This week on Food For Thought, I speak with 3 home economics teachers from British Columbia about what they think kids should learn about food and nutrition in school. I’m posting the audio file early this week because I’m off on a field trip to the Marche region and our hotel only has dial-up internet access. Shudder!
I would love to hear from you if you are a home ec teacher or have thoughts about what you think should be mandatory teachings in high schools regarding how to cook and eat. BC does not have mandatory classes in these topics, what about your province? Scroll down to the comments box below and have your say, and special thanks to home economics teachers Judy Chan, Joy Galea and Denise Lemard for taking part in the discussion. (sorry if I got the spellings wrong!)
Hello, Don,
I am a big fan of yours and believe that you have done much to raise the awareness and profile of many food related issues here in B.C. Thank you for your good work!
I’m writing because of a brainstorming session earlier today with Tanisha Remington, who runs the retail store here at Anita’s Organic Grain and Flour Mill in Chilliwack. She and I were putting together a plan to offer school tours to middle school classes. In the process, we reviewed the Learning Outcomes from the BC Ministry of Education for Home Economics students. Apparently, It is expected that grade 10 students will:
explain techniques and principles of food preparation, including those related to: starch cookery, protein cookery, deep fat frying
It is indeed unnerving and frustrating to know that our provincial government is continuing to promilgate such a lack of healthy diet awareness despite so much publicly available information on nutrition and health.
Despite these outdated government mandated learning outcomes, we will be including recent information on recognising and using whole grains in a delicious and nutritious diet without deep fat frying!
Hi Don,
I really enjoyed your interview today with the three teachers of Home Economics. As a retired teacher of Home Economics myself I could relate to what they were saying.
Home Economics is such an important subject and yet, in my experience, has received short shrift from school and district administration. For example, when I took my training at UBC (1975-77) one of the assignments was to plan an entire year’s program for Home Economics 9 using current budget figures–$540.00 for the year. Twenty five years later I was expected to teach the same course for $400, when, in fact, the budget when factoring for inflation should have been more than $1000.
Then there is the question of healthy eating. Politicians complain of high medical costs, yet so much could be done in the way of preventive medicine (obesity, cancer, heart disease) through proper diet–again, the place to start is in the home economics classroom.
The question of food safety should be high on the list, with current estimates at 1,000,000 Canadians annually suffering some form of illness caused by tainted food–the costs to the health care system are enormous, likewise to sick banks. Why not promote home economics, teach habits that will provide life-long benefits, and reduce the costs to the health care system?
Nutrition, GMOs, food preparation, employment in the food services industry–all are ‘hot topics’ that can be fully explored in the home economics classroom. Additionally, home ec is the perfect classroom environment for interdisciplinary studies–for example, food surpluses and deficits, globalization of food supply, climate change and food production, local farms and the agricultural land reserve–the list is endless. And while we’re expanding the role of home economics let’s not forget that other area that has suffered from years of budget cut-backs–physical education.
I find it interesting that the provincial government should be making noises about healthy foods in our schools. In my own experience I took the district to grievance because it was violating one of its own policies regarding junk foods in the schools–I wanted to rid the school of pop and chocolate bar vending machines. Needless to say, the grievance was not upheld. The district stated that its need for revenue far outweighed its obligation to follow its own rules.
Thinking back to when I was in junior and senior high school the situation is more favourable for men taking home economics. It was forbidden in the late 50s and 60s so I used to sneak into the back of the classroom. Things hadn’t changed all that much in the mid-70s when I enrolled at UBC–I had to threaten a human rights action before being allowed to register. That experience was in sharp contrast to what was actually happening in Vancouver schools at the time when all students in grade 8 rotated through home economics and practical arts (shops).
Always enjoy your features on CBC radio, keep up the good work.
Paul Hutcheson
Pender Island, B. C.
Cooking is one thing, but if nutrition is to be taught to Canadian high school students, I’d want to make sure the teachers will be basing their information on good solid science, not the outrageous faddism we see in many American schools based to a large extent on the fraudulent claims of animal-rights extremists and various corporate interests.
Nutrition is a science unto itself, not an offshoot of something else, and it’s a very complex subject to teach. There are many contentious issues and an enormous amount of confusion about fats. I can only hope the teachers are prepared to give this important subject the careful attention it deserves. It’s not one to be treated lightly.