a world survey of home economics education in a co-educational curriculum

Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics (1983) 7 , 161-175.

A WORLD SURVEY OF HOME ECONOMICS EDUCATION IN A CO-EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM

HARUMI KIMURA University, Japan

Department of Home Economics, Fukui

A world questionnaire survey has been undertaken to obtain some information on the present position of home economics in co-educational curriculum development. Responses were received from nineteen countries from all over the world.

Home economics education occurs within formal education in every country, and in most countries the extent o f home economics education for boys has been increasing, compared with the UNESCO survey carried out 10 years ago. Co- educational home economics has been regarded as important both by government and the public by 84% of all respondents, though there are many difficulties in the implementation and in the practice of co-education, e.g. social prejudice and decisions about curriculum content.

Purpose of the study and procedures

In December 1980, a letter and questionnaire were sent to the governmental bodies responsible for home economics education in twenty-six countries and to the national professional associations or organizations concerned with the development of home economics education in forty-seven countries.* In the letter accom- panying the questionnaire, respondents were informed that the objective of the survey was to obtain some information on the present position of home economics in co-educational curriculum development. The letter stated also that Home Economics is the terminology used in this study, but there may be other names such as Domestic Science, Homemaking, Nutrition, Home and Family Life, or other names covering this area of general education.

The returns

The original date requested for the return of completed questionnaires was 28 February 1981, which proved to be impracticable and the author waited until

*Questionnaires were sent both to the governmental body and the professional body in twenty countries to secure information from at least one.

Correspondence: Harumi Kimura, Oepartmcnt of Home bconomics, School of Education, Fukui University, Bunkyo 3-9-1, Fukui 910, Japan.

0309-3891/83/0600-0161 $02.00 0 1983 Blackwell Scientific Publications 161

World survey of co-educational home economics

30 June 1981. The author received the total twenty-seven replies, of which twenty- five were accompanied by completed questionnaires and/or enough information material. Of the following twenty-five responses, six countries replied both from the governmental body and the professional body (nineteen countries listed).

From governmental body From professional body

Austria t Canada

Denmark Chile

*t Federal Republic *t Finland

Greece *t New Zealand t Spain

t United Kingdom Sweden

Argentina *t Canada

France

India Israel

*t Spain

* t United Kingdom

t Federal Republic of Germany

~ of Germany f Finland

t New Zealand

Sri Lanka Philippines

United States of America Zambia

No mark: adequate information obtained. ?Reply received from government and professional body. *Information used as an additional source.

Composition of regions

The participating countries have been grouped into six main regions to examine homogeneity for the purpose of a world survey. The total number of participating countries was nineteen, distributed in six regions all over the world; that is, regional bias was avoided. See Table 1.

Table 1. Regional distribution of respondent countries

Region Countries (19 in total)

Asia Europe

North America Latin America Argentina, Chile Africa Zambia Oceania New Zealand

India, Israel, Philippines, Sri Lanka Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom Canada, United States of America

Findings and discussion

Home economics education in the school system

(1) Home economics education within formal education. In each of the nineteen

162

Harumi Kimura

respondent countries, home economics was offered within formal education. In Spain the government institution gave a different reply from the non-governmental organization; that is, one answered yes and the other no. This might be due to a variety in the school systems within the same country.

( 2 ) Levels in school a t which home economics is taught on the basis ojcompulsory and/or optional study. The replies listed in Table 2 indicate that lower secondary schools have offered home economics more widely than others. Except for one country upper secondary schools have offered home economics as an optional course.

Table 2. School levels home economics are taught, ( ) = %

Primary school Middle school or Junior high Senior high school Compulsory Optional Compulsory Optional Compulsory Optional

Boys 8 (42) 4 (21) 9 (47) 11 (58) 10 (53) Girls 10 (53) 4 (21) 11 (58) 13 (68) 1 (5) 12 (63) None 3 (16) 1 (5)

UNESCO's world survey showed 20.8% compulsory home economics for ele- mentary school boys,' while this survey has shown 42%, which means that even if the survey scales are different from each other, compulsory home economics for boys has increased during 10 years. In the lower secondary schools the ratio has increased from 15.6% to 47%.

Only one country which indicated compulsory home economics for senior high school girls has several school systems where home economics for boys is optional. The following statements were added in the returned questionnaires:

?Finland. Primary school: content of home economics is integrated in several subjects at this level. Secondary school: in 7th grade it is compulsory both for boys and girls, in 8th and 9th grades it is optional for both.

+Republic of Germany. Home economics is not taught as a separate subject, but as part of a general orientation (Sachkunde: social and natural science subjects) for primary school children. It is compulsory for the grades 5-8 of the Hauptschule (Lower secondary level).

Sweden. Primary level (grades 1-6): home economics is compulsory for both, but will be offered from 1982 for boys. Upper secondary school: optional for both. Consumer studies (2 years) give the pupils a thorough education in home economics. This includes about 6000 pupils.

tChile. Home economics is not taught as a separate subject at primary level, but as part of natural and social studies. Home economics areas are mostly taught in the last 2 years.

Conclusion. Either as a separate subject or as part of general orientation, home

?Reply received from government and professional body. economics education has become more common for boys as well as girls.

163


(3) Legal and administrative status of home economics for boys and girls. We asked the following question: in Japan, the Constitution and the Educational Law have guaranteed equal rights between men and women in the field of education. But, the Ministry of Education which controls school education makes different curriculum between boys and girls. In your country, if any, is there such discrimination in the field of education? Selective categories are found in Table 3, where the results are shown.

Table 3. Legal and administrative status of home economics education for boys and girls

Category 1 1 & 2 1 & 3 1 , 2 & 3 1 , 3 & 4 Total Countrv 6 2 1 1 1* 11 Category 2 2 & 3 Country 2 1 3 Category 3 3 & 4 Country 2* 1* 3 Category 4 Countrv 2* 2 Total 19

Key: 1 = same educational opportunities are guaranteed for both boys and girls by national law 2 = same educational opportunities are guaranteed for both boys and girls by local regula-

3 = home economics is strongly suggested for girls to study by educational authority 4 = home economics for girls is legally enforced * = discriminative

tions

Table 3 shows an overall view of the variety of replies, having ten categories. Categories 1 and 2 indicate a guarantee of the same education opportunities in home economics for both boys and girls, while categories 3 and 4 mean girls- oriented home economics discriminated against boys. But, when categories 1 and/or 2 are associated with category 4, it will be regarded as discriminative also. The countries categorized as discriminative are marked with an asterisk. Table 3 shows that there are twice as many non-discriminative countries as discriminative countries.

The following statements were added to replies: ?It is unlawful for schools to discriminate between the sexes in the way in which

courses of study are offered to pupils. See attached newspaper photocopy (United Kingdom).

?There is no discrimination in any national life, and no different curriculum by gender (Chile).

Institutionaland other factors involved in the planning of home economics education

(1) Governmental institutions responsible for home economics education. Table

164

Harumi Kimura

4 shows that almost every country has a Ministry or Department of Education which has exclusive responsibility for providing home economics education and for planning the curriculum. In very few countries, the responsibilities are shared with other institutions; that is why the total number of countries is over nineteen.

Table 4. Governmental body responsible for home economics education

Governmental bodies Responsible for Responsible for (Ministry, Department, etc.) this education planning curriculum

Education* 17 Agriculture 3 Social welfare -

Health -

Trade and Industry - Others (Universidades, Agricultural Universities) 2

14 3

2

*Included the following: National Board of Education, Dept. of Education and Science, Ministry of Educational and Cultural affairs

(2a) Determination of subject matter. Authorities, institutions and individuals concerned with determining the subject matter were questioned. Five selective categories for respondents are shown in Table 5 .

The replies to the question produced a diverse range of combined categories. Table 5a has been devised to give an overall view of the diversity of ways in which subject matter is determined. Using the original five categories, either singly or in combination, eleven categories were formed from the replies.

It will be noticed that a centralized educational authority features in seven of these categories and plays an important role in the determination of subject matter in fifteen countries (79%). The central educational authority is completely responsible for determining subject matter in nine countries (47%). Individual teachers are involved with authorities and/or institutions in a total of four countries (21%). The individual institution is the sole determinant in the United Kingdom only.

(2b) Final determinant of subject matter. The question was ‘by whom is the alteration or addition to the planned subject matter finally determined?’ and response categories were the same as in Table 5a. The result is shown in Table 5b. Comparing Tables 5a and 5b, it will be noticed that the number of countries in which final subject matter was determined by the centralized authorities was reduced from fifteen to ten. W e in one country, individual institutes, teachers and even students are committed to the final subject matter determination.

A comment from Chile indicated that as far as questions 4 and 5 (see Appendix) are concerned, according to the principles of flexibility and decentralization of education, practicabilities of the region and school are considered to make change or selection of subject matter.

165


Table 5. Distribution of countries according to the determination of the subject matter

Table 5a Total

Category 1 1 & 2 1 , 2 & 3 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 1 & 4 1 , 3 & 4 1 , 3 4 & 6 7 Country 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 % 47 79 Category 2 2 & 3 2 , 3 & 5 3 Country 1 1 1 3 Category 3 1 Country 1 1 Total number of countries 19

Table 5b Total

Category 1 1 & 2 1 , 2 & 3 1 , 2 , 3 & 4 1 & 4 1 , 3 & 4 1 , 3 , 4 & 6 6 Country 3 1 1 1 3 1 10 % 16 53 Category 2 1 Country 1 1 Category 3 1 Country 2 2 Category 4 4 & 5 2 Country 4 1 5 Category 5 1 Country 1 1 Total number of countries 19

Key: 1 = centralized national education authority 2 = county or regional authority 3 = individual institution 4 = individual teacher 5 = individual teacher and students

N.B. The numbers in the column headings correspond to the key either singly or in combination.

Co-educational home economics education

(1) Levels of regard for co-educational home economics. Levels of regard for co- educational home economics as part of general education by the government and the public were asked as four categories, and the results are shown in Table 6.

The data in Table 6 indicate that co-educational home economics was supported both by government and public, though 10 years ago the UNESCO survey men- tioned that public opinion is lagging behind that of government. The difference between the UNESCO survey and the present survey is that the former used the term ‘home economics’ while the latter used ‘co-educational home economics’. Thus even if the data are similar, the actual meanings are very different.

The following statements are from supporting countries in which both govern-

I66

Harumi Kimura

Table 6 . Levels of regard for coeducational home economics as a part of

general education

BY BY government public

Very important 5 5 Important 11 10 Not important 1 3 Not necessary 2 2 Total 19 20*

*One country has chosen two categories

ment and public regard co-educational home economics as very important or important: (a) The National Board of General Education has recommended co-education in home economics education (Finland). (b) Home economics helps to develop critical consumer attitudes which have positive consequences in other sectors of society (e.g. quality of food produced, energy-saving articles, etc.) (Federal Republic of Germany). (c) There is a growing awakening of the importance of home economics education and more and more authorities see the value and are offering it at different levels (India). (d) It is important since it favours better family life. This country wishes to protect the unity of the family (Argentina). (e) Because of high inflation in our country at present, it became very important to teach youngsters all aspects of home economics (Israel). (9 Home economics is considered as a very important subject by official bodies but not enough to allow the appointment of specialized professors (France). (g) Checked as important, though public opinion about this question was not sur- veyed (Chile). (h) Home economics is important because many people in our country have not enough knowledge about proper feeding and they are affected by poverty and ignorance which springs from widespread illiteracy (Zambia).

The following comments are from countries whose governments regard co- educational home economics as very important or important, while the public regard it as unimportant: (i) There is no possibility for boys to be pupils of schools, where home economics are taught. If they do, there is co-education. But there are very few parents, who send their sons to these schools (Wirtschaftskundliches Real-gymnasium fur Madchen) (Austria). (j) The public regard academic achievement and success in examinations as more important than skills for living. Home economics is not at present regarded as an

167

World survey of coeducational home economics

academic subject. A major revision is, however, at present being undertaken (New Zealand).

The following statements are from countries where co-educational home economics was not supported by government and/or the public : (k) Co-education is done only in hotel schools with school leavers (Sri Lanka). (1) Home economics is a complementary area in our curriculum, without the consideration of compulsory matters (Spain).

( 2 ) Possible difficulties for co-education. Possible difficulties in implementing co-educational home economics in the curriculum were asked with four categories of reply, and results were as follows:

Teachers unwilling to make change 1 Students not interested 4 Public resistance to coeducation 4 Prohibited by authority 0 Others 10 No response 3

The following are specified in the category of ‘others’: (a) No difficulty (Chile, Finland*). (b) The majority of teachers are willing to, and have, made change, although there are a few who find difficulty in planning and teaching courses for boys. In the main, pupils are interested. Occasionally, parents object to boys taking home economics and more commonly, needlecraft courses in secondary schools (United Kingdom). (c) The time table sometimes restricts the use of co-education (e.g. the schoolbus functions in sparsely populated areas) (Finland). (d) Facilities and staffing which have been provided to teach only girls are insufficient to cater for co-educational home economics. Single sex boys’ schools do not have home economics facilities or staffing. There is resistance to home economics as an option to examination subjects at senior levels and some effect as shown by X above (New Zealand). Note : teacher unwilling, student not interested and public resistance were marked by X. (e) Actually the co-educational feature has been quite successful (U.S.A). (Q Difficulties in implementing co-educational home economics in the curriculum are: support materials are not all co-educational; co-educational material often not flexible enough in content for co-educational class (Canada). (8) Students not interested: facilities not available for all students. Historically girls only provided for. Now optional for boys in some co-educational schools (New Zealand) .* (h) Though the importance is realized, there is a hesitancy due to inadequate job opportunities. There is no particular resistance to co-education (India). (i) Public resistance to a certain extent with regard to co-education but not prohibited by educational authority. In most rural schools girls and boys work to- gether; but boys do not take to home economics (Sri Lanka).

*Marked as another reply from the Same country as explained in the procedure section.

168

Harumi Kimura

0 ) Above difficulties are not encountered in this country (Philippines). (k) Due to social prejudice there are still some boys who don’t choose to study home economics (Israel).

Conclusion. According to the respondents possible difficulties for co-educational home economics are school administration (lack of staffs, facilities, or courses for boys), teachers (teaching content and materials) and society (parents, inadequate job opportunity, and social prejudice).

(3) Relation between ‘The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Dis- crimination against Women’ and home economics. As the Convention on the Eli- mination demands the adjustment of every legal and social discrimination against women, in many countries it is conjectured that home economics must be a discipline with controversial aims. Replies were as shown to the following questions.

Yes No No response

Signed ‘The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms

Assessment or change has been carried out in home of Discrimination against Women’? 1 2 2 5

economics education to comply with the Convention? 6 8 5

The following statements were expressed by countries which answered ‘yes’ to one or both of the above questions: (a) For the past 5 years boys also study home economics. Stress is added on the technological, consumers’ needs and the science of home economics (Israel). (b) In the increasing role of women in development in which we are seeing the positive participation of women in development programs (Zambia). (c) All references in syllabi and prescriptions and in resource materials are being changed to remove discriminative statements and references (New Zealand).* (d) There has been continuing assessment for, and change in, the provision of home economics for boys as well as girls largely since secondary education on comprehensive lines began to be introduced after Circular 10/65 was issued to local education authorities in 1965 (United Kingdom).* (e) In the new comprehensive schools since 1970 the curriculum is based on this philosophy (Finland). (f) 1) Review of textbooks and other resources to eliminate sexist biases.

2) Curriculum revisions and syllabus statements must be non-biased (New

(g) Home economics as a new subject from 1982 in primary school (grades 1-6). Technology as a new subject from 1982 through 9-year compulsory comprehensive school. Child studies give more time in junior high school from 1982 (Sweden). (h) Some patterns of equality between boys and girls in schools (Spain). (i) There have been a number of locally based working parties for teachers in different LEAS and in the Specialist Home Economics Teachers’ Association,

169

Zealan d) .


title: The Association of Teachers of Domestic Science, where consideration of courses equally appropriate for boys as well as girls has been a major topic (United Kingdom). 6 ) Here is a comment from a country with a 'no' answer: too new to have any effect on curriculum planning in home economics.

General comments from the respondents on the survey andlor co-educational home economics

Respondents were asked to make any comment on this study or co-educational home economics education. Here are the comments: (a) There are many co-ed classes in home economics in Nova Scotia. Co-educational Home Economics education must be taught by teachers willing to make changes. Boys are usually very interested in nutrition, therefore the content must be flexible enough to meet their needs (Canada). (b) Home economics is very important for new couples. It should be taught at all levels: primary and high school for both boys and girls, with subtle differences. It should be optional for those who want to make this their career as formal education (Argentina). (c) This is a very relevant study whch will benefit all countries; in our country in particular, where we have home economics for boys is still in the experimental stage. You will note in the guidelines in the full implementation of the 1973 revised secondary education programme enclosed, that home economics was and is still considered as only one of the areas of practical arts and given a mere 1/3 of the time allotment for the school year, depriving students of the opportunities for intensive training in home and family life (Philippines). (d) Home economics is called in France economie sociale familiale in technical school, and education manuelle et technique in middle school. Home economics in technical training takes its place as general training for all pupils at any level for boys and girls. An optional test is organized for technician BaccalaurCat. I , 'education manuelle et technique of colleges and high schools is interpreted in general training as only the practical aspect of home economics. The general training will be settled for the first time, as preparation for home economics for levels around 16 years old, boys and girls, in 1982 as optional training (France).

Additional materials which were sent from the respondents

The respondents were asked to send any documents of laws, rules, or instructions regulating formal offerings of home economics education. These were provided from twelve countries, and were used partially to complete the questionnaire by indication of the respondents. Most of them are under continuous review.

170

Harumi Kimura

Here are some comments why materials were not sent: (a) Nothing available in other language (from two countries). (b) India is a big country with many states. It is the states which pass their laws and regulations. It is difficult to collect them from each state.

Conclusions and recommendations

(1) Survey procedure The questionnaire must be revised to cater for the variety of systems in different countries. For instance, a country returned the partially-completed questionnaire with some references and a letter which said that ‘Answering with only crosses to your questions would not give a precise picture of the realities in the Danish school system.’ There are many different school systems and administrative systems in the world, so that selective categories and spaces to explain are necessary. No answer to questions might be proof of the inadequate style of the question.

Returning deadline: The author had to wait 4 months after the original deadline; even so, the usable replies were returned from twenty-five out of seventy-three questionnaires. As the UNESCO survey already pointed out 10 years ago, a longer period of reply is necessary. (2) Summary of findings and recommendations

(a) Home economics education is operated within formal education in every country considered.

(b) Home economics education for boys has been increasing compared with the UNESCO survey carried out 10 years ago. That is, home economics education provided for boys rose from 58.4% to 84%, and the number of countries where home economics is not provided fell from 24.7% to 16%.

(c) A centralized educational authority plays an important role in the determination of subject matter in most countries, but the centralized authority did not always play its role alone. It is recommended that the centralized governmental body should be flexible in its educational administration to meet pupils’ needs.

(d) Co-educational home economics has been regarded as important both by government and public and on this report has accounted for 84% of all countries responding. Difficulties exist especially in social prejudice, curriculum content and school facilities.

(e) The survey could be extended to include countries such as the U.S.S.R. and China, where the questionnaires were sent and not answered.

Reference

1. UNESCO: World Survey of Home and Family Education within Formal Education. Paris, 29 October 1974.

171


Appendix

Primary School Middle School or Junior High Compulsory Optional Compulsory Optional

Boys Girls None

Questionnaire on the position of Home Economics within formal education

The questionnaire has been completed by: (name and address of responsible person or body)

Senior High School Compulsory Optional

1. In your country, is there Home Economics education provided within formal education?

Please check (X) YES 0 or NO 0

2. If YES to question 1, is it what levels and to whom? Is this teaching compulsory or optional? (Please check (X) appropriate categories)

3. Which governmental body (or bodies) in your country is responsible for Home Economics education and for the actual planning of the curriculum?

(Please check (X) appropriate categories)

Governmental bodies (Ministry - department etc.)

Responsible for Responsible for this education planning curriculum

Education 0 Agriculture Social welfare 0 Health 0 Trade and industry 0 others (please specify) 0

172

Harumi Kimura

4. By whom is the subject matter determined? (Please check (X) appropriate categories)

by the centralized national educational authority by the county or regional authority by each institution by each teacher jointly by each teacher and students others (please specify)

0

0 0 0 0 0

5. By whom alteration or addition to the planned subject matter is determined finally?


by the centralized national educational authority by the county or regional authority by each institution by each teacher jointly by each teacher and students others (please specify)

6 . In Japan, the Constitution and the Educational Law have guaranteed equal rights between men and women in the field of education. But, the Ministry of Education which controls school education makes different curriculum between boys and girls.

In your country, if any, is there such discrimination in the field of education?


Same educational opportunities of home by national law 0

by local regulations 0

0 0

t economics are guaranteed for boys and girls both, home economics is strongly suggested girls to study, by educational authority home economics is legally forced girls to study others (please specify)

7. Has your country signed ‘The Convention on the Elimination of all 1:orms of Discrimination against Women’?

Please check (X) YES 0 or NO 0

173


8. What assessment or change, if any, is carried out in Home Economics education planning in relation to the ‘Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women’ in your country?


No, major assessment is not carried out YES, major change is carried out

0 0

If YES, please specify what assessment or change is:

9. In your country is it felt that, as part of general education for living Home Economics in co- education is regarded as:


by by government public

very important important not important

0 0 0

0 0 0

not necessary 0 0 Please explain reasons for your answer:

10. In your country, possible difficulties in implementing co-educational Home Economics in the curriculum:


teachers unwilling to make change 0 students not interested 0 public resistance to the co-ed. 0 prohibited by educational authority 0 others (please specify)

11. We shall esteem it a favour if you would enclose official documents of laws, rules, instructions regulating formal offerings of Home Economics Education.

174

Harumi Kimura

12. If you have any comment on our study or co-educational Home Economics education, please explain here. (Use additional sheet if necessary)

Thank you very much for your kind help to us. Please return the completed questionnaire by air mail; if you need additional postal charge

from us, please let us know about it.

175

a world survey of home economics education in a co-educational curriculum

Documents