Agree with all five points. When I hear talk of the importance of financial education (usually in the context of not overborrowing), I find it is but a way of deflecting blame from those doing the overlending. And that brings to mind a sixth point that I think you have missed -- messaging.
Lending is a profitable enterprise, and advertising messages reminding consumers (especially poor ones) of their many options to borrow are ever-present. Moreover, I'm quite convinced that those messages are effective not only in helping consumers choose between one or another lender, but in getting people to borrow more overall.
But what about messages that counteract the constant reminder to borrow, borrow, borrow? They're far less prevalent, especially when targeted to the poor. That's because for financial institutions, the business case for gathering small deposits is far less compelling than making small loans, and when it is pursued, it largely rests on cross-selling, i.e. marketing loans. At the end of the day, financial institutions will always find making small loans more profitable than collecting small deposits, and that's the balance that's reflected in their advertising.
To me, the financial education that matters cannot get delivered in classroom exercises. It has to be in the form of steady, ongoing campaigns that remind people to save, thus balancing out the incessant message telling them to borrow. Ultimately, that means looking closely at the financial sector, and finding ways to make lending less profitable, and deposits -- more so.