show contradictory results and many of them suffer from identification issues. For example, Bernheim et al. (2001) employ a difference-in-difference approach to analyze the impact of state high school financial education mandates on savings behavior in the U.S. and find that mandates appear to effectively increase exposure to financial education, and have a significant subsequent effect on future savings. However, Cole and Shastry (2009) replicate and extend the analysis using a much larger sample from U.S. census data and find, in contrast, no significant impact of high school financial education on future savings.

Other impact evaluations of financial literacy programs additionally rely on small samples, which raises concerns about the external validity of their findings. Carlin and Robinson (2010) examine a financial literacy course for high school students in the U.S. The course provided 19 hours of financial training that included credit card management, taxes, budgeting, and simple investments. Students’ financial skills are measured in role-playing games of fictitious budget situations at visits to a “Finance Park”. The authors find that training raised completion rates (successfully crafting a balanced budget) from 5 percent to over 50 percent and savings increased four-fold. However, the identification strategy relies on comparing outcomes of 125 students before and after the financial literacy course, so that it is not clear whether improvements are due to the course, repeated visits to the park, or other time-varying factors.

Similarly, Varcoe et al. (2005) conduct a pre-post analysis to evaluate a program (Money Talks) in which 13-18 year-olds in various settings, including public high schools, received four newsletters which covered different topics, such as savings habits, shopping tips, car costs, and money values. Using a sample of 114 students, the authors find that students show both greater financial knowledge and improved financial behavior after the course compared to before.

Walstad et al. (2010) study the effects of a DVD-based curriculum for high school students – Financing Your Future. The five video segments cover such topics as saving, money management, banking, credit and debt, and investing, and add up to six hours of instruction. They find that 673 students who participated in the education program showed a significant gain in financial knowledge (as measured by pre-test and post-test scores) compared to 127 students in a matched control group, but they do not study subsequent behavior change.

Luhrmann et al. (2012) evaluate 90 minute financial education sessions delivered to 14-16 year old students in lower stream German high schools. They compare 558 treatment students to 158 control students and find significant improvements in financial knowledge and a hypothetical savings scenario. However, schools are chosen to receive financial education sessions based on how busy teachers feel they are with students prior to the end of the academic year, which raises serious selection concerns since teachers in control schools may also be dealing with relatively poorly performing students or other unobserved underlying student, class, or school characteristics.

6