Hee Position Statement

Home Economics Education in New Zealand:
A Position Statement
Pat Street – October 2006
Introduction
The paper was commissioned in the context of the New Zealand Curriculum/Marautanga
Project. The purpose of this paper is to:
1. provide an outline of the understandings (nationally and internationally) of what
contemporary home economics education is
2. clarify the location of home economics within the draft materials for health and
physical education and other learning areas
3. identify its relationship to the key competencies
4. identify barriers and enablers pertaining to students learning related to home
economics.
1. International and national understandings of home economics –

What is contemporary home economics?
1.1 International history

The origin of home economics in New Zealand is similar to that of other European
countries and Australia. The roots of the discipline stem back to its earliest association in
the 19th century with the teaching of manual training, the purpose of which was to train
the mind, eye and hand co-ordination (Coon, 1964). At the same time there was also an
intention for future generations to live better than the present one. From these early
beginnings there emerged two predominant perceptions for the introduction of the home
economics discipline:
 The emancipation/empowerment theory. The legitimisation and documentation of
a specialist body of knowledge enabling women to have more control over their
lives. “The need and purpose for a new field of study in education that could help
the home and family” (Cosic, 1999, p. 23).
 The reinforcement of the notion of a ‘women’s place is in the home’, thus
ensuring women continued to take primary responsibility for house-hold and
child-care tasks.
The development of home economics and the associated body of knowledge must be
considered in the context of the life and times of the late 19 th century, which was one of
rapid change as a result of industrial revolution. These changes had significant impact on
the social issues of family life, health, education and welfare, and altered the very fabric
of family living (Reiger, 1986). Home economics emerged in response to the impact of
these social issues on the health and well-being of home and family.
When considering contemporary discussions of home economics and its role within the
school curriculum today, it is important to understand that these two perceptions of the
From TKI | NZ Curriculum Marautanga Project | Health and physical education | Home Economics Education
in New Zealand: A Position Statement Page 1 of 22
Accessed from: http://www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum/draft-curriculum/health_physical_e.php
discipline still exist. The challenge for today’s educators is to adopt trialectic thinking.
This thinking accepts that neither perception is right or wrong. It retains a tension
between the two opposing views while giving emergence to a new thinking and
understanding. This is not a synthesis of the ideas, but a new view from which to gain
valuable insights.
In summary, the evolution of home economics can be identified in the following phases
(Pendergast, 2005; McGregor, 1997):
1880s–1924 Home economics emerged in response to social issues of the time. This is
considered a highly progressive phase, accompanied by the first wave of
feminism which legitimised women’s work. The basis of the study was
technical practice working in integration with a social mission. The body
of knowledge included the development of sanitation, health, management
of home and family using scientific underpinnings, with recognition of the
contribution to the arts and inclusion of social and philosophical
perspectives. The teaching of life skills was the prime focus of early home
economics (AAFCS, 2006).
1925–1942 Home economics’ emphasis shifted to a greater focus on management and

thriftiness in response to the social, economic and political climate (e.g.
World War 2). The scientific paradigm continued to be leveraged to strive
for personal well-being, along with an emphasis on consumer economics.
1943–1960 Social changes of this era gave rise to increased social affluence. Home
economics lost its social mission but responded with a focus on personal
well-being through an increased emphasis on psychological and
sociological factors affecting the home.
1961–1981 Home economics responded to increased consumerism with a continued

focus on the consumer and scientific paradigms. Home economics
suffered a loss of confidence in light of feminist advocacy, and there were
increased efforts at attempting to ensure academic legitimacy for home
economics (Prendergast, 2005). During the 1970s the organismic
paradigm was adopted. This paradigm identifies the importance of
relationships between individuals and family members (McGregor, 1997).
This paradigm shift is reflected in the New Zealand Home Economics
Syllabus developed in the late 1970s–early 1980s.
1982–2002 This was a period of globalisation and post modernity. Home economics
continued to focus on the importance of family and family needs. In
response to the rapid societal changes, home economics promoted the use
of the contextual paradigm, an eco-centred, global critical perspective.
This paradigm is expanded more fully in the next section.
2006 Home economics is experiencing a global resurgence as society grapples
with a number of health-related issues directly attributable to food choices
affecting personal and family well-being.
The two emergent themes are that home economics evolved in direct response to societal
needs within a family framework, and at the basis of this evolution was the continued
emphasis on enhancing the quality of life of individuals, families and communities.
1.2 Contemporary home economics internationally

Home economics is described as an ‘interdisciplinary’ and a ‘multi-disciplinary’
profession, with the importance of families at the core of everything undertaken by
professionals in the field (Kieren, Vaines & Badir, 1984; Vaines, 1980; Pendergast, 2005).
“Although it is multi-disciplinary, it does not teach a skill for the sake of that
skill, it teaches for application, it teaches for informed decision making in endless
scenarios, it teaches evaluative and critical thinking skills, it empowers
individuals no matter what their context.” (Pendergast, 2005, p. 8 )
In today’s mobile global society there is a need for a consistency of common language
across recognised international frameworks of educational knowledge. The International
Federation for Home Economics (IFFHE) formalised an international understanding of
home economics: “The study of household management for achieving the highest quality
of life” (IFFHE, 2004). IFFE advocates the need for home economists to teach vital and
culturally integrated theory for human capacity building, and identifies the present
challenges for home economists as sustaining a better quality of life and conveying life
competencies. In addition, home economics must be seen in the context of ‘family
studies’, and vice versa, in a holistic context. The description is further expanded as:
 improvement of the quality of everyday life for individuals, families and
households through the management of their resources
 highlighting the impact of the social, economic and environmental impact on the
management of everyday life of individuals, families and households, and
 expanding the understanding of the ecological view of the individuals, families
and households in the larger environment (IFFHE, 2004).
In countries other than New Zealand, research supports similar view points of home
economics and the rationale behind the inclusion of the subject within their curriculum.
The American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) identified a body
of knowledge for home economics. This body of knowledge is defined as content that has
a direct relationship with the daily issues individuals face as they interact with family and
their environments. The threads are: basic human needs, communication skills, public
policy, critical thinking, diversity and a global perspective. Specialist themes include:
food and nutrition, future technological developments, textiles, shelter, economics and
management, relationships with social leadership, and wellness (AAFCS, 2006).
Home economics is taught within the context of a practical application of critical theory –
known as a ‘critical science perspective’. The use of critical theory also counters the
assumption that all problems can be solved by science and technology as the dominant
mode of reasoning (Brown & Paolucci, 1979).
In Canada, home economics has been described as being in transition and undergoing a
shift to a contextual paradigm (McGregor, 1997). This paradigm can be expressed using
other terminology, for example, global, eco-centred, practical problem solving, human
ecology, critical reflective, emancipatory, and dialectic. Underpinning this paradigm is
the research method of ‘participatory action research’. This involves the people who will
immediately benefit from the research using a process of working with others rather than
on others for others. “This approach to practice and research assumes that every person is
capable of knowing, interpreting and giving meaning to information – they are able to be
empowered.” (McGregor, 1997, p. 10)
Within the South Pacific, the Home Economics Institute of Australia (HEIA) is leading
the way in research work in home economics.
“The central focus of home economics education is the well-being of people in
their everyday living. This involves enabling students to address increasingly
complex challenges related to their well-being including those related to human
development and relationships and the provision of commodities such as food,
clothing and shelter. It is also concerned with effecting changes that will bring
about a more just society for all people with respect to their well-being. Home
economics embodies the dynamics of change. As we move through the new
millennium, society and indeed individuals, need the knowledge, skills and
attitudes developed in the study of home economics.” (HEIA, 2002)
Home economics education is seen as being concerned with meeting the challenges of
everyday living in a modern society. These challenges include: establishing and
maintaining effective relationships, juggling paid work responsibilities (or lack of) with
home and personal responsibilities and pleasures, and being able to make numerous
informed consumer choices (ibid). The HEIA identifies a range of understandings and
skills that all students will develop and also provides a framework for the delivery of the
competencies, including the importance of metacognition. The Australian Curriculum
Framework for Home Economics in the Junior Secondary School (1999) provides an
outline to the purpose and understandings of home economics and student outcomes. In
addition, the content areas of home economics are identified as families, food, clothing
and textiles, human relationships and housing.
Home economics education provides “the necessary balance in bringing together

theoretical understandings and addressing practical everyday problems. It contributes to
empowering people to become active and informed members of society with respect to
both living independently and living in caring situations with other people. Students
develop an understanding of the interdependence of their everyday living with that of
other human beings and broader issues related to ecological sustainability” (HEIA, 2002).
For example, in the state of Queensland, home economics is outlined as “the knowledge,
practices and dispositions” necessary to:
 understand and promote well-being
 understand and think critically about personal and societal influences on well-
being
 make informed consumer choices
 engage in creative and enterprising actions when meeting the needs and
enhancing well-being of self and others
 develop effective interpersonal and communication skills
 make socially responsible and informed decisions
 understand the impact of decisions and actions on future well-being
 promote preferred futures for individual and family well-being in situations
related to food and nutrition, human development and relationships, and living
environments (Queensland, 2005).
Australia has also produced a framework for food and nutrition education in schools
(National Nutrition Education in Schools Project 1992). It has the over-arching principle
of developing health promoting nutrition behaviour. It argues that in order for students to
undertake health promoting nutrition throughout their daily lives they must develop food
related autonomy. This was designed to be achieved through the provision of food and
nutrition education programmes, providing a range of knowledge, values, and skills to
empower students to take personal and social action with respect to a range of food
related issues.
In the United Kingdom the implementation of the British National Design and
Technology curriculum saw the merging of two subjects – home economics and craft
design technology (CDT). This is now identified as a foundation (core) subject requiring
pupils to apply their knowledge to solve practical problems (Wright, 1993). In the junior
school it is expected to be taught in themes, and in the senior school as a separate subject.
The alignment of home economics with technology has meant a loss of knowledge and
skills associated with nutrition and practical food preparation. In response to this, the
British Government has proposed revisions to the national curriculum, including a
recommendation that all children should also be given the opportunity to experience
“food preparation and practical skills in the context of healthy eating” (Halpin, 2005).
In Northern Ireland, in response to society’s concern about the nutritional problems

associated with healthy eating and food choices, a new revised curriculum identifies a
statutory role for home economics. It is expected that home economics will play a pivotal
role in equipping young people “with the knowledge and practical skills to identify and
prepare healthy food options” (Smith, 2006).
In Singapore the home economics mission statement is: “To develop pupils’ knowledge
skills and attitudes in home economics for the well being of self, family and the
community” (HEC Syllabus Lower Secondary, 2002). It is a compulsory subject at this
level, with the rationale that “makes clear the inter-relationships between Food and
Nutrition, Textiles and Clothing and Consumer Education both in theory and practice. It
enables students to examine issues that affect individuals, their families and the
community while developing knowledge and skills to help them think critically and make
decisions for themselves and their family” (ibid ).
In Japan the recent curriculum reform identifies home economics as a compulsory course
of study for post-compulsory upper secondary courses. Students work towards obtaining
four credits from general home economics, living skills or general living skills. (Japan
Curricula, 2005).
In Hong Kong, home economics is identified as an existing subject related to the “well-
being of the individual, family and society”. It includes the specific subjects of home
economics (food, home and family), and home economics (dress and design) and textiles.
It identifies food and clothing as basic human necessities, and through the study of
contemporary technologies students will “learn how to critically assess these and their
impact on the well-being of individuals, families and society” (CDC, 2004). In the
proposed new senior secondary curriculum the traditional five subjects associated with
home economics merge into two distinct areas titled home economics, and health
management and social care.
In Finland, home economics is the subject that traditionally teaches nutrition education.
In the 7th grade (age 13 years), it is compulsory to take home economics for three hours a
week for one year. From grade 8–9, pupils may choose home economics as one of the
elective subjects (Nutrition in Finland, 1999). Teacher education in home economics is a
priority, and the Department of Home Economics and Craft Science in the Faculty of
Education at Helsinki University claims: “In home economics, Finland is a forerunner in
developing university studies and teacher education in Europe”. Home economics is
described as “a combination of personal development, healthy lifestyles, social
responsibility, sustainable development and use of resources and cultural heritage. The
studies focus on nutrition education and food culture, family studies and consumer and
environmental issues, all based on human aspects and everyday life” (Helsinki, 2006).
In summary, despite the many variances between countries in how home economics is
implemented, there are clear unifying themes:
 home economics is responsive to change
 changing times require new ways of thinking. Inclusive in this are the specialist
thinking skills of critical and reflective thinking, and metacognition
 pervasive themes of wellness, technology, global interdependence, human
development, resource development/management
 individual, family and community, self and society are identified as a common
body of knowledge
 social, economic and environmental challenges and issues, and wholeness of the
global family
 over-arching themes include family, food and nutrition, food preparation,
management and consumer choices
 specialisations include food and nutrition, future developments in the creation of
foods, clothing and textiles, shelter, economics and management, relationships
and social leadership, wellness
 application of the knowledge to relevant and authentic contexts, inclusive of food
preparation.
1.3 Contemporary home economics nationally

For the purpose of this paper, it is not necessary to trace in detail the origins of the home
economics discipline and subsequent body of knowledge within the New Zealand
education system. However, what is important is the identification of pertinent themes
during the discipline’s more recent history and consideration of these in relation to the
emergent international themes identified above.
The most significant period of time for the development of home economics was in the
late 1970s and early 1980s. The development and implementation of the 1985 Syllabus
for Schools Home Economics Forms 1–4 was pivotal for the discipline, and represents the
first considered national purpose statement for home economics. The existence of this
syllabus was instrumental in providing a platform for inclusion into the current health and
physical education curriculum.
The 1985 syllabus articulates the philosophy of the discipline.

“The central concern of Home Economics is the quality of life of individuals and
families. Home economics recognises the family as the most important single
influence in the nurture, care and education of its members.” It also identified
that “Home economics applies principles and knowledge from the physical,
biological and social sciences and the arts to the practical needs and concerns of
families.” (Syllabus for Schools: Home Economics Forms 1–4, Dept of
Education, 1985)
The syllabus included comprehensive objectives underpinning the key concepts of

development, relationships, management and protection. The syllabus also stressed the
importance of providing “authentic contexts to learning through a practical approach”.
The knowledge and understandings, and values and attitudes identified in this document
provided teachers with a framework to develop meaningful programmes for their
students, using the themes of:
 food and nutrition
 textiles and clothing
 home and family living.
The 1985 syllabus provided a framework for scaffolding knowledge and understandings,
and values and attitudes for entry to the national examinations of School Certificate
Home Economics and /or Clothing and Textiles. The subsequent development of the
senior Sixth Form Certificate Prescription in 1986–7 enabled specialisation of study to be
continued in one or more of the themes. In September 1987 a draft prescription for
University Bursaries Home Economics was prepared and presented, but approval was
delayed. Home economists accepted this delay when promised that home economics
would be the first internally assessed Bursary subject. The draft University Bursaries
prescription became the basis of the Form Seven Home Economics studies for Higher
School Certificate.
These two senior course statements included sociological, creative and scientific
contexts, and enabled specialisation to occur through the selection of a major focus from:
 human development and family
 living environments
 nutrition and food
 textiles and clothing.
Examples of the content as related to food and nutrition included:

 social cultural, political, psychological, and economic issues and their effects on
family lifestyles, for example: eating patterns and food choices, government
policies, culture and place, values and priorities, conflict with beliefs and
practices, role of media and market place, changing health and safety needs
 historical, present and future trends, economic and social issues, changing social
and emotional needs, using human resources in flexible and caring ways,
developments in availability of food choices, nutritional issues, food production
and marketing, protection of the consumer, culture, traditions and lifestyles
 development, management and innovative use of resources by individuals and
groups to meet changing human needs, decision-making focus and practical
application to assist wise food choices
 scientific and technological changes affecting health status, values and attitudes of
individuals and groups and the influence on their health practices and well-being,
health and safety, nurture and care of families, roles of government and private
agencies to provide support and help for families, evaluating new information
about nutritional requirements, technological and scientific developments.
When the NZ Curriculum Framework (1993) was released the home economics body of
knowledge was included in two essential learning areas – health and physical education
and technology. The technology curriculum was released two years in advance of the
health and physical education curriculum, and this phased implementation meant the
placement of the traditional body of home economics knowledge within and across these
curricula was unclear. During the development of these curricula, nutrition and the related
practical food preparation was identified for inclusion in the health and physical
education curriculum.
A draft position statement was tabled in 1996 by the then Home Economics Teachers’
Association (HETANZ) in an attempt to clarify directions. At the same time as these
discussions were taking place, the specialist area of textiles and clothing had already
begun to align itself with the design technology approach, and this positioning ensured a
smooth transition for textiles into the technology curriculum in 1997. In order to support
textiles technology teachers the subject association changed its name to the Home
Economics and Technology Teachers’ Association of New Zealand (HETTANZ, 1997).
For the purposes of this paper, textiles has not been included in any further discussion.
2. Relationship of home economics within the 2006 draft materials for
health and physical education and other learning areas
In the context of The New Zealand Curriculum: Draft for Consultation 2006, home
economics provides opportunities for students to understand and shape preferred
solutions to a range of challenges in their personal, family, community and future work
roles.
With the review of the contemporary literature for home economics it is clear that the
1985 Home Economics Syllabus and 1987 senior Home Economics Prescriptions were
both visionary in nature and in the vanguard of the new contextual learning paradigm.
This ensured an alignment and positive transformation of home economics for the 21 st
century within Health and Physical Education in the New Zealand Curriculum (1999),
and is reflective in the underlying concepts of “well-being, hauora, socio-ecological
perspective, attitudes and values and health promotion”.
The draft New Zealand curriculum learning area of health and physical education
(March, 2006) identifies the contribution of three subject areas: health education,
physical education and home economics. Significantly, it retains the identification of food
and nutrition as a key area of learning and practical food preparation from the 1999
Health and Physical Education in the New Zealand Curriculum. In light of recent
research evidence into health and well-being, the retention of practical food preparation
as a context for learning, and possible explicit identification of this as a core requirement,
is timely.
Home economics provides learning contexts in selecting, preparing, cooking and serving
food to ensure the empowerment of individuals and families to make informed choices in
their lives in the most basic of ways. Home economics teaches the importance of critical
and reflective thinking about social issues towards enabling optimum health, focusing on
how students can be empowered both individually and collectively.
“In this way people could take control of their lives in both paid and unpaid
spheres, removing their dependence from others, if they chose. They could be self
determining.” (Pendergast, 2004)
Within the 1999 health and physical education curriculum statement the use of the term
‘relationships with other people’ – “interdependence of students, their communities,
society and the environment” – suggests the implicit inclusion of the concept of family.
In comparison, the national and international contemporary home economics body of
knowledge explicitly mentions ‘family’ and ‘families’. In the home economics context
the focus is on the understandings of issues that influence, and the actions necessary to
improve, the well-being of individuals and families.
The statement for home economics within The New Zealand Curriculum: Draft for
consultation 2006 fully encapsulates contemporary home economics thinking:
“In home economics students develop an understanding about the factors that influence
the well-being of individuals and families within the home and community, and the
actions people take to enhance and sustain those environments. In the context of food and
nutrition, students evaluate current issues and theories of nutrition, identify and reflect on
factors that influence people’s choices and behaviours, and use this knowledge to make
informed decisions. Through the processes of selecting, preparing, cooking and serving
food, students develop their creativity and experience a sense of accomplishment at the
same time as they develop personal and interpersonal understandings and skills that
contribute to well-being.” (The New Zealand Curriculum Draft for consultation, 2006)
There is also a relationship between home economics and the learning areas of
technology and social sciences. Many teachers of home economics are also teachers of
technology.
Home economics contributes to the learning area of technology through the identified
technology of food and the three strands of technological practice, technological
knowledge, and nature of technology. However there are fundamental philosophical
differences between home economics and the intent of the technology curriculum. The
body of knowledge in the health and physical education curriculum’s key area of learning
in food and nutrition informs the learning within the context of technology. It is important
to take this into consideration when developing programmes of learning to ensure the
integrity of both curricula are retained.
Home economics may contribute to the learning area of social sciences, and although
some concepts may be shared the learning focus may be different. Careful analysis of the
home economics body of knowledge against the final achievement objectives will be
required to identify the specific relationships.
3. Relationship to key competencies

The relationship between learning in home economics and the development of the key
competencies is addressed in this section.
The essential skills have been revised and integrated into the essential learning areas as
key competencies. Key competencies are defined as “generic and needed by everyone
across a variety of contexts” (MoE, Curriculum Stocktake Report, 2003).
However, “key competencies do not substitute for domain-specific knowledge. This

domain knowledge can be identified in specific competencies identified only in certain
contexts. However, specific competencies cannot be used effectively without the key
competencies and vice versa” (Rychen, 2002, p. 7). These specific competencies with
“key competencies need to be partnered in practice” (Brewerton, 2004). Context and
content are both important factors.
Home economics learning experiences enable students to develop competencies, making

connections between their daily lives and their future world, and to strengthen their
understanding of the interconnectedness of dependence, independence and
interdependence within families and society.
Research undertaken by NZCER (Hipkins, 2004; Hipkins & Conner, 2005; MoE, 2005)
identifies a philosophical shift in practice and pedagogy for home economics, with
positive outcomes for students. This shift includes: encouraging students to clarify their
own ideas, make their own decisions, use critical analysis, reflect on their learning, use
research tools and strategies, explore issues, encourages discussion, group work, and
“ensuring higher order tasks involving the generation, application, analysis, and synthesis
of ideas” (Hipkins & Conner, 2005).
Key competencies Examples of the relationship of home economics body of

knowledge (list not exhaustive)
Managing self Home economics learning experiences enable students to:
- manage their learning process through setting personal
goals and plans and reflecting on outcomes
- develop self-awareness and recognise how their
decisions may affect health and well-being of
themselves and others
- develop competency in the specific skills and
knowledge related to food selection and preparation to
enable informed nutritional choices.
Relating to others Home economics learning experiences enable students to:
- develop mutual respect, tolerance and co-operation in a
safe learning environment
- foster socialisation skills through sharing food
prepared with others in the home economics classroom
- increase their understanding of the importance of
working together to promote structures in society
- interact confidently with others to discuss social issues
affecting the health and well-being of families,
community and the wider society
- enjoy working with others in the selecting, preparing,
cooking and serving of food
- develop an awareness and sensitivity of their own
cultural identity and the cultures and values of others
- plan strategies and demonstrate interpersonal skills to
communicate appropriately with others about making
health-enhancing food choices.
Participating and Home economics learning experiences enable students to:
contributing - develop an intellectual curiosity and interest in social
issues, for example, globalization, healthy schools,
family demographics and the implications for society,
food security, and management of resources
- apply problem-solving strategies in purposeful ways,
both in situations where the problem and the solution
are clearly evident and in those requiring creative and
innovative thinking to achieve an outcome
- use strategies to take action and meet personal and
collective challenges to address issues that affect the
well-being of themselves and others
- make positive contributions to their learning
community, family and wider community.
Thinking Home economics learning experiences enable students to:
- use the critical action cycle and appropriate research
tools and strategies to explore social issues related to
personal, family and community health and well-being
- make informed decisions, solve problems and take
actions that will contribute to their own well-being and
that of others
- recognise and value different points of view in
discussion and debate
- discuss issues and solutions with both dialectic and
trialectic thinking approaches within different contexts
related to family and community, food and nutrition
issues
- develop the thinking skills to enable life long learning.
Using language symbols Home economics learning experiences enable students to:
and texts - use appropriate spoken and written language to
articulate their ideas
- use reasoned argument to actively participate in
informed debate on issues, for example, those related
to basic family needs and broader issues related to
ecological sustainability and social justice
- understand and apply language associated with critical
action models
- interpret and use symbols and instructional text in food
preparation
- apply and analyse mathematical concepts related to
nutrition, food choice and budgeting
- use and interpret visual, verbal and written language in
the promotion of food and food products.
4. Barriers and enablers pertaining to students learning related to
home economics
The identification of barriers and enablers to students’ learning in home economics is

addressed in this section under the headings of:
 Gender imbalance
 Teacher confidence and professional support
 Supply and demand of teachers
 Clear learning pathways, sustainability and perceptions
 Relevance, confidence and enjoyment of learning
Gender imbalance
The imbalance of classes by gender is an issue both nationally and internationally. It is
less of an issue in the primary, intermediate and some junior secondary school
programmes because of the compulsory nature of the health and physical education
curriculum. However, when ‘options’ are available the classes tend to revert to their
traditional gender of young women studying the subject (MoE, 2005; BSSSS, 1989;
Jones, 1994). The development of resources that assist senior male students to see the
relevance of learning in home economics is required. (MoE, 2005). Australian
recommendations include the development of more male-orientated resources along with
the encouragement of males to train as home economics teachers and to act as role
models for students (Jones, 1994). Addressing these issues would become a significant
enabler for student learning in home economics.
Teacher confidence and professional support

“The single most powerful moderator that enhances achievement is feedback” (Hattie,
1999). Teachers who feel confident in their pedagogy and subject knowledge will be in a
stronger position to provide feedback to students.
Professional support and relevant resources to assist teachers to design programmes of

learning are factors in aiding teacher confidence. The Beacon School project was
instrumental in providing a professional development model that empowered teachers,
encouraging them to use teaching and learning strategies that encouraged students to
actively clarify their ideas and assumptions. Using a range of strategies, for example
mind mapping and learning journals, enables students to take responsibility for their own
learning (Hipkins & Connor, 2004). Principals see professional training and support of
teachers as contributing to enhancing students learning (MoE, 2005).
The provision of professional development opportunities for teachers to access current

research and practice can be seen as powerful enablers. (MoE, 2005). The Beacon School
project was available to selected schools in specific regions, and what is needed is
increased professional development of this quality nationally.
Clear learning pathways, sustainability and perceptions
In some schools home economics is not offered, instead other related courses may be
offered, for example, food and nutrition, life skills and/or food technology.
“Some subjects that have essentially the same content and are assessed in similar
ways may go by different names in the various schools. In 2002 it was not always
clear whether a student was taking home economics or food technology and so we
collapsed both subjects together and called them food technology.” (Hipkins,
Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral, 2004, p. 187)
This inconsistency with naming conventions may indicate teachers’ philosophical
understandings lack clarity of the difference between the health and physical education
and the technology curricula. It may also reflect the flexibility NCEA offers schools in
planning learning programmes. There are no nationally prescribed, compulsory subjects
for years 11–13. Working within this framework, schools can offer courses in traditional
subjects and also create contextually focused courses – courses built on a tradition of
applied or vocational courses (Hipkns, 2004; Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral, 2004).
While this increased flexibility can be seen as an advantage for students, lack of
alignment with clear learning pathways can also provide confusion for students and
parents.
Despite the development of achievement standards in levels 1–3 for home economics,
there still remains some perception that home economics is non-academic, with a low
status (MoE, 2005; Hipkins & Conner, 2005). Australian research also indicates this
perception by students, parents and teachers is a barrier to encouraging students to study
home economics (Pendergast, 2001). Anecdotal evidence suggests that students studying
home economics are considered to be less academic in comparison to students taking
other subjects; for example, teachers identified a barrier to student achievement in
external achievement standards because of the ability of students with low levels of
literacy to engage with and respond to complex issues (MoE, 2005). This perception of
low status may also contribute to the low number of students studying home economics
in the senior school.
Low numbers of students in senior home economics classes is a potential barrier, as low
student numbers affect course viability and sustainability. Nationally, home economics
numbers in the senior school are lower than some subjects, but again this also reflects the
lack of consistency with subject naming conventions. Yet research suggests home
economics is actually viable and sustainable in schools if the numbers of students who
wanted to select home economics could do so. “Nearly half the Year 11 students
[surveyed] would have liked to take at least one different subject, with home economics
the most popular choice” (Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral, 2004). Students cited
various reasons for not being able to take their chosen option. For example, explanations
of classes being full, not meeting pre-requisites, and poor behaviour, and/or their parents
did not want them to study their chosen subject (Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral,
2004). Similar results were also found in Australian research (Jones, 1994).
Parental perception can therefore be seen as a potential barrier to student engagement

and, consequently, learning in home economics. There has been a great deal of change in
home economics in the last six years (Hipkins & Conner, 2005), and unless parents are
aware of these changes, their own past experiences of home economics will continue to
inform their understanding and perceptions of the subject.
Home economics is academic, while retaining strongly practical components, and is

popular with students and teachers (Hipkins 2004, Hipkins, Conner, & Neill, 2005).
Ensuring the practical component of home economics does not become subservient to the
theory is an important consideration when designing programmes of learning, to ensure
the relevancy and enjoyment of students’ learning is retained. Research indicates “home
economics is more likely to be assessed with a mixture of achievement standards from
health and selected unit standards, some of them industry related. This mix allows for
assessment of more practical aspects of food preparation and use – aspects that students
clearly link to expectations that the subject will be interesting” (Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals,
& Ferral, 2004, p. 197). However, the inclusion of unit standards is problematic. While
unit standards enable the recognition of the practical aspects of home economics, their
use strengthens the perception that practical aspects have a lower status than aspects
assessed by achievement standards. This view may be attributable to the
oversimplification of the value of practical skills involved in food preparation (Short,
2003). Furthermore, home economics teachers perceived that assessments in home
economics seemed more difficult than in other subjects; for example, at NCEA level 2,
these are “long and time consuming for just a few credits” (MoE, 2005, p. 8).
Home economics’ students are also disadvantaged in their progression of study of home
economics because home economics lacks the status of an ‘approved subject’ for entrance
to university, and does not have a scholarship examination (MoE, 2005). By default, this
adds further credence to the perception that the subject is of little academic value and
provides a system, intentional or otherwise, for the traditional streaming approach to
operate where home economics courses are identified with vocational pathways.
“[Student responses] show that they are concerned with making good decisions
for their futures. Many of them link their choices about options in the subjects at
the core of the school curriculum (English, mathematics, and to a lesser extent,
science) and their future plans, especially future study and/or future career. These
links are also made for optional subjects.” (Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral,
2004, p. 205)
To increase student ability to demonstrate competence and confidence in home

economics and provide transparent links to vocational and academic learning pathways,
these issues need to be addressed – “a way might be found to structure new achievement
standards so that they can be used to assess some types of knowledge and practical skills
that seem currently to be mainly assessed by unit standards. No doubt this is an issue that
will be addressed as the NCEA continues to evolve” (Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral,
2004).
Supply and demand of teachers
Australian research (Pendergast, Reynolds, & Crane, 2000) identifies a projected shortage
in the number of trained home economics teachers as a significant barrier to learning in
home economics. The study found:
a) there exists a growing shortage of home economics teachers
b) the reason for the shortage is directly attributable to loss of specific teacher
training courses for specialist home economics teachers
c) tertiary institutions appear to be hesitant/slow in adjusting programmes to meet
changing demands for what and how home economics teachers are expected to
teach
d) shortages were the normal experience in comparison to over supply.
Although no such study has been completed for the New Zealand context, an assumption
is made that the outcomes would be similar to that of the Australian research. Data to
support this assumption includes:
 In 1987, less than 45% of New Zealand home economics teachers were
under the age of thirty-nine. As this group of teachers draws closer to retirement
age there are significant implications for filling these existing positions and any
newly created positions due to increased student numbers (Research and
Statistics, 1987).
 The number of home economics teaching graduates was already in decline
at the time of the above research, and the trend has continued.
The consequences of this shortage are that schools face either collapsing courses,
recruiting teachers from overseas, or employing teachers with ‘an interest in the field’ but
with no formal teacher education in the specialist area. Student learning in home
economics is inevitably affected as students are taught at NCEA levels by people without
the necessary knowledge of underlying principles, approaches and content. Many schools
report the shortage of supply and of suitably trained teachers, including availability of
qualified day relievers, is of significant concern to short- and long-term sustainability of
home economics. New Zealand has significant career opportunities for people with
qualifications and expertise in food and nutrition, for example, as food technologists in
industry, nutritionists in health related occupations in the community, and in the tourism
industries. The shortage of home economics teachers impacts on the supply of
professionals in all these areas.
Relevance, confidence and enjoyment of learning

Students enjoy studying home economics, and home economics was one of the most
popular 2003 optional choices at year 11 (Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral, 2004).
Students’ reasons for taking home economics are explicitly linked to its contextual focus
– they chose it for “life skills” and for “the practical aspects” (ibid, p. xvii) The most
commonly cited reasons that students valued learning, and in particular home economics,
were because it was enjoyable, interesting, exciting, challenging, relevant and useful, and
they enjoyed the practical aspects (Hipkins, Vaughan, Beals, & Ferral, 2004; Hipkins &
Conner, 2004; Jones, 1994). Students are also clear about the relevance of their learning
on personal, interpersonal and societal levels. This was described as “broadening their
view of the world and increasing their understandings of social issues” and “home
economics students often noted the appeal of the subjects practical components such as
cooking” (MoE, 2005, p. 5).
Enjoyment is seen to be significant in improving student outcomes as evidenced by

current learning research, which indicates a correlation between positive emotions and
their contribution to higher order thinking and long-term memory effectiveness
(Pendergast, 2006; Haksell, 2001). If enjoyment is such a crucial factor to learning, then
there are clear implications for the sustainability of students as life long learners (Hipkins
& Vaughan, 2002).
Relevancy is also achieved by the provision of meaningful learning contexts that enable
students to have ownership of their learning process. At the same time, learning needs to
be challenging, entertaining and allow for opinions to be expressed. The learning
environment and relationships with the teacher is also a contributor to ensuring
enjoyment of learning. Students like the more relaxed approach to teaching and learning
and “felt they had better relationships with their teachers” (MoE, 2005, p. 5). It has also
been noted that students find home economics was less stressful [in comparison to other
subjects] because of the way it was conducted (Jones, 1994).
Conclusion
The home economics body of knowledge continues to be relevant and meaningful for
students today and in the future. Within international and national contexts there is
resurgence in home economics, as it is increasingly recognised as relevant to meeting
current and future societal needs. Current research identifies significant changes in the
learning and teaching focus of home economics, reflective of current and emerging
paradigms and learning theories. These changes have been instrumental in enabling New
Zealand students to achieve in home economics. These changes recognise home
economics as a field of study that provides relevant and meaningful contexts for students’
learning. This research also recognises the contribution of the home economics discipline
to the New Zealand Curriculum, in particular in the health and physical education
learning area of the draft curriculum.
Despite the barriers of perceptions, gender, teacher supply and lack of recognised
qualification pathways in the senior secondary school, home economics continues to
provide meaningful courses of study for students, which they enjoy. This is a powerful
enabler for student success in learning. Home economics is continually responding and
transforming in response to society’s changing needs, but never losing the focus on the
well-being of individuals and families within the home, community and society.
Bibliography
Attar, D. (1990). Wasting girls’ time: The history and politics of home economics.
Lndaon: Virago Press.
Adams, L. (2001). Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 19.
Baugher, L., Anderson, C., Green, K., Shane, J., Jolly, L., Miles, J., & Nickols, S. (2006).
Body of knowledge for family and consumer sciences.
Retrieved November 2006, from http://www.aafcs.org/about/knowledge.html
Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. (1989). Review of the senior home
economics syllabus papers 1–6. Brisbane: Board of Senior Secondary School Studies
Referenced in Pendergast, D, (2001). Virginal mothers, groovy chicks and blokey blokes:
Rethinking home economics [and] teaching bodies. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Brewerton, M. (2004). Reframing the essential skills, implications of the OECD defining
and selecting key competencies project – A background paper. Wellington: Ministry of
Education. Retrieved April 2006, from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum/docs/key-
competencies.doc
Brown, M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition (p. 23). Alexandria,
VA: American Home Economics Association.
Burrows, L. (2005). Proposed key competencies and health and physical education in the
New Zealand curriculum.
Coon, B. (1964). Home economics instruction in the secondary schools. The Center for
Applied Research in Education In.
Cosic, M. (1999, 18–19 December). Millenium women. The Australian Magazine, 19–
29.
Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1991). Private lives and public
domains, home economics and post school options. Canberra: Govt; Printer.
Department of Education, Employment and Training. (1992). Private lives and public
domains, home economics and girls post school options. Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Department of Education. (1985). Home economics forms 1–4 syllabus. Wellington:

Author.
Department of Education. (1986). Sixth form certificate prescription: Home economics.

Wellington: Author.
Department of Education. (1987, September). University bursaries home economics draft
prescription E61.2.6. Wellington: Author.
Department of Education, Research and Statistics Division. (1987, March). Bulletin no

17.
Fairchild, S. (2001). Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93, 23–30.
Frazer, J. (2006). Wyoming tribute eagle on-line. Cheyenne Wyoming News and
information. Retrieved April 2006, from www.wyomingnews.com
Fry, R. (1985). It’s different for daughters – A history of the curriculum for girls in New
Zealand schools, 1900–1975. NZCER, Wellington.
Halpin, T. (2005, October). Domestic science is back on the menu. [Education Secretary
Ruth Kelly’s announcement.] Times Online.
Retrieved June 2005, from www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8126-1809742,00.html
Hargreaves, A. (1999). Reinventing professionalism: Teacher education and teacher

development for a changing world. International conference on teacher education
Proceedings, Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Haskell, R. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, reasoning and instruction. San

Diego: Academic Press.
Hattie, J. A. (1999). Influences on student learning. Quoted in Bartlett, J. (2005).

Developing independent learners. Wellington: NZCER.
Henderson, M., Thompson, D., & Henderson, S. (2006). Leading through values, linking
company cultures to business strategy. Harper Business.
HETTANZ. (1996). Draft position statement home economic education. Home

Economics and Technology Teachers’ Association of New Zealand archives.
HETTANZ. (1997). Minutes of HETTANZ annual general meeting. HETTANZ Journal,

10.
Helsinki University. Department in brief.

Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.helsinki.fi/kktl/english/index.htm
Hipkins, R. (2004). Changing school subjects for changing school times. Paper presented
to PPTA conference, 18–20th April 2004, Wellington.
Hipkins, R. (2004). Rethinking the self and the social in the knowledge age: Learning
opportunities provided by health and physical education in the New Zealand curriculum.
NZCER.
Retrieved from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum/docs/rose-hipkins-paper.doc
Hipkins, R. (2005). Learning to "be" in a new century: Reflections on a curriculum in

transition. Curriculum Matters, 1, 71–86.
Hipkins, R., & Conner, L. (2005). Shifting balances 2 – The impact level 1 and 2 NCEA
implementation on the teaching of geography and home economics. NZCER report
forwarded to the Ministry of Education in July 2005.
Hipkins, R., Vaughan K., Beals, F., & Ferral, H., (2004). Learning curves: Meeting
student learning need in an evolving qualifications regime. Shared pathways and
multiple tracks: A second report. NZCER.
Retrieved April 2006, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pdfs/12798.pdf
Hipkins, R., & Vaughan, K., (2002). Meeting student needs in an evolving qualifications
regime. From cabbages to kings: A first report. NZCER.
Retrieved April 2006, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz
IFHE. (2004). Position paper on the 10th Anniversary of the International Year of the
Family (1994–2004). Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.IFHE.org
IFHE. (2006, May). Press release: International day of families – Changing families:
Challenges and opportunities, Bon.
Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.IFHE.org
IFHE. (2006). http://www.IFHE.org
Japan: Curricula (age 3–19).

Retrieved April 2006, from http://www.inca.org.uk/1467.html
Jones, R. (1994). The O’Malley trust project on the status of post primary home
economics. Melbourne: King and Army O’Malley Trust.
Kieran, D., Vaines, E., & Badir, D. (1984). The home economist as a helping
professional. Ronald P. Frye & Company Publishers.
McGregor, S. L. T. (1997). The impact of different paradigms on home economics

practice. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, 4(3), 23–33.
Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington:

Author.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Curriculum stocktake report. Wellington: Author.
Retrieved April 2006, from www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurricukum/about/recommendtions_e.php
Ministry of Education. (2005). High level summary statements from review of Beacon
Schools in home economics and health education: Report to the Ministry of Education.
Retrieved April 2006, from www.tki.org.nz/r/health/beacon/pdf/high-level-summ.pdf
Ministry of Education. (2006). Draft essence statement for home economics in health and
physical education curriculum. Wellington: Author.
Retrieved April 2006, from http://www.tki.org.nz/r/nzcurriculum/draft-
curriculum/health_physical_e.php
Nutrition in Finland, Nutrition Education, Finnish National Nutrition Surveillance

System.
Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.ktl.fi/nutrition/nutrition_and_education.html
NZ Health Strategy. (2001, October). DHB toolkit: Obesity – to reduce the rate of
obesity, Edition 1.
Pendergast, D. (2001). Placid beginnings/turbulent times: Rethinking home economics

for the 21st century. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, 8(1).
Retrieved April 2006, from http://heia.com.au/heia_graphics/JHEIA81-1.pdf
Pendergast, D., Reynolds, J., & Crane, J. (2000). Home economics teacher supply and
demand to 2003 – projections, implications and issues. Journal of the Home Economics
Institute of Australia, 7(3), 1–41.
Pendergast, D. (2001). Virginal mothers, groovy chicks and blokey blokes: Rethinking
home economics [and] teaching bodies. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Pendergast, D. (2006). Sustaining the home economics profession in new times.

Presentation to University of Aberdeen, Home Economics Conference, Dundee, May
2006. Retrieved May 2006, from
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/education/news/heconf/presentations/index.shtml
Petreat, L. (1990). The promise of feminist research practices. Canadian Home

Economics Journal, 40(1).
Queensland Studies Authority. (2005). Home economics education subject area syllabus
and guidelines, level 4 to beyond level 6. Queensland.
Retrieved May 2006, http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/
Reiger, K. M. (1986). The disenchantment of the home. Melbourne: Oxford University

Press.
Reynolds, J., & Dommers, E. (1995). Translating a theoretical framework for food and
nutrition education into classroom action. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of
Australia, 2(4), 7–15.
Rychen, D. S. (2002). Key competencies for the knowledge society: A contribution from
the OECD project definition and selection of competencies. Stuttgart: UNESCO.
Short F. (2003). Domestic skills – What are they? Journal of the HEIA, 10(3).
Singapore: Ministry of Education. (2006). Home economics syllabus, lower secondary.

Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education.
Retrieved May 2006, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/doc/Home%20Ec_LowerSec.pdf
Smith, A. (2005). Minister of Education: speech to Northern Ireland School Caterers’

Association Conference, Carrickfergus.
Stephens, E. E. (1949, November). HomeCraft, 2(5).
Swain, D. A. (1985). Families changing: Changing families. A paper presented to

HETANZ inaugural conference, 14 May 1985.
The Post Primary School Curriculum. (1959). Report of the committee appointed by the
Minister of Education in November 1943, Wellington.
Thomson, P. J. (1987). Emancipatory education: Is home economics the missing link?

Journal of Home Economics Education, 26(3), 5–12.
Thompson, P. J. (1988). Home economics and feminism: The Hestian synthesis. Home
Economics Publishing Collective, UPEI.
Vincenti, V., & Smith, F. (2004). Critical science: What it could offer all family and
consumer sciences professionals. Journal of Family and Consumer and Applied Sciences,
96(1), 63–70.
Wright, R. T. (1993, Spring). British design and technology: A critical analysis. Journal
of Technology Education, 4(2)

Hee Position Statement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hee Position Statement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hee Position Statement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home Economics Education in New Zealand:

1. International and national understandings of home economics –

1.1 International history

1925–1942 Home economics’ emphasis shifted to a greater focus on management and

1961–1981 Home economics responded to increased consumerism with a continued

1.2 Contemporary home economics internationally

Home economics education provides “the necessary balance in bringing together

In Northern Ireland, in response to society’s concern about the nutritional problems

1.3 Contemporary home economics nationally

The 1985 syllabus articulates the philosophy of the discipline.

The syllabus included comprehensive objectives underpinning the key concepts of

Examples of the content as related to food and nutrition included:

3. Relationship to key competencies

However, “key competencies do not substitute for domain-specific knowledge. This

Home economics learning experiences enable students to develop competencies, making

Key competencies Examples of the relationship of home economics body of

The identification of barriers and enablers to students’ learning in home economics is

Teacher confidence and professional support

Professional support and relevant resources to assist teachers to design programmes of

The provision of professional development opportunities for teachers to access current

Parental perception can therefore be seen as a potential barrier to student engagement

Home economics is academic, while retaining strongly practical components, and is

To increase student ability to demonstrate competence and confidence in home

Relevance, confidence and enjoyment of learning

Enjoyment is seen to be significant in improving student outcomes as evidenced by

Adams, L. (2001). Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 19.

Department of Education. (1985). Home economics forms 1–4 syllabus. Wellington:

Department of Education. (1986). Sixth form certificate prescription: Home economics.

Department of Education, Research and Statistics Division. (1987, March). Bulletin no

Fairchild, S. (2001). Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 93, 23–30.

Hargreaves, A. (1999). Reinventing professionalism: Teacher education and teacher

Haskell, R. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, reasoning and instruction. San

Hattie, J. A. (1999). Influences on student learning. Quoted in Bartlett, J. (2005).

HETTANZ. (1996). Draft position statement home economic education. Home

HETTANZ. (1997). Minutes of HETTANZ annual general meeting. HETTANZ Journal,

Helsinki University. Department in brief.

Hipkins, R. (2005). Learning to "be" in a new century: Reflections on a curriculum in

IFHE. (2006). http://www.IFHE.org

Japan: Curricula (age 3–19).

McGregor, S. L. T. (1997). The impact of different paradigms on home economics

Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington:

Ministry of Education. (2003). Curriculum stocktake report. Wellington: Author.

Nutrition in Finland, Nutrition Education, Finnish National Nutrition Surveillance

Pendergast, D. (2001). Placid beginnings/turbulent times: Rethinking home economics

Pendergast, D. (2006). Sustaining the home economics profession in new times.

Petreat, L. (1990). The promise of feminist research practices. Canadian Home

Reiger, K. M. (1986). The disenchantment of the home. Melbourne: Oxford University

Singapore: Ministry of Education. (2006). Home economics syllabus, lower secondary.

Smith, A. (2005). Minister of Education: speech to Northern Ireland School Caterers’

Stephens, E. E. (1949, November). HomeCraft, 2(5).

Swain, D. A. (1985). Families changing: Changing families. A paper presented to

Thomson, P. J. (1987). Emancipatory education: Is home economics the missing link?

You might also like