity theft and privacy issues—are taught by staff from the Federal Reserve Bank

of Philadelphia’s Payment Cards Center and Legal Department, respectively.

The most prominent training practice employed in the Keys professional development

program is lesson demonstration. To adequately acquaint new Keys teachers with the structure

and pedagogy used in the curriculum, the trainers ask the teachers to envision themselves as high

school students throughout much of the professional development program. The Keys trainers

then teach the specific lessons from the Keys curriculum. The teachers participate in the exact

same activities and collaborative learning experiences that they will later use with their own

students. This approach allows teachers who are new to the program to see how the lessons are

expected to be taught and what the learning outcomes are for much of the curriculum.

3. Gender and Student Achievement in Personal Finance

The gender question has received a considerable amount of attention in the personal

finance education literature. A recent study by Butters, Asarta, and McCoy (2012) summarizes

the gender findings in this area, noting that previous research shows a significant and persistent

gender gap favoring male students (Hanna, Hill, and Perdue, 2010; Danes and Haberman, 2007;

Varcoe et al. 2005). Using a sample of over 6,600 students participating in the National Finance

Challenge Competition, Butters et al. find a gender gap similar to that found in the literature,

with male students performing significantly better on the FFFL-HS test than female students

across all standards and most concept areas of the test. Their findings were consistent with

Lusardi et al. (2010), who used the National Longitudinal Youth Survey (NLYS) to identify a

significant gender gap in personal finance knowledge favoring males. Yet, a handful of research

studies have found no gender gap in personal finance education (Walstad, Rebeck and

McDonald, 2010; Mandell and Klein, 2007; Tennyson and Nguyen, 2001). While gender-neutral

studies have been published quite sporadically in the literature, their presence seems to be

indicative of the possibility that the gender question in personal finance is not completely

resolved or has not been fully studied. With various curricula available to teach students, and

different levels of teacher training being provided to educators across the world, is it possible

that the gender gap may be the result of poor teacher training and biased educational materials?

We explore these questions below, making use of a sample of 965 students enrolled in a one-

semester Keys course.

3.1 Instrument and Data

Walstad et al. (2010) recommend following Jacobs’ five-tier approach (1988) when

evaluating the effectiveness of personal finance programs, and more specifically indicate that

student knowledge should be measured using valid and reliable instruments. In this section, we

report student scores on the Financial Fitness for Life High School Test (FFFL-HS Test), a valid

and reliable measure of personal finance knowledge developed by a National Advisory

Committee using the National Standards in K-12 Personal Finance Education (Jump$tart

Coalition, 2002). The FFFL-HS Test possesses good internal consistency (.86 coefficient alpha),

and accurately measures financial literacy. The FFFL-HS Test offers 50 test items that are well

suited for testing the knowledge of our high school student population, since the Keys course

uses almost every lesson from the FFFL-HS curriculum. Because two FFFL-HS lessons are not

covered in the Keys curriculum, and Keys covers some additional personal finance content, the

authors eliminated four FFFL-HS Test items (questions 12, 13, 16, and 49) and created four

additional multiple-choice questions to make up for the gap. Since these four “in-house” items

were not normed, and since the comparisons made in this paper are to results from the FFFL-HS

Test norming, the four questions are not included in the results presented in this section.

The data used in this study come from two sources: the delivery in the fall and spring

semesters of the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 academic years of one-semester Keys to Financial

Success courses in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, and the norming of the FFFL-HS

Test completed in the 2003-2004 academic year. To our knowledge, this is the first time that the

raw norming data has been made available to researchers other than the FFFL-HS Test project

directors. The Keys data correspond to students whose teachers have been trained at the Federal

Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. These teachers can either volunteer to be trained and teach a Keys

course, or be required to undergo training because the Keys course is mandatory at their schools.

In both scenarios, the students benefit from teachers and schools that are motivated to fully

explore the students’ academic potential and improve their personal finance knowledge, a

scenario similar to that found in previous research projects making use of the FFFL-HS Test

(Harter and Harter, 2009; Butters, Asarta, and McCoy, 2012). For the purpose of this study, we

designate this group of students as the KEYS group.

The FFFL-HS Test norming data is drawn from two distinct groups of students. One

group of high school students received instruction in personal finance using the FFFL-HS

curriculum. We designate this group as the WITH FFFL group. The teachers who taught personal

finance to the students in this particular group received two days of training on how to use the

FFFL materials before the beginning of their courses. Another group of students from the same

high schools served as the control group for the FFFL-HS norming and did not receive any

personal finance instruction during the 2003-2004 academic year. We designate this group as the

WITHOUT FFFL group.4

Table 3 reports the descriptive statistics, including percentages, for the KEYS, WITH

FFFL, and WITHOUT FFFL student samples. A total of 965 Keys students participated in the

assessment reported in this study, with females accounting for 54 percent of the students in the

KEYS sample. Additionally, 37 percent of the males in the sample were 15 years of age or

younger at the time of the pretest. And, 42 percent of the females in the sample were 15 years of

age or younger. The Keys program is often offered as an elective in all high school levels. As

such, students were asked to report their age instead of their high school grade.

4 For details on the norming of the FFFL-HS Test see Walstad and Rebeck (2005).

[Insert Table 3 about here]

The WITH FFFL sample includes 500 students who participated in the norming of the

FFFL-HS Test and received personal finance instruction. Females were slightly underrepresented

in this particular sample of students, with males accounting for approximately 55 percent of the

sample. Additionally, 80 percent of the males and 77 percent of the females in the WITH FFFL

sample were in 12th grade when they took the FFFL-HS Test. On the other hand, the WITHOUT

FFFL sample includes 318 students. For this particular group, female representation was almost

on par with that of males at 48 percent of the sample. And, 47 percent of the males and 44

percent of the females in the WITHOUT FFFL sample were in 12th grade when they took the

FFFL-HS Test.

The FFFL-HS Test was designed to pre- and posttest students using the same instrument.

While this approach has its obvious benefits for evaluation purposes, it may also create

measurement issues due to the potential student familiarity with the test items. Both the Keys and

FFFL-HS Test norming data were collected following the strict protocol suggested by Walstad

and Rebeck (2005). Specifically, participating teachers were instructed not to share any details or

references related to the FFFL-HS Test items and their answers. Additionally, Keys teachers

were asked to “destroy” all pretests after the first day of classes, and to administer the posttest on

the last day of their personal finance courses. While we can’t ascertain with 100 percent

confidence that some of the knowledge improvements reported for both the Keys and norming

samples are not the result of teachers sharing test details, or students remembering test items, we

are confident that the strict protocols followed by participating teachers and the significant delay

between the pretest and the posttest (over 4 months) should have limited any potential bias

arising from student familiarity with the test instrument.

3.2 Results

Table 4 presents the overall, standard, and concept specific pretest average performance

for males and females in the KEYS sample. For comparison, we also report the corresponding

results computed from the WITHOUT FFFL sample as well as the percentage point difference

between male and female students in each sample. We believe this comparison is appropriate due

to the fact that neither the KEYS students at their pretest, nor the WITHOUT FFFL students,

received personal finance training at the time of the assessments. The overall average pretest

score was 41.46 percent correct for males and 41.60 percent correct for females in the KEYS

sample. The corresponding FFFL-HS scores for male and female students in the WITHOUT

FFFL sample were 44.36 and 45.85, respectively. The differences between the overall test scores

for male and female students in neither sample were statistically significant, indicating that male

and female students present, on average, similar overall levels of financial knowledge prior to

instruction.

[Insert Table 4 about here]

A detailed analysis of the performance differentials between male and female students in

the KEYS sample at the pretest level indicates that there was no gender gap in three of the four

standards of the FFFL-HS test. However, female students in the KEYS sample scored 2.33

percentage points higher than their male counterparts on the Money Management Standard, a

difference that was statistically significant at the 1 percent level. At a more disaggregated level

within the Money Management Standard, female students significantly outperformed their male

counterparts on the Personal financial responsibility, Financial decision making, and Use of

money management tools concepts. Aside from these three concepts from Money Management,

female students significantly outperformed male student in one other concept of the test, Reasons

for saving and investing. Male students significantly outperformed their female counterpart in

only one concept of the test, Credit history and records.

In the WITHOUT FFFL sample, we also find no gender gap in three of the four standards

of the FFFL-HS Test. For this group, however, female students significantly outscored their male

counterparts on the Saving and Investing Standard. As was the case for our KEYS students,

females in the WITHOUT FFFL sample scored significantly higher than their male counterparts

on the Personal financial responsibility concept. Males in the WITHOUT FFFL sample scored

significantly higher than their female counterparts on one concept from the Money Management

Standard, Limited resource and choice, and one concept from the Saving and Investing Standard,

Rate of return on investments.

Taken together, these results reveal few differences in the personal finance achievement

of male and female students who have not taken a personal finance course. Overall, their

performance on the FFFL-HS Test is similar and the few standards and concepts where their

performance is significantly different vary by sample. However, there seems to be some

evidence indicating that female students who have not received personal finance instruction have

greater knowledge of issues related to personal financial responsibility than male students.

Table 5 presents the overall, standard, and concept specific posttest average performance

for male and female students in the KEYS sample. As was the case before, and only for

comparison purposes, we also report the corresponding results using computed posttest scores

for WITH FFFL students, as well as the percentage point difference between male and female

students in each sample. We believe this comparison is appropriate because both the KEYS

students at their posttest and the WITH FFFL students had received personal finance training by

the time of the assessments. Overall, female students in the KEYS and WITH FFFL samples

significantly outperformed their male counterparts. Specifically, female students scored, on

average, 1.61 percentage points higher than male students in the KEYS sample, and 1.84

percentage points higher in the WITH FFFL. The significant differences in overall performance

at the posttest level for male and female students seem to indicate that female students exhibit,

on average, higher levels of financial knowledge after instruction.

[Insert Table 5 about here]

At a more disaggregated level, female students in the KEYS sample significantly

outperformed their male counterparts at the posttest level in three of the four standards of the

FFFL-HS Test (Income, Money Management, and Spending and Credit). The only standard in

which there was no gender gap at the posttest level was Saving and Investing. Similar to the

results presented at the pretest level, KEYS female students maintained their significant

knowledge advantage on the Personal financial responsibility, Financial decision making, and

Reasons for saving and investing concepts. It is also worth noting that no significant gender gaps

favoring male students were found in the different concepts covered in the FFFL-HS Test.

Turning our attention to the WITH FFFL sample, we find no gender gap at the posttest

level in three of the four standards of the FFFL-HS Test. For this group, however, female

students significantly outperformed their male counterparts on the Income Standard. At a more

disaggregated level, there are only three concepts where we find a significant gender gap. Male

students significantly outperform female students in the Opportunity cost concept, while female

students significantly outscored male students in the Personal financial responsibility and Rate

of return on Investment concepts.

4. Conclusion

This paper provides a detailed description of the curriculum and teacher training program

associated with a highly effective, unique, and successful personal finance program called Keys

to Financial Success. Keys was developed by the University of Delaware Center for Economic

Education and Entrepreneurship and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, and provides a

cohesive and logical plan for teaching personal finance over a typical high school semester.

Using pre- and posttest data from one-semester Keys courses, and from the norming of the

FFFL-HS Test, this study also provides an analysis of the performance of male and female

students at the overall, standard, and concept levels of the FFFL-HS Test. Our analysis is of

particular importance because this is the first time that the raw norming data for the FFFL-HS

Test has been made available to researchers other than the FFFL-HS Test project directors.

So what have we learned from examining the performance of male and female students

participating in one-semester Keys courses and the norming of the FFFL-HS Test? Typical male

and female students tend to enter personal finance courses with similar overall levels of financial

knowledge, but female students are likely to benefit more from formal instruction. What is

particularly interesting is that the prominent male gender gap found in other personal finance

research studies is not present in either the Keys or the FFFL-HS Test norming samples. In fact,

the gender gap found in this study favors female students at the posttest level, and the only

consistent result across samples, standards, and concepts is that female students exhibit better

knowledge of issues related to personal financial responsibility than male students. With this in

mind, and given our unique findings, we suggest that the male gender gap previously identified

in the literature may be the result of biased educational materials or classroom instruction,

improper teacher training, or the use of testing instruments that are neither reliable nor valid.

References

Asarta, C.J., A. T. Hill and B. Meszaros (2014), “The features and effectiveness of the keys to financial success curriculum”, International Review of Economics Education, 16 (1), 39-50. Butters, R. B., C. J. Asarta and S. McCoy (2012), “Financial literacy and gender in U.S. high schools”, Journal of Economic and Financial Education, 11 (2), 142-149. Caldwell, J., J. Davis, S. Gallagher, J. Lopus, J. Morton, M. Schug, M. Suiter, P. VanFossen, D. Wentworth and W. Wood (2004), Learning, Earning and Investing: High School. New York: National Council on Economic Education. Danes, S. M. and H. R. Haberman (2007), “Teen financial knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavior: A gendered view”, Financial Counseling and Planning, 18 (2), 48-60. Fox, J., S. Bartholomae and J. Lee (2005), “Building the case for financial education”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39 (1), 195-214. Gellman, S. and S. Laux (2011), Financial Fitness for Life (Grades 9–12), 2nd ed. Council for Economic Education, New York. Hanna, M. E., R. R. Hill and G. Perdue (2010), “School of study and financial literacy”, Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 11 (3), 29-37. Harter, C. and J. Harter (2009), “Assessing the effectiveness of Financial Fitness for Life in Eastern Kentucky”, Journal of Applied Economic Policy, 28 (1), 20-33. Jacobs, F. (1988), “The five-tiered approach to evaluation: Context and implementation”, in: Weiss, H. and F. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating Family Programs. Aldine DeGruyter, New York, 36–68. Jump$tart Coalition (2002), National Standards in K-12 Personal Finance Education. Available from: http://jumpstart.org/national-standards.html (accessed 11/15/14). Lusardi, A., O. S. Mitchell and V. Curto (2009), “Financial literacy among the young: Evidence and implications for consumer policy”, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. 15352. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15352 (accessed 11/20/14). Mandell, L. and L. Klein (2007), “Motivation and financial literacy”, Financial Services Review, 16(2), 105-116.

Tennyson, S. and C. Nguyen (2001), “State curriculum mandates and student knowledge of personal finance”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35 (2), 241-62. Varcoe, K. P., A. Martin, Z. Devitto and C. Go (2005), “Using a financial education curriculum for teens”, Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 16 (1), 63-71. VISA (2000), Practical Money Skills for Life. VISA, U.S.A., Inc., San Francisco. Walstad, W. B. and K. Rebeck (2005), Financial Fitness for Life: High School Test Examiner’s Manual (Grades 9-12). New York: Council for Economic Education. Walstad, W. B., K. Rebeck and R. A. MacDonald (2010), “The effects of financial education on the financial knowledge of high school students”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44 (2), 336-357.

Table 1: Keys to Financial Success Themes and Lessons with Correlations to Standards and Concepts

Keys Lesson Number Keys Title Standard Concepts

Theme 1: Goals & Decision Making1.1 How to Really Be a Millionaire A, D sources of income (A.1), reasons for saving and investing (D.2)1.2 The Economic Way of Thinking B, C opportunity cost (B.2), personal financial responsibility (B.3), benefits and 1.3 Making Decisions B limited resources and choice (B.1), financial decision making (B.4)1.4 How Can We Decide? B limited resources and choice (B.1), financial decision making (B.4)1.5 How to Set Goals B opportunity cost (B.2), financial decision making (B.4)

Theme 2: Careers & Planning2.1 What Do you Mean I Have to Earn an Income? A determinants of income (A.2)2.2 Making a Job A determinants of income (A.2)2.3 Invest in Yourself A, B determinants of income (A.2), opportunity cost (B.2)2.4 Why Some Jobs Pay More Than Others A determinants of income (A.2)2.5 What Else is Out There and How Would I Find It? A determinants of income (A.2)2.6 Dreams and Plans A determinants of income (A.2)

Theme 3: Budgeting3.1 Why Should I Have a Budget? B budgeting (B.7)3.2 Funding My Goals By Planning B financial decision making (B.4), budgeting (B.7)3.3 Uncle Sam Takles a Bite: Forms, Forms, Forms A taxes and transfer payments (A.3)3.4 Managing Your Money B budgeting (B.7)3.5 Preparing My Own Budget B budgeting (B.7)

Theme 4: Saving & Investing4.1 Pay Yourself First, Early, and Often B, D opportunity cost (B.2), saving and investing (D.1), rate of return on 4.2 Why Should I Have a Savings Plan? D saving and investing (D.1)

4.3How Do I Decide Whether to Save, Invest, or Both? D

risk, return, and liquidity investment (D.3), rate of return on investments (D.5)

4.4 There Is No Free Lunch in Investing B, Dinflation and investing (B.5), risk, return, and liquidity investment (D.3), buy and sell investments (D.4)

4.5 Financial Institutions in the U.S. Economy4.6 Reading the Financial Pages: In Print and Online D buy and sell investments (D.4), source of investment information (D.6)4.7 Research Companies B, D opportunity cost (B.2), buy and sell investments (D.4), source of 4.8 How to Buy and Sell Stocks and Bonds D buy and sell investments (D.4)

Table 1 (Continued)

Theme 5: Credit5.1 Extra "CREDIT": Cash or Credit C costs and benefits of payment methods (C.3)5.2 What is Credit? C costs and benefits of payment methods (C.3)5.3 Cash or Credit? Which Should I Use and When? C costs and benefits of payment methods (C.3)5.4 Making Credit Choices B, C financial decision making (B.4), costs and benefits of payment methods 5.5 Finding Your Way Through the Credit Maze C costs and benefits of payment methods (C.3)5.6 Applying for Credit C credit history and records (C.6)5.7 All About Interest C risk and credit (C.4), sources of credit (C.5)5.8 Shopping for a Credit Card C sources of credit (C.5)5.9 Consumer Credit Protection C rights and responisbilities of buyers, sellers, and creditors (C.8)

Theme 6: Banking Services6.1 What Financial Institutions Can Do for Me B, C use of money management tools (B.8), information on products (C.2)6.2 How Should I Pay for My Goods and Services? B, C use of money management tools (B.8), costs and benefits of payment 6.3 Managing My Checking Account B budgeting (B.7), use of money management tools (B.8)

Theme 7: Transportation Issues7.1 How Do You Get Wheels and What Are the B, C financial decision making (B.4), benefits and costs of spending (C.1)7.2 What Do I Want and What Can I Afford? B limited resources and choice (B.1), financial decision making (B.4)

7.3What Are Warranties and Service Contracts and Why Do I Need Them? Or Do I? B insurance, risk management (B.6)

7.4 Have I Got a Deal for You! Loan or Lease? B, C financial decision making (B.4), costs and benefits of payment methods 7.5 How Costly Will My Car Insurance Be? B insurance, risk management (B.6)

Theme 8: Housing Issues8.1 Moving Into My Own Place B financial decision making (B.4), budgeting (B.7)8.2 How Comfortable Will My Place Be? B financial decision making (B.4), budgeting (B.7)8.3 Tired of Renting: Should I Buy My Own House? B financial decision making (B.4), budgeting (B.7)8.4 Can I Really Afford That House? B, C financial decision making (B.4), sources of credit (C.5)8.5 Obtaining Financing: Shop for Your Mortgage C sources of credit (C.5)

Theme 9: Risk Protection9.1 Let the Buyer Beware C rights and responisbilities of buyers, sellers, and creditors (C.8)9.2 Credit Scams, Schemes, Identity Theft, and Privacy

IssuesC, D sources of credit (C.5), rights and responsibilities of buyers, sellers,a nd

creditors (C.8), sources of investment information (D.6)9.3 Why Insurance and How Does It Work? B insurance, risk management (B.6)9.4 The Basics of Life Insurance B insurance, risk management (B.6)

9.5Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Automobile Insurance B insurance, risk management (B.6)

9.6 Why Renter's Insurance? B insurance, risk management (B.6)

Note: A denotes Income standard, B denotes Money management standard, C denotes Spending and credit standard, and D denotes Saving and investing standard.

Figure 1: A Typical Semester Keys to Financial Success Course

Table 2: Keys to Financial Success Teacher-Training Program

Day 1 (6 contact hours)

• Attendee Introductions • Teacher Pretest • Program History, Keys Course Setup • Lesson Demonstrations: 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4

Day 2 (6 contact hours)

• Visit to Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Money Museum • Lesson Demonstrations: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8

Day 3 (6 contact hours)

• Computer Lab Training: Accessing the Curriculum Materials • Using The Federal Reserve and You Videos in Your Classroom • Lesson Demonstrations: 4.4, 5.1, 5.3

Day 4 (6 contact hours)

• Using Keys to Address the Common Core State Standards • Content Presentation: Credit Scores and Credit Reports • Computer Lab Training: Internet Resources For Use With Keys • Lesson Demonstrations: 6.2, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2

Day 5 (6 contact hours)

• Content Presentation: Identity Theft and Privacy Issues • Implementing Keys in Your Own Classroom • Overview of Student Pre- and Posttesting Program • Teacher Posttest • Lesson Demonstrations: 9.1, 9.2

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics

Variable Total Males Females Total Males Females Total Males FemalesStudent GenderMale 446 (46.22) 446 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 273 (54.60) 273 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 167 (52.52) 167 (100.00) 0 (0.00)Female 519 (53.78) 0 (0.00) 519 (100.00) 227 (45.40) 0 (0.00) 227 (100.00) 151 (47.48) 0 (0.00) 151 (0.00)Student Age≤ 15 years 383 (39.69) 165 (37.00) 218 (42.00)16 years 214 (22.18) 102 (22.87) 112 (21.58)17 years 206 (21.35) 92 (20.63) 114 (21.97)18 years 147 (15.23) 78 (17.49) 69 (13.29)≥ 19 years 15 (1.55) 9 (2.02) 6 (1.16)Student Grade Level9 9 (1.80) 3 (1.10) 6 (2.64) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)10 11 (2.20) 9 (3.30) 2 (0.88) 6 (1.89) 3 (1.80) 3 (1.99)11 55 (11.00) 25 (9.16) 30 (13.22) 136 (42.77) 70 (41.92) 66 (43.71)12 392 (78.40) 218 (79.85) 174 (76.65) 144 (45.28) 78 (46.71) 66 (43.71)Missing 33 (6.60) 18 (6.59) 15 (6.61) 32 (10.06) 16 (9.58) 16 (10.60)

Note: Percent in Parentheses

KEYSFFFL-HS TEST NORMING

(WITH FFFL)FFFL-HS TEST NORMING

(WITHOUT FFFL)

Table 4: Differences in Student Performance by Standard and Concept for KEYS Pretest and WITHOUT FFFL Students

Items (FFFL-HS Test ) Males Females Difference Males Females DifferenceA. INCOME 48.98 48.58 0.40 48.77 50.26 -1.491. Sources of income 1, 11 57.06 57.23 -0.16 40.42 44.37 -3.952. Determinants of income 9, 14, 15, 17 49.05 48.70 0.35 51.50 55.96 -4.463 Taxes and transfer paymets 18, 19, 20 43.50 42.65 0.85 50.70 46.58 4.12

B. MONEY MANAGEMENT 41.60 43.93 -2.33** 48.66 49.76 -1.091. Limited resources and choice 5, 8 42.83 45.95 -3.13 47.90 38.74 9.16*2. Opportunity cost 7 25.11 22.54 2.57 79.04 77.48 1.563. Personal financial responsibility 6 76.68 83.43 -6.75** 79.04 88.08 -9.04*4. Financial decision making 10 30.27 41.23 -10.96** 47.31 46.36 0.955. Inflation and investing 28 23.54 21.19 2.35 20.36 19.21 1.156. Insurance, risk management 46, 47, 48, 50 49.10 50.96 0.35 47.90 51.82 -3.927. Budgeting 41, 42, 43 37.22 36.87 0.35 36.33 39.51 -3.198. Use of money management tools 44, 45 37.33 42.10 -4.77* 53.89 55.96 -2.07

C. SPENDING AND CREDIT 34.28 33.26 1.02 38.60 38.71 -0.121. Benefits and costs of spending 3, 4 40.25 40.94 -0.70 45.81 47.68 -1.872. Information on products3. Costs and benefits of payment methods 31, 32 44.73 47.50 -2.76 52.69 58.61 -5.924. Risk and credit 35, 36 46.97 47.11 -0.14 51.20 50.00 1.205. Sources of credit 37, 40 24.44 21.00 3.44 31.14 29.80 1.346. Credit history and records 33, 34 22.87 18.50 4.37** 23.35 20.53 2.827. Managing financial difficulties8. Rights and responsibilities of buyers, sellers, and creditors

38 18.61 15.80 2.81 16.17 12.58 3.59

D. SAVING AND INVESTING 41.89 41.04 0.85 40.66 44.07 -3.41*1. Saving and investing 21, 23 24.78 23.03 1.75 25.45 27.81 -2.372. Reasons for saving and investing 2 84.75 89.21 -4.46* 86.23 89.40 -3.183. Risk, return, and liquidity investment 25, 26, 27 45.52 43.80 1.71 42.91 42.83 0.094. Buy and sell investments 29, 30 45.63 44.22 1.41 49.10 52.65 3.555. Rate of return on investments 22, 24 27.69 25.53 2.16 19.76 27.48 7.72*6. Sources of investment information 39 43.27 45.28 -2.01 43.71 50.99 -7.287. Government and saving and investment

TOTAL 41.36 41.60 -0.23 44.36 45.85 -1.49Note: Standards and concepts were obtained from Walstad and Rebeck (2005) and are based on the National Standards in Personal Finance (Jump$tart Coalition, 2002), ** Difference in means is statistically signficant at the 1% level; * Difference in means is statistically significant at the 5% level.

KEYS PRE-TESTFFFL-HS TEST NORMING (WITHOUT

FFFL)

Table 5: Differences in Student Performance by Standard and Concept for KEYS Posttest and WITH FFFL Students

Items (FFFL-HS Test ) Males Females Difference Males Females DifferenceA. INCOME 73.97 76.00 -2.03* 62.80 66.76 -3.96**1. Sources of income 1, 11 84.87 86.8 -1.94 63.92 71.37 -7.45*2. Determinants of income 9, 14, 15, 17 75.45 76.59 -1.14 64.74 67.4 -2.663 Taxes and transfer paymets 18, 19, 20 64.72 68.02 -3.29 59.46 62.85 -3.39

B. MONEY MANAGEMENT 65.64 67.90 -2.26** 55.46 57.00 -1.551. Limited resources and choice 5, 8 61.55 63.29 -1.75 51.1 52.2 -1.12. Opportunity cost 7 56.73 57.03 -0.31 84.25 86.34 -2.13. Personal financial responsibility 6 87.22 91.72 -4.50* 78.75 80.18 -1.424. Financial decision making 10 72.42 78.81 -6.38* 52.75 58.59 -5.845. Inflation and investing 28 43.05 44.12 -1.07 21.98 20.26 1.716. Insurance, risk management 46, 47, 48, 50 67.04 67.82 -0.78 54.4 56.94 -2.547. Budgeting 41, 42, 43 62.63 65.96 -3.33 48.72 47.28 1.448. Use of money management tools 44, 45 72.98 75.53 -2.55 64.1 67.84 -3.74

C. SPENDING AND CREDIT 60.44 62.73 -2.29* 52.08 53.34 -1.261. Benefits and costs of spending 3, 4 59.19 61.95 -2.75 53.48 59.25 -5.772. Information on products3. Costs and benefits of payment methods 31, 32 71.75 74.08 -2.34 68.5 70.7 -2.214. Risk and credit 35, 36 65.58 68.88 -3.3 58.06 59.03 -0.975. Sources of credit 37, 40 48.88 50.39 -1.51 47.07 42.07 -56. Credit history and records 33, 34 60.54 60.983 -0.44 35.35 39.21 -3.867. Managing financial difficulties8. Rights and responsibilities of buyers, sellers, and creditors

38 52.91 57.42 -4.5 47.99 46.26 1.73

D. SAVING AND INVESTING 65.31 64.99 0.32 52.55 53.62 -1.081. Saving and investing 21, 23 50.78 48.65 2.13 37.36 38.33 -0.962. Reasons for saving and investing 2 94.84 97.5 -2.65* 91.58 96.92 -5.34*3. Risk, return, and liquidity investment 25, 26, 27 62.71 59.86 2.85 49.94 49.93 0.0124. Buy and sell investments 29, 30 79.48 77.65 1.83 64.29 64.32 -0.035. Rate of return on investments 22, 24 46.75 47.5 -0.75 34.07 33.26 0.816. Sources of investment information 39 68.16 72.06 -3.9 65.2 71.37 -6.167. Government and saving and investment

TOTAL 65.94 67.55 -1.61** 55.39 57.23 -1.84**Note: Standards and concepts were obtained from Walstad and Rebeck (2005) and are based on the National Standards in Personal Finance (Jump$tart Coalition, 2002), ** Difference in means is statistically signficant at the 1% level; * Difference in means is statistically significant at the 5% level.

KEYS POST-TEST FFFL-HS TEST NORMING (WITH FFFL)