But I do not understand the angst about Erica Stanford dropping home economics from the NCEA curriculum.
There is an opinion piece in The Spinoff today, and it's arguing against Erica Stanford removing this 'vital' subject from our school subject list because it's a 'moral decision,' - because, quote, 'everyone deserves to know what's in their food, how it affects their health, and how to make choices that support their overall well-being.'
Now, I tend to agree with that. You should know what's going on in your food. But from what I understand, home ec is still being taught and will still be taught to years 9 and 10 in some form or another, that's not going to change.
And if you cannot learn in the space of 2 years that you need to eat your fruit and your vegetables and your meat and maybe avoid the processed stuff and the sugar, then I don't have much hope that you're ever gonna learn this stuff.
And what's more, we are already one of the most obese nations on this planet. So home economics hasn't done very much for us in helping us to keep ourselves healthy in the last 114 years that it's been around, has it?
But also, and I think this is the most important thing, come on - did you actually learn anything in home ec?
Libby, who works with us, reckons that in one class, she spent the entire class just learning how to make a sandwich.
I remember setting a pot of oil on fire and and then running around with it and being taught how to put the fire out. So I suppose that's semi-helpful, but I also learned how to cut carrots, which, frankly, I should have known anyway.
All of this stuff, you can learn at home.
Now, home economics strikes me as one of those subjects that the country would be better off dropping altogether and replacing with another session on maths.
Don't you agree?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
"Home Economics" should be just that - rather than teaching kids how to cook basic stuff, they should be taught the economics of running a home - budgeting for food, rent, power etc; how compound interest on credit card debt works; how to make a dish cheaper by finding the in-season products in the veggie aisles; how managing to save small amounts of money each week leads to great long-term benefits. That would be far more useful for our kids, some of whose parents don't know these basic skills, so they won't learn them at home.
The details of the syllabus may need attention but I would have thought so called Home Economics is one subject which should be promoted. It is fine for persons of HdPA intellect. By observation, intuition or a glance through any basic cook book they grasp all. But many simpler souls now grow up in a vacuum and do not have the nous to seek knowledge. Without the often close and long association of capable at home mothers many moderns have no idea of basic cooking, home maintenance (and parenting). Little wonder such reliance on take aways. Most of the skills as taught are colonist practice derived so that is a factor against. I guess the time saved can be spent learning about Maui, Kupe, and the evil Treaty.
Running a household is a multifaceted task that both men and women are engaged with. Some people may feel uncomfortable about what they still consider to be a "girls' subject" but in these days of two-income couples and couples where the woman has the greater earning power and the guy spends more time doing household chores, that's a demonstrably obsolete view.
Education is supposed to be about preparing youngsters for the adult world. That includes learning how to run a household, and to labour the point, that's for both sexes. I agree with June above that the 'economics' aspect is very important - most 'poor' people are poor at least in part because they are lousy domestic finance managers - but I do not see why that should displace nutrition and culinary skills. There is room enough in the curriculum for both.
Post a Comment