When Dutch non-profit Aflatoun International teamed up with King’s College London to scrutinise its flagship financial education program, “Change the Game,” the stakes were high. Around the world, millions of young people enter adulthood without the skills to manage money, navigate debt or plan for the future-gaps that can deepen inequality and limit life chances. “Change the Game” promises to tackle this by teaching children and adolescents not only how money works, but how to use it to shape their own lives and communities.
Now, researchers at King’s have put those claims to the test. Drawing on classroom observations,surveys and interviews across multiple countries,their evaluation goes beyond checking whether students can balance a budget. It probes what financial literacy looks like in practice: Are young people changing how they save and spend? Does financial education shift household dynamics or long-term aspirations? And can a curriculum designed in one context really work in another?
The findings offer a rare, data-driven look at what happens when financial education moves from policy papers into real classrooms. They also raise urgent questions about how such programmes should be designed, delivered and measured in an era of mounting economic uncertainty.
Assessing impact How Change the Game reshapes financial literacy among young people
Early findings indicate that the programme does more than teach young people how to handle money; it alters how they think about financial decisions in everyday life. Participants report greater confidence in setting savings goals, comparing financial products and challenging peer pressure around spending. Teachers also note a visible shift in classroom dynamics: students begin to question marketing claims, discuss trade‑offs between short‑term rewards and long‑term security, and show a new willingness to talk openly about money at home. This behavioural pivot is reinforced by interactive tools and peer‑led activities that translate abstract concepts such as compound interest or risk diversification into concrete, relatable scenarios.
Quantitative indicators collected across schools suggest that gains are both measurable and sustained over time. Post‑programme assessments show marked improvements in budgeting skills, awareness of financial rights and readiness to seek self-reliant advice before making major purchases. Qualitative interviews deepen this picture, highlighting a stronger sense of agency and a sharper understanding of how financial systems shape life chances. Together, these strands of evidence point to a model of financial education that is not simply informational but transformative, equipping young people to navigate uncertainty with clarity and purpose.
- Increased confidence: Students feel better prepared to manage pocket money, part‑time income and digital payments.
- Critical thinking: Participants more frequently challenge misleading financial offers and social media “money hacks”.
- Behavioural change: Reported shifts from impulsive spending towards planned saving and goal‑oriented budgeting.
- Social spillover: Conversations about money extend to families and peers, amplifying the programme’s reach.
| Indicator | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Students with a monthly budget | 28% | 67% |
| Can explain interest rates | 31% | 79% |
| Discuss money at home weekly | 22% | 54% |
| Feel “in control” of finances | 35% | 81% |
Inside the classroom Evaluating teaching methods and curriculum design at King’s College London
The roll-out of Change the Game at King’s College London has transformed traditional lectures into laboratories of financial decision-making.Rather than relying on static slide decks, tutors mix short theory bursts with live portfolio simulations, group budgeting challenges and role-play negotiations with “banks” and “employers.” These methods are designed to mirror real-world pressures: fluctuating “market” data is pushed to students in real time,assignments are tied to personal financial goals,and classroom debates dissect the trade-offs between short-term spending and long-term resilience. Early feedback shows that students respond best when learning activities are anchored in their own circumstances, notably for those juggling part-time work, rent, and tuition fees.
- Active learning labs replacing passive lectures
- Scenario-based workshops on debt, savings and risk
- Peer-led clinics for discussing money habits safely
- Digital tools that track progress on financial goals
| Curriculum Focus | Teaching Method | Impact Snapshot |
|---|---|---|
| Budgeting & cashflow | Interactive case studies | Clearer view of monthly costs |
| Credit & debt | Role-play with lenders | More critical use of credit |
| Savings & investing | Simulated portfolios | Higher confidence in long-term planning |
| Financial rights | Policy analysis workshops | Stronger awareness of consumer protections |
Underpinning these classroom choices is a deliberately modular curriculum, built so that programmes in law, business, social sciences and healthcare can adapt the same core content to their discipline-specific realities. Assessment has shifted away from high-stakes final exams to a mosaic of reflective journals, short analytical pieces and team presentations, each mapping learning outcomes to tangible financial behaviours. This design makes it possible to evaluate not only what students know about APRs or inflation, but also whether they change how they negotiate part-time contracts, manage overdrafts or approach student loans. In doing so, King’s positions the programme as both an academic asset and a practical toolkit for navigating life beyond the campus.
Beyond the balance sheet Measuring behavioural change and long term financial confidence
While exam scores and budgeting worksheets provide one view of impact, this evaluation followed participants into the messier realm of habits, emotions and day‑to‑day choices. Students reported a shift from reactive to planned money management, with many describing a new sense of control over small but significant decisions such as lunch spending, online subscriptions and impulsive purchases. In interviews and focus groups, learners pointed to specific behavioural changes, including: setting weekly spending limits, using comparison tools before buying and openly discussing money with peers and family. Teachers noted a visible decline in “end‑of‑month panic” among pupils, replaced by a more measured language around trade‑offs, priorities and acceptable risk.
Confidence gains were not uniform,but they were substantial among students who began the programme feeling excluded from financial conversations. These participants increasingly described themselves as “the one who explains things at home” and demonstrated a stronger willingness to engage with formal financial products. The evaluation highlighted several emerging markers of long‑term financial confidence:
- Comfort with complexity – asking questions about interest,fees and contracts rather than avoiding them.
- Future‑oriented thinking – linking today’s saving or borrowing choices to study, work and housing plans.
- Resilient responses to setbacks – reframing unexpected costs as problems to be managed, not crises to be feared.
| Indicator | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Regular budgeting | 28% | 61% |
| Discussing money at home | 34% | 69% |
| Confidence to choose a bank account | 22% | 63% |
From findings to action Policy and programme recommendations to strengthen financial education
Translating the evaluation’s insights into concrete measures demands a sharper focus on how, when and by whom financial education is delivered. The evidence suggests that impact is highest when young people can link abstract concepts to their lived economic realities, so curricula should embed local prices, real family budgeting scenarios and youth-led micro‑enterprise cases rather than generic examples. Embedding the programme within school timetables as a core cross‑curricular strand-rather than a one‑off workshop-would help sustain learning,especially when paired with tailored materials for different age groups and literacy levels. To avoid dependence on a single champion teacher, institutions should develop structured training pathways and incentives so that financial education competencies are recognised in performance reviews and professional growth plans.
- Prioritise experiential learning through simulations, savings challenges and student‑run initiatives.
- Standardise teacher training with accessible toolkits and refresher modules.
- Integrate safeguarding and equity checks so activities remain inclusive of the most vulnerable students.
- Use data dashboards to track progression in attitudes, knowledge and real financial behaviours over time.
| Policy Lever | Recommended Action | Expected Gain |
|---|---|---|
| Curriculum Design | Embed modules across maths, civics and life‑skills subjects | More consistent exposure |
| Teacher Capacity | Create accredited short courses linked to progression | Higher teaching quality |
| Youth Participation | Form student finance clubs and peer‑mentor networks | Stronger engagement |
| Monitoring | Collect annual outcome data tied to simple indicators | Evidence‑based scaling |
At programme level, the evaluation points towards a need for stronger partnerships between schools, community organisations and financial institutions to deepen reach and sustainability. Memoranda of understanding with local banks or credit unions could secure guest facilitators, tailored youth products and safe pathways for first‑time savers, provided that consumer protection standards are rigorously upheld. Donors and implementing agencies should also earmark funds specifically for longitudinal tracking and adaptive design, allowing the initiative to evolve as students’ financial ecosystems change-whether through digital payments, informal work or family migration. By aligning these measures with national strategies for financial inclusion,the programme can move from isolated good practice to a reference model for systemic youth financial education.
The Conclusion
As policymakers and practitioners continue to grapple with how best to equip young people for an increasingly complex financial landscape, the evaluation of Change the Game offers both reassurance and a note of caution. Well-designed, school-based interventions can lift financial understanding and shift behaviours in the short term, particularly when they are embedded in the curriculum and delivered with consistency.
Yet the findings from King’s College London also underline the limits of standalone programmes. Lasting financial capability appears to depend not only on classroom content,but on the broader ecosystem in which young people make decisions: family practices,digital influences and the economic realities they face.
For now, Change the Game stands as a promising example of evidence-informed financial education. Whether its early gains can be sustained-and scaled-will depend on whether schools, funders and policymakers are prepared to treat it not as a one-off initiative, but as the foundation of a longer-term commitment to preparing the next generation for financial life.
