A seven-week early money-learning sequence for Reception and Key Stage 1, free to your school
Pocket Money Adventures teaches and rehearses a simple pause routine before a money choice. We deliver the opening Spark Session. Your teacher then leads six short weekly sessions from a library of thirty cards, each specified to need no more than five minutes of preparation. A local business pays for the classroom, your school pays nothing at any point, and there is no obligation at any step.
Separately, a member of your staff stays in the room while we deliver the Spark, under your normal arrangements. That is classroom supervision, not teacher-led delivery. We count it separately rather than folding it in or pretending it does not exist. This is a design figure, not a measured one, and your own implementation check will tell us the real one.
The routine the children learn: Tap, Tap, Pause
Tap.
Tap once and ask, “Do I need it, or do I want it?” A physical thing a four year old can do without reading anything.
Tap again.
Tap again and ask, “If I get it now, what can’t I get later?” One question, and the trade-off inside it is the interesting part.
Pause.
Pause for one breath, then choose. That is the whole mechanism, and it is the part we can actually teach.
Give a reason.
The reason is the point, not the answer. A child who says "it depends, because..." has done the work.
Save some, spend some, share some if you can is what may follow a choice; it is not the routine itself. Sharing is an invitation, never a duty. Either wrist. Prefer not to tap? Take a breath, touch a pause card, or use another agreed cue. Every situation belongs to a story character. No child is ever asked what their own family earns, spends or cannot afford.
What it costs three different people in time
Your teacher
Present, not presenting.
- We deliver the Spark Session. You stay in the room and present nothing
- One Sidekick Card a week in weeks 2 to 7, 1 to 5 minutes. Pick it up and read it
- A two-minute check-in each week, on a phone if easier
- The ten-minute class task three times
- No printing, no slides, no marking
Your parents and carers
Optional, always.
- Four Family Missions, one in each of weeks 1 to 4, carrying the same words the class used, and a Parent Fridge Card that stays up all term
- Nothing to fill in, return, print, log in to, buy or prove
- No question about what a family earns, spends or cannot afford
- Nobody is asked in class who did it
- A family that does none of it costs their child nothing
Your pupils
A story, then a routine.
- They meet Ava and Walbot in a story, in their own classroom
- Two taps, a pause, one question, then a reason
- Core participation does not depend on confident reading, writing or calculation
- They keep a certificate with their name on it
- Nobody is tested and nobody is compared
Hi, I’m Nathan
Pocket Money Adventures started on a family holiday, in a shop, with my daughter. She had picked up one more thing, I said no, and she looked up at me and said: “It’s OK, Daddy. Just tap it.”
I had worked in financial services for nearly twenty years, and that sentence stopped me where I stood. She was not being greedy. She was being logical. She could see the phone, she could hear the beep, and she could see the thing we walked out with. What she could not see was money leaving, or the choice underneath it.
Money used to be visible. A child watched coins come out of a purse and change go back in. Now the exchange happens behind a beep. So that is what Pocket Money Adventures is for: making the choice visible again. And it is why this page tells you what our evidence does not yet show as plainly as what it does.
Nathan Waldron · Founder, and dad of two
If a headteacher only has two minutes, the seven weeks tab is the one to open. Everything else on this page exists to answer a question that tab raises.
The seven weeks, frozen
Select a stage to see what happens and what it asks of the teacher. This sequence is frozen as School Pathway v1.6. Where any older document of ours disagrees with it, the older document is wrong.
The Spark Session, in detail
A 60 to 75 minute Spark Session
That is the normal teaching route. Where your school also joins the prospective evaluation, we agree a 90-minute slot, and inside it the facilitator fits the starting capture, the teaching, transitions and the end-of-Spark capture. Joining the evaluation is optional and a school may use the teaching resource without it. Carpet or hall space, no desks needed.
The order is deliberate
The routine is taught first because it leads into the needs-and-wants decision, which leads into what to do with money, which the book then models. Welcome, routine, needs and wants, the three choices, the book, draw and choose, close.
Six components, all six
The assessed story. Tap, Tap, Pause. Needs and wants. The three choices, save some, spend some, share some if you can. Reasoned choice. Safe distance, which means characters and pretend situations rather than a child’s own household. If any of these six is absent, it is not a Pocket Money Adventures session.
How it flexes across the age band
Ages 4 to 5
Action and repetition, concrete short language. The routine is taught mainly as a physical game. Needs and wants uses obvious tangible pairs.
We expect recognition and imitation rather than independent explanation, and we do not treat the absence of explanation as a failure.
Ages 6 to 7
We ask for the reason and push gently for “because”. Saving toward a goal over time. Less obvious cases and short discussion.
Some children explain the routine in their own words. The six fixed components are identical across the band; only the depth of reasoning and the balance of action against discussion change.
Designed for ages 4 to 7, Reception to Year 2. Evidenced so far in Year 1 and Year 2. Summer 2026 delivery was to Year 1 and Year 2 classes, and the figures further down this page come from a single Year 2 return. Reception delivery has not yet been recorded, so Reception is designed for rather than evidenced, and we would say the same to a governor who asked.
Every report you receive, shown before you agree to anything
Most providers show a school a brochure and promise a report. Here is the report. Each line is labelled, so you never have to work out which parts are real and which are the format.
Actual pilot observationIllustrative specimen wordingProposed future field
Week by week, what lands in your inbox
Week 1 · the day after the Spark Session
Specimen Delivered. 90 minutes with Class 1E, 28 on roll, 26 present. One child chose to watch rather than join the sorting activity and joined in by the second half.
Specimen Hands-up count. Before: 19 of 26 could name the difference between a need and a want. After: 23 of 26. Taken by the teacher, hands up, in front of the class. A rough classroom measure, affected by children copying each other.
Actual What the teacher said. “The needs and wants sorting was the part they took away. They were still arguing about the trampoline at lunchtime.”
Week 2 · after your check-in
Specimen You told us: used on 3 days, engagement 4 of 5, Card 1 done, Parent Card home Friday.
Actual A child told the class they had used the routine in a shop over half-term. Reported by the class teacher. We did not see it and we have not verified it.
Specimen From us: children often use the routine loudly at this point, and often about someone else's spending. That is normal.
Week 3 · after your check-in
Specimen You told us: used on 4 days, engagement 4 of 5, Card 2 done.
Actual Children taught other children about needs and wants in an assembly, and demonstrated the routine. A useful informal indication. It is not a measured outcome.
Not yet built A short direct task for the children, so that “they can explain it” stops resting entirely on adult judgement.
Week 4 · a missed week
Specimen You told us: used on 1 day, engagement 3 of 5. Card 3 not done, school trip.
Specimen From us: that is logged as a missed week and it will appear in your final report as a missed week. We would rather your report be accurate than tidy. Nothing needs catching up.
Weeks 5 and 6 · the gap
Specimen These two weeks carry short daily moments led by you. There is no form and no check-in for them, so you will not get a note in weeks 5 or 6 and we will not pretend the silence is a design choice. Building a light-touch check for these two weeks is on our list.
Weeks 6 to 7 · the follow-up
Specimen You rate the same 21 items a third time. It is your judgement of your class, which is what it is worth and no more: it is not a test the children sit, and it is not blind. Then your Delivery and Learning Report arrives with the certificates.
Your final report, in full
Page 1 · the delivery record
Dates planned against dates delivered. Weeks completed. Cards missed, named as missed. Teacher time as it was actually logged, against the figure we advertise. Access adjustments. Who was in the room.
The awkward rows stay in. A report that only records what went to plan is marketing.
Page 2 · what the ratings showed
Your class's before and after ratings, group by group, on the scale the instrument actually uses. Plus the six-week follow-up. No percentage of children, because we have never measured a child.
Page 3 · what it means
What we can say from it, what we cannot say and will not, what we would do differently, and the one thing worth funding next. Which is a longer follow-up in the same class, not a second classroom.
The certificates
For the classroom wall
Records what was delivered and completed, and nothing else. Which weeks ran, which did not, the dates, and that a local business funded it.
What it no longer says: that the routine travelled home, that children taught it to others, or that anything was measured. All three used to be on it. They are reported observations, they belong in the report where they can carry their caveats, and they do not belong on a wall.
For every child
One for every child on roll, whether or not they were in on the day. The teacher writes the name in. We never see it, hold it or copy it.
No score, no grade, no level, no comparison with any other child. There is no number that belongs to a child, so there is no number on it.
The evidence, honestly
Most programmes hand a school a percentage. We would rather hand you the ladder the percentage sits on, so you can see how far up it we actually are. This is the same table we show a funder and a sponsor.
| What the evidence would need to show | Where we are | On what basis | How it gets answered, and when |
|---|---|---|---|
| It can be delivered in a primary classroom | Small formative evidence | Story-led classroom delivery was completed in summer 2026, in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire schools | Already answered for the Spark Session. The seven-week sequence is answered by the first complete cycle |
| Children engage with it | Early teacher-reported evidence | Reported by class teachers in every setting, not observed by us | The weekly check-in now records participation every week rather than at the end |
| They can perform the routine on cue | Fidelity check, in place | Children perform Tap, Tap, Pause on cue at the end of the session. This verifies teaching, not change | Captured in every Spark Session from the next cohort |
| They can tell a need from a want, and name save, spend and share | Being measured now | Immediate outcomes, captured whole-class inside the session | The 2026 to 2027 pilot. Whole-class responses at the Spark and at week seven |
| They pause before deciding, without the routine being named | Being measured now | This is the primary outcome. Observed anchor scenes inside the session, not a teacher opinion | The same pilot. It is the outcome the whole design exists to test |
| It persists to week seven | Being measured now | One teacher follow-up at one school so far, which is a signal and not a finding | The week seven recall check, across a full cohort rather than one class |
| They use it in daily life without being asked | Exploratory | Teacher-reported signal only, and labelled as such wherever it appears | This may never be answerable at this age without a design we cannot yet fund. We report it as a signal and refuse to convert it into a finding |
| Sustained use of the decision routine over time | In the theory, not measured | An ultimate outcome in our Theory of Change, marked not measured in print | A separately agreed longitudinal follow-up, with its own cohort, schools, funding and protocol. None of that is secured, so we promise no endline date |
| Lifelong financial behaviour and improved life chances | A goal, never an outcome | This is what the work is for. It is not something a seven-week programme can evidence | It stays a goal. Anyone claiming to have evidenced this from a primary programme is overclaiming |
Financial Education Quality Mark, Young Enterprise. A full assessor pack was submitted in August 2026: the book, the Intervention Manual, the teacher materials, the thirty-card Sidekick library, the seven-week roadmap, the logic model and four evaluation documents. It is under assessment. Nothing has been awarded.
PSHE Association and the Association for Citizenship Teaching. A separate resource, four teacher-led Key Stage 1 lesson packs of about 40 to 45 minutes each, went to both. Those submissions expressly exclude the Spark Session and the seven-week programme, because a facilitated session is a service rather than a teaching resource.
Until an award is made and its scope confirmed in writing, we do not describe the programme, the organisation or the seven weeks as quality marked, accredited or approved.
How it is measured in your classroom
Measurement sits inside delivery. No separate visit, no researcher in the room, and nothing that identifies a child leaves the classroom. Four things are recorded, kept apart on purpose.
1 · Whole-class capture
- The same short questions at the start and end of the Spark, giving your class its own before and after
- Observed anchor scenes for the primary outcome: does a child pause before deciding, without the routine being named
- The recall check at weeks six to seven
Whole-class responses only. No child is named, marked or ranked, and nothing goes on a child's record.
2 · Fidelity and dosage
- Can the children perform the routine on cue at the end of the session. This verifies teaching, not change
- Which weekly sessions ran, and which did not
- How long each took, against the five minutes of preparation we specify
- Participation, adaptations, and any wording you had to explain
This is where our fifteen-minutes-a-week figure stops being a design estimate.
3 · Exploratory signals
Vocabulary heard, use without the routine being named, anything a family mentioned, and Family Mission slips that come back. Returns are a signal from the families who return them, never a rate of family use.
Labelled, never counted, never merged with the capture above.
4 · The teacher outcome
One short rating before Week 1 and one after Week 7: do you enjoy teaching about money, and do you feel more confident delivering it inclusively.
A real outcome, and it is about you rather than the children, so it is never added into a learning total.
What it is ultimately for
Every programme should be able to say what it thinks it changes, in what order, and which parts of that it has actually measured. Ours is one page, dated 4 August 2026, and it uses a deliberate rule: plain text is measured in the 2026 to 2027 pilot; anything marked not measured is in the theory and is not being claimed. The rule exists so the distinction survives a screenshot.
| Stage | What it says |
|---|---|
| Activities | A Spark Session of 60 to 75 minutes, inside an agreed 90-minute slot where the school also joins the evaluation, supported by the Ava book series, Sidekick Cards, optional 30-second practice moments, four Family Missions in weeks 1 to 4 and the Parent Fridge Card |
| Outputs | Reach, delivery, a fidelity check that children can perform the routine on cue, dosage logged weekly, Family Missions distributed, and delivery quality. The fidelity check verifies teaching, not change |
| Immediate outcomes | Primary: children pause before deciding, without the routine being named, in a money choice. They can tell a need from a want, name save, spend and share with an example of each, say what they would wait and save for, and feel more confident talking about money. Teachers enjoy teaching it and feel more confident delivering it inclusively, held distinct as a teacher outcome |
| Intermediate outcomes | Persistence to week seven. Use in daily life without being asked, exploratory and teacher-reported. Improved financial knowledge, derived and not separately measured. Families talk about money at home, returner-only and exploratory |
| Ultimate outcomes | Not measured. Children have strengthened financial decision-making, and sustained use of the decision routine over time. Whether repeated classroom practice produces lasting or real-world change is not established. |
| Goals | Not measured. A goal, never an outcome. Children and young people have positive lifelong financial behaviour and improved life chances, avoid future debt, and experience less financial inequality |
The four things this is aimed at
- Problem debt in adulthood. Clients reaching debt advice typically carry unsecured problem debt in the order of £15,000 to £17,000, on StepChange's published figures
- Scam victimisation. UK Finance reported authorised push payment fraud losses of £450.7m in 2024. A pause before a purchase is a behavioural precursor, nothing more
- Money-related mental health. The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute finds people with long-term mental health problems are nine times more likely to have struggled financially
- Lost productivity and life chances. Quantified in Resolution Foundation, Institute for Fiscal Studies and Financial Conduct Authority work on chronic financial stress
And the limit, stated first not last
We do not publish a social return ratio, and we will not before July 2027, when longitudinal data from the first cohort exists. Any multiplier quoted for us before that date is not authorised by us and did not come from us.
We do not claim to prevent any of the four harms above. The claim is directional and it is a contribution claim: money habits begin forming in early childhood, our age band sits inside that window, and that is a reason to work here rather than evidence that the work succeeded.
We cite no international cohort evidence, because none of it was carried out on this programme, this age group or in a British primary classroom. Closing that gap is what the longitudinal arm is designed to do.
What we previously measured, and why it was retired
The six learning groups together
38 of 90 before, 67 of 90 immediately after, 78 of 90 at the six-week follow-up. On the teacher's own 1 to 5 scale that is a mean of 2.1, then 3.7, then 4.3 per item across those eighteen items. Across all twenty-one items, including the teacher-confidence group, it is 2.4, then 3.8, then 4.4. Neither figure is quoted as a result for the current pathway. Both are printed here solely so the correction can be audited.
What these numbers can carry. Higher in all six learning groups immediately after the session, and higher again in five of six at the follow-up. Whole-class teacher judgement, one cohort, no comparison group, no independent observer, the same teacher before and after and therefore not blind. Both the before and after ratings were submitted on the same day, eleven days after the session, so they are retrospective rather than contemporaneous.
What we got wrong, and the correction
Our earlier documents carried a headline: 59.5% before, 94.0% immediately after. That figure is withdrawn. It is not a result we quote, for this pathway or any other, and it is set out here only so the correction can be checked. It was wrong for a reason that is arithmetic rather than interpretation.
| What was published | What is true |
|---|---|
| 59.5% to 94.0% | Withdrawn. On the scale the instrument actually uses, the same return is 50 of 105 to 79 of 105, or a mean teacher rating per item of 2.4 to 3.8 out of 5. Neither form is quoted as a result for the current pathway. It was one school’s early self-evaluation and nothing more |
| A before figure compared against a six-week follow-up, at a second school | Two different denominators on the same instrument. The before figure was computed out of 84 and the follow-up out of 105, so part of that apparent rise was the change of denominator rather than the children. That comparison is withdrawn and the figures are not reprinted |
| “Impulse and spending behaviour”, already at its ceiling before delivery | Items 13 to 15 are the instrument’s teacher-confidence group. The first reads “How confident are you in teaching financial literacy to this age group?” A teacher’s self-rating, published as children’s spending behaviour |
| “Scores rose across all seven areas” | Six rose. The seventh, the teacher-confidence group, was unchanged on the day |
| One reach figure, around 180 children across six classes, used to describe the whole of summer 2026 | Three different populations were being merged into one number. Approximately 222 children across eight class groups in four schools received a Spark Session. Three schools, approximately 179 children across six classes, had at least one further recorded engagement or evidence-return step. Two schools, approximately 92 children across three classes, returned outcome-related data under materially different instruments. No school completed the current standardised seven-week programme. The three counts are reported separately from here on, and 179 is never given as the reach figure |
How this was found, and why we are publishing it
Not by us, in the first instance. An outside reader looked at the seven published domains and asked why one was already at its ceiling before the session. Chasing that question back to the raw form exposed the mislabelled group, and chasing the mislabelled group back to the scoring exposed the denominator. The three merged cohort counts were separated in the reconciliation that followed.
The correction cost us our best-looking number and nothing replaced it. A provider who only publishes its wins is telling you something about how it will report on your classroom. If a competitor shows you a bigger figure, ask which scale it was collected on and who did the rating.
What we say, and what we refuse to say
What we say
- Earlier story-led classroom delivery was completed during summer 2026, and provides small formative evidence that the launch, classroom discussion and short reinforcement can be delivered in practice
- The seven-week pathway has not yet completed a full end-to-end delivery cycle, and its week-by-week outlines are being finalised, so an early school is among the first to run the complete sequence
- A submission is under Financial Education Quality Mark assessment. Nothing has been awarded
- Current evidence supports feasibility, engagement, and classroom recall and demonstration
- Teachers reported children using it without being asked to. That is a useful informal indication
What we refuse to say
- Any effect size, any Cohen's d, any comparison with an Education Endowment Foundation benchmark
- Proven, evidence-based, Ofsted-ready, or anything about an inspection judgement
- That the routine has become a habit, a reflex, or automatic
- That it changes real-world money behaviour, or protects a child from debt later
- Any percentage of children. Our instrument rates a class, not a child
- Any number that pools one school with another
What the design draws on, and the limit of each
Why four to seven
A review commissioned by the Money Advice Service, now the Money and Pensions Service, concluded that the cognitive foundations of later financial behaviour are typically in place by around age seven.
The limit: a review of developmental research, not a study of any programme. The shorthand that money habits are fixed by seven overstates it, and we do not use it.
Whitebread and Bingham, 2013.
Why a pause
Inhibitory control, the ability to stop and think before acting, is a core executive function, and reviews find some sustained practice regimes improve executive function in children.
The limit: a general educational principle. We have not established that our routine improves executive function or inhibitory control.
Diamond, 2013.
Why the money is harder to see
A 2024 meta-analysis pooled 392 effect sizes from 71 papers and found a small but reliable tendency to spend more when paying by card or phone than with cash.
The limit: adults, and the effect is small. We use it to explain why an exchange a child can watch has largely disappeared.
Schomburgk, Belli and Hoffmann, Journal of Retailing, 2024.
September 2028, and why we are not waiting
Following the Curriculum and Assessment Review, citizenship becomes statutory at key stages 1 and 2, Years 1 to 6, with financial education inside it. Final curriculum expected spring 2027, first teaching September 2028.
The programme of study is not published, so nobody can claim their scheme meets it, us included. We map only to the frameworks that already exist and we name them, so a governor can check what we mapped to.
Somebody has to work out what genuinely lands with four to seven year olds before 2028 arrives, and we intend that to be us. Every classroom from September 2026 feeds a designed evidence base rather than a testimonial: a defined primary outcome, whole-class capture at three points, a fidelity and dosage record, and the teacher outcome held separate.
It will be independently reviewed rather than marked by us. We are in early conversation with Loughborough University's Centre for Early Mathematics Learning. Nothing is commissioned yet and we will keep saying so until it is.
The timeline we stopped quoting
We used to print that habits take about 66 days. The study followed 96 adults choosing one daily behaviour, and estimated times varied from 18 days to 254.
The limit: adults, self-chosen, daily, in one setting. It sets no timeline for a child or for this programme, and we stopped citing it.
Lally and colleagues, 2010.
What we do not cite, on purpose
No effect size. No Education Endowment Foundation comparison. No claim that any of the work above was carried out on our programme, our age group, or in a British primary classroom.
Three of the four sources are about adults. We use them to explain why the design is plausible, never as evidence that it works.
Safeguarding, data and the sponsor
Safeguarding and conduct
- Anyone delivering holds an enhanced DBS check with the children's barred list check, registered with the Update Service
- A safeguarding policy suite and public liability insurance are in place, and we send them the day you ask
- We are never alone with a child. A teacher stays in the room throughout
- Delivery happens under your visitor and safeguarding procedures. The school keeps responsibility
- No photography of children unless your school has gathered the permissions and agreed it in writing first
Children, data and the sponsor
- No child is ever asked about their own family's money. Every scenario belongs to a story character
- No child is named, in any context. All reporting is class-level
- The sponsor is acknowledged to adults, in wording your school approves in advance
- No product promotion reaches children. The sponsor gets no access to families and no data
- Registered with the Information Commissioner's Office, ZC124930
What we hold
| Data | What happens to it | Retention |
|---|---|---|
| Child-level learning | No identifiable child-level learning data is retained by us. No individual score, rank or learning record. Whole-class responses may be counted in aggregate. Safeguarding, incident and complaints records may identify a child where necessary and sit separately | Learning: none held |
| Class ratings | Class level, attached to the school and never to a child. Lawful basis: legitimate interests | Three years, then deleted. Sooner on request |
| Teacher contact | Used to run the programme and send your reports | Twelve months after it ends. Sooner on request, and within 10 working days if a school withdraws |
| Signed agreements | The school agreement and the data agreement | Six years from the end of the agreement |
| Safeguarding records | Separate, under the applicable policy and your own procedures. Not part of the learning evaluation | As the applicable policy requires |
We used to write “no individual child data at any point”, full stop. True of the learning evaluation, and too absolute as a sentence, because a safeguarding record is a different thing under a different policy. The table says both.
The sponsor boundary, in full
| A sponsor may | A sponsor may not |
|---|---|
| Be acknowledged to adults, in wording your school approves before it is used | Meet, address, be introduced to or be named to the children. No exception |
| Name a town or a radius they would like their money to reach | Choose your school, or ask for a named school. We have said no to this and will again |
| Receive a written report of what was delivered and what the ratings showed | Receive anything identifying a child, a family, or an individual teacher |
| Say publicly that they funded a classroom in your area, once you have agreed the wording | Put a product, a logo, a leaflet or an offer in front of a child, in any form |
| Ask to renew | Make renewal conditional on a result, a photograph, a quotation or a named school |
We make no claim about Ofsted, inspection outcomes or statutory compliance. The programme contributes to your wider personal, social, health and economic education offer. Nothing here should be read as evidence of statutory compliance.
Take it away with you
Everything on this page, as documents you can print, forward to a colleague or put in front of governors. All of them are tagged for screen readers, carry a version and a review date, and have clickable contact links.
A game and a family resource are in development. They are not part of this decision and are not listed above. Annex D sets out honestly where they stand, if you want to know.
If you want to talk about it
Nathan Waldron, Founder and Director, Pocket Money Adventures CIC
hello@pocketmoneyadventures.co.uk
Twenty minutes on the phone before anything is booked. No follow-up sequence, and no deadline attached to anything on this page.
