View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An International Review of Second-Level Food Education Curriculum Policy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An International Review of Second-Level Food Education Curriculum Policy
Language: English
Authors: McCloat, Amanda, Caraher, Martin
Source: Cambridge Journal of Education. 2020 50(3):303-324.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Comparative Education, Foods Instruction, Secondary School Curriculum, Home Economics, Educational Policy, Foreign Countries, Curriculum Evaluation, Skill Development, Student Empowerment, Practical Arts, Educational Change, Knowledge Level, Home Economics Teachers, Teacher Education
Geographic Terms: Ireland, United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (England), Japan, Malta, Finland, Australia
DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2019.1694641
ISSN: 0305-764X
Abstract: Recently, there has been an intensification of calls for comprehensive food education curriculum in schools. Despite this, there is limited international comparative data on the provision of food education. This study uses a comparative case study approach to analyse second-level food education curriculum policy across seven countries. It explores curriculum policy regarding the status of food education, nomenclature and the pedagogical and philosophical approaches. In six of the seven countries, Home Economics is identified as the school subject which teaches practical food education. Coherence in the discourse and pedagogical approaches is evident; however, disparity between countries exists as to whether the subject is optional or mandatory. The authors conclude that food education should form part of the curriculum, but rather than a piecemeal approach, they recommend it be taught, by specialist teachers, in an integrated, sequential and developmentally appropriate manner through an established subject such as Home Economics.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1257527
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGPC07PID6wFTTyyFgH-4AlAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLKiowJVzWCO8lj8RAIBEICBm4JODjYUJNtbdZwMhiNIqhTQeY4jLxF6OGl5pbfDIAhcCA_O1sKY4QwUitMQ-pQF3J1Bw88Sa3sf_YOlvDUVzvFPRsU92NQei75raA-JnI12U8FFpV38kvxa1Hkiv-qaagq5vCBxT_2pOI8FrCEHktFZ-agVjgM-nDRBWc4fTXjHDxiCc6R7cFOaSmxA3aGnznh3EyllZP2NJ2gr
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0144260757;caj01jun.20;2020Jun29.03:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0144260757-1">An international review of second-level food education curriculum policy </title> <p>Recently, there has been an intensification of calls for comprehensive food education curriculum in schools. Despite this, there is limited international comparative data on the provision of food education. This study uses a comparative case study approach to analyse second-level food education curriculum policy across seven countries. It explores curriculum policy regarding the status of food education, nomenclature and the pedagogical and philosophical approaches. In six of the seven countries, Home Economics is identified as the school subject which teaches practical food education. Coherence in the discourse and pedagogical approaches is evident; however, disparity between countries exists as to whether the subject is optional or mandatory. The authors conclude that food education should form part of the curriculum, but rather than a piecemeal approach, they recommend it be taught, by specialist teachers, in an integrated, sequential and developmentally appropriate manner through an established subject such as Home Economics.</p> <p>Keywords: Food education; curriculum; home economics; food literacy; cooking skills</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Internationally, there is concern about the individual and population health consequences of unhealthy dietary behaviours (World Health Organisation [WHO], [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref1">78</reflink>]). In response, schools have been identified as an efficient and effective setting to promote healthy behaviour to children and young people, as habits and behaviours developed at an early age can influence lifestyle choices in adulthood (Hawkes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref2">26</reflink>]; WHO, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref3">80</reflink>]). The EU Action Plan on Childhood Obesity (2014–2020) recognises the benefit of an integrated approach to teaching children about food. The Action Plan recommends that children should be educated about nutrition, healthy lifestyle and sustainability issues, along with practical food skills, in an integrated manner which utilises the existing curriculum, as opposed to piecemeal additional components (Development Initiatives, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref4">18</reflink>]; European Union, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]). Nutrition literacy, incorporating clear context-specific nutrition advice, coupled with education on food preparation, is further reinforced by the WHO ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref6">79</reflink>]) Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity as a component in a multidisciplinary approach to enabling families to make healthier choices. Providing cooking skills initiatives, in isolation, will not alone solve poor eating habits or obesity (Caraher, Wu, & Seeley, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref7">8</reflink>]). Rather, a comprehensive approach to address knowledge, attitudes, confidence and practical food and cooking skills is required in order to have a meaningful influence on dietary quality (McGowan et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref8">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Summary table.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>Nomenclature around Food Education used in curriculum policy documents</td><td>Optional/Mandatory Subject for students</td><td>Aim/Rationale – Discourse used in relation to Food Education</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Republic of Ireland</td><td>Home Economics</td><td>Optional for all students</td><td>Healthy, sustainable living for individuals, families and society; practical food and health literacy skills; adopt a healthy lifestyle; make informed decisions that positively impact students' health and wellbeing</td></tr><tr><td>2. Northern Ireland</td><td>Home Economics; Home Economics: Food and Nutrition</td><td>Mandatory up to Key Stage 3 (age 14); optional thereafter. (Optional) GCSE exam in Home Economics: Food and Nutrition after three years' study</td><td>Three key concepts: Healthy Eating; Home and Family Life; and Independent Living, which involves a focus on practical food skills and theoretical knowledge. Application of food and nutrition to everyday living situations; practical food skills; problem solving, decision making and consumer discernment skills; knowledge and understanding of human needs</td></tr><tr><td>3. England</td><td>Design and Technology: Cooking and Nutrition Food Preparation and Nutrition</td><td>Cooking component to be offered to all students in maintained schools; optional GCSE exam</td><td>Cook and apply the principles of nutrition and health; lifeskills; develop skills to feed themselves and others affordably and well. Apply their understanding of the theory of food and nutrition in practical cookery.</td></tr><tr><td>4. Malta</td><td>Home Economics</td><td>Optional for all students</td><td>Understand relevant scientific principles in nutrition and health; balanced, critical approach to food choice, eating habits; practical skills for choice, preparation and presentation of food</td></tr><tr><td>5. Japan</td><td>Home Economics</td><td>Mandatory for all students in Junior (age 13–14) secondary school; optional thereafter</td><td>Practical, hands-on activities relating to food; knowledge and skills for everyday life; better family life</td></tr><tr><td>6. Finland</td><td>Home Economics</td><td>Mandatory at Grade 7 (age 13) and optional thereafter</td><td>Essential lifeskills for sustainable living, food knowledge and consumer skills; promote wellbeing.</td></tr><tr><td>7. Australia (State of Victoria)</td><td>Two Learning Areas: Home Economics; Food and Nutrition</td><td>Optional for all students</td><td>Make informed food choices as capable consumers; apply principles of nutrition, food science; practical food skills; environmental and economic aspects of food</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In recent years there has been a renewed interest in food education and, in particular, the concept of food literacy (Vidgen & Gallegos, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref9">77</reflink>]). In the home setting, learning from the mother was most commonly cited as the source of learning food and cooking skills; however, a decline in home cooks and pressure on family time may pose a challenge for the future transfer of food knowledge and skills (Lavelle et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref10">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref11">43</reflink>]; McCloat, Mooney, & Hollywood, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref12">51</reflink>]). Traditionally, formal food education was the remit of Home Economics teachers in schools. Home Economics was regarded as the subject responsible for educating students on food knowledge, skills, attitudes and competencies required for life (Pendergast, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref13">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>The International Federation for Home Economics (IFHE) states that Home Economics, 'as a curriculum area, facilitates students to discover and further develop their own resources and capabilities to be used in their personal life, by directing their professional decisions and actions or preparing them for life' (International Federation for Home Economics [IFHE], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>], p. 1). The benefits of a comprehensive curriculum such as Home Economics in educating young people in the basic lifeskills of preparing food for themselves and their families is internationally recognised (Lichenstein & Ludwig, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref15">46</reflink>]; McCloat & Caraher, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref16">50</reflink>]; McCloat et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref17">51</reflink>]; Ronto, Ball, Pendergast, & Harris, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref18">62</reflink>]; Worsley, Wang, Yeatman, Byrne, & Wijayaratne, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref19">81</reflink>]). However, there remains a variance in the provision of food education in second-level education curriculum policy in schools internationally. In order to mitigate against this perceived variance, in 2016 the IFHE called on governments to strengthen Home Economics, as a curriculum area, in school-based education (IFHE, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref20">34</reflink>]). At the time of writing this paper, there appears to be no current comparative studies analysing food education curriculum policy on an international basis. To address these issues, this study uses a comparative case study approach in analysing second-level food education curriculum policy across seven countries: the Republic of Ireland; Northern Ireland; England; Malta; Japan; Finland; and Australia (State of Victoria). It explores the education policy regarding food education on the curriculum; the pedagogical basis and philosophical underpinning of the curriculum; and the profession of teachers who teach food education and Home Economics.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-3">Methodology</hd> <p>This study is a cross national, comparative case study of food education curriculum policy in secondary schools across seven countries: the Republic of Ireland; Northern Ireland; England; Malta; Japan; Finland; and Australia (State of Victoria). Comparative case study research can provide a useful example of what occurs in other countries; however, it is accepted that the findings from these seven case studies cannot be utilised to generalise to other cases. Rather, this study compares these cases for what they show (Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref21">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref22">72</reflink>]).</p> <p>Non-probability sampling was employed and the countries were selected based on their suitability to one of four criteria which were identified in order to explore varying perspectives on food education curriculum policy. Selection was also informed by the working knowledge of the two authors. The four criteria included: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>) an established historical policy for providing mandatory food education on the curriculum (Japan, Finland); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>) a relatively recent change in policy to have mandatory food education (Northern Ireland); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>) an established policy but optional food education on the curriculum (the Republic of Ireland; Malta; Australia [State of Victoria]); or (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>) an ad hoc, piecemeal approach to food education (England). The State of Victoria, in Australia, was included as it adapts an innovative way of training Home Economics teachers through their Home Economics Association.</p> <p>Despite policy documents often representing an incomplete or apparent account of the reality on the ground, they still have value and are regarded as 'deliberate and conscious statements of strategies' (Shaw, Elston, & Abbott, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref27">66</reflink>], p. 261). Initially, curriculum policy documents were collected into a database and analysed in each of the seven country case studies. According to Collins ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]), a distinction needs to be applied when conducting policy analysis between analysis of policy process and that of policy content. For the purposes of this paper, food education curriculum policy analysis of the content was undertaken. This comparative policy analysis focused on analysing second-level curriculum policy at junior cycle (ages 11–15 and normally the first three years of study in secondary school, depending on the country) pertaining to food education and Home Economics. In each of the countries, selected curriculum education policy documents, which were produced by comparable sources such as national education departments, ministries with specific responsibility for curriculum, and assessment and subject associations, were analysed. This facilitated a quicker and easier sourcing of documents and a comparable process focusing only on food education curriculum policy. The education policies were sourced through the websites of each of the departments of education and, where appropriate, national subject associations. For all countries where English is not the official language, an English translation of the policy document was available. In one country (Japan) the Japan Society of Home Economics (established in 1949 and having over 5000 members) published the Home Economics curriculum in a book (Japan Association of Home Economics, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]) and, consequently, this was used during the analysis together with English translations of wider education policy documents and the <emph>Journal of Home Economics of Japan</emph> publication. The education policy chosen for analysis in each country was the most current national policy at junior secondary school and included: Junior Cycle Home Economics Specification (2017) in the Republic of Ireland; Key Stage 3 Home Economics and Home Economics: Food and Nutrition (2017) in Northern Ireland; National Curriculum Cooking and Nutrition: Design and Technology (2014); GCSE Food Preparation and Nutrition (2015) and Licence to Cook initiative in England; Home Economics Curriculum (2012) in Malta; the Course of Study for Home Economics (2008) in Japan; the revised Home Economics curriculum (2014) in Finland; and Learning in Design and Technologies (Victoria, Australia).</p> <p>In analysing the policy documents in the respective countries the initial stage involved using a data collection sheet. This recorded in a systematic, coherent and comparable way, data (i.e. curriculum description; structure; rationale; aim; learning outcomes and assessment) from the food education/Home Economics curriculum policy of each country. Subsequently, the data was analysed and the following comparable themes were extracted from the policy documents: nomenclature used in the policy to refer to Home Economics and food education; status of the subject on the curriculum (optional or mandatory); rationale and aim of the curriculum; pedagogical emphasis (theoretical and/or practical, experiential); curriculum content and assessment; and teacher education. Only formal education and curriculum policy at junior cycle in second-level schools (ages 12–15) has been included in this review. The authors recognise the myriad of cooking and food education initiatives that are run by charities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) outside of the formal school setting; however, due to word constraints these have not been explored within the scope of this paper. Such initiatives are not included in education curriculum policy documents, which only relate to teaching, learning and assessment in schools as required by the curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-4">Findings: an international review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0144260757-5">3.1 Republic of Ireland (ROI)</hd> <p>In the Republic of Ireland, the Department of Education and Skills has responsibility for the curriculum in all schools while the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) develops the curriculum. The name 'Home Economics' is used throughout curriculum policy documents in secondary schools and in teacher education in the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Home Economics is a popular subject with students; in 2019, it was taken by 36% (n = 23,043) of the total cohort of students (n = 64,330) sitting the Junior Certificate examination (taken at age 15 after three years of study) (State Examinations Commission, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref30">69</reflink>]). Junior Cycle education (ages 12–15) in the ROI is undergoing a process of curriculum policy change as set out in the new Junior Cycle Framework (2015). Consequently, a new Specification for Junior Cycle Home Economics (2017) was introduced in all schools in September 2018, made up of a three-year course of study, designed for a minimum of 200 hours of timetabled student engagement. According to the Department of Education and Skills (DES, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>]) the central focus of Home Economics, as a field of study, is to achieve optimal, healthy and sustainable living for individuals, families and society. The new Specification for Junior Cycle Home Economics aims to 'develop students' practical food and health literacy skills so that they can adopt a healthy lifestyle and make informed decisions that positively impact their health and wellbeing as individuals as well as within their families and society' (DES, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>], p. 5).</p> <p>The Specification is made up of three strands: 'Food, Health and Culinary Skills'; 'Responsible Family Living'; and 'Textiles and Craft'. The 'Food, Health and Culinary Skills' strand focuses on developing a 'healthy, sustainable attitude and positive relationship with food through practical experiential learning' (DES, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>], p. 15). Students are required to apply their knowledge and understanding of nutrition, diet and health principles to make informed decisions which will positively impact their health and wellbeing as well as that of their families. Practical food and cookery skills are integral to the strand and cover a broad range of skills including: food choice; budgeting; shopping; menu and meal planning for individuals and families at all stages of the lifecycle; diet related diseases and specific diet disorders; nutritional analysis; portion control; importance of nutrition and diet in contributing to health and wellbeing; comparing commercial and homemade food products; scientific principles and biological systems including digestion; reading food labels; health and safety food skills; preparing and cooking a range of food using various cooking techniques; ethical and ecological food principles; and food waste. At the end of the three years of study, students will be expected to have developed a broad range of knowledge, understanding and practical skills which relate to food health and culinary skills including, for example, applying a range of cooking principles and techniques in the preparation of healthy individual and family meals incorporating budgetary considerations; using a problem-based learning approach; and applying nutritional knowledge in the planning and preparation of food for the family (DES, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>], p. 15). The strand is underpinned by four elements which have as their focus: Health and Wellbeing; Individual and Family Empowerment; Sustainable and Responsible Living; and Consumer Competence. All 19 learning outcomes in this strand are arranged according to their relevance to each of these four elements.</p> <p>In recognition of the importance of the practical food skills underpinning the specification 50% of the externally assessed marks are weighted towards a practical food skills examination which is externally assessed by the State Examinations Commission. The practical food skills examination will require students to demonstrate the application of nutritional knowledge and their food literacy skills in the preparation of a healthy nutritious dish or product to meet the requirements of a specific brief which may refer, for example, to healthy family meals; special dietary considerations; healthy school lunches; stages of the lifecycle; resourceful cookery; or diet related diseases (DES, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-6">3.2 Northern Ireland</hd> <p>Despite being on the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland is governed separately from the Republic of Ireland. The policy on curriculum for schools is set out by the Department for Education, Northern Ireland (DENI) but developed by the Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). The Northern Ireland curriculum aims to 'seek to empower pupils to achieve their potential and to make informed and responsible decisions throughout their lives. It is about helping pupils prepare for life and work as individuals' (Council for Curriculum Examinations and Assessment [CCEA], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>], p. 2). In 2007, following curriculum policy change in Northern Ireland, Home Economics became a mandatory requirement for all students (male and female) up to Key Stage 3 level (age 11–14 years) within the learning area 'Learning for Life and Work'. According to the CCEA ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]), including Home Economics within this learning area 'endorses the contribution it makes to preparing young people for independent living' (p. 1). This signalled a change in the status of Home Economics in Northern Ireland with related negative implications for the teaching and resourcing of the subject, including the availability of specialist teachers and facilities in schools (Caraher & Seeley, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>]). The minimum statutory requirement in Home Economics, which all students must study, includes three key concepts – Healthy Eating, Home and Family Life and Independent Living – and involves a focus on practical food skills as well as more theoretical aspects of these key concepts. Through studying Home Economics, students acquire 'knowledge, understanding and practical skills in areas such as diet and food choice, family relationships and parenting and financial and consumer awareness' (CCEA, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref39">13</reflink>], p. 1).</p> <p>Some 10 years on from Home Economics achieving mandatory status, in September 2017 a revised GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) specification in Home Economics: Food and Nutrition commenced with a guided contact hour allocation of 120 hours. The subject aims to develop students' knowledge and understanding of Home Economics: Food and Nutrition; their application of food and nutrition to everyday living situations; high level practical food skills; their knowledge and understanding of human needs within the context of a multicultural society; and their critical and analytical problem solving, decision making and consumer discernment skills (CCEA, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>]). The integrated and practical nature of Home Economics on the Northern Ireland curriculum, according to Baird ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref41">2</reflink>]), enables students to develop a broad range of skills in an explicit and structured manner.</p> <p>The GCSE specification has two components: Food and Nutrition, and Practical Food and Nutrition. The Food and Nutrition component of the specification includes food provenance; processing and production; factors affecting food choice; food and nutrition for good health; nutritional and dietary needs of different groups of people; macro and micro nutrients; fibre; health issues; consumer discernment; food safety; resource management; recipe modification and food preparation; and cooking and presentation skills. This component is weighted at 50% of the assessment and total mark allocation for the subject (CCEA, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]). The Practical Food and Nutrition component of the specification equates to the other 50% of the total marks and relates to a practical task that 'develops unique transferable skills' (p. 15). The practical task involves the students researching and investigating a given task title; choosing and justifying their practical activity; completing the practical activity, which involves preparing three dishes plus accompaniments in a practical session; and then evaluating all parts of the task (CCEA, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-7">3.3 England</hd> <p>The Department for Education in England has responsibility for curriculum policy in schools, while Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills) inspects and regulates services in education. Food education has a piecemeal footing on the curriculum in the UK. Food Technology within the Design and Technology curriculum area was an optional subject in secondary schools (revised in 2011). Concerns were raised by Ofsted in 2006 in an inspection report on Food Technology which noted tension, confusion and weaknesses in the curriculum and a 'fundamental clash, on the one hand, between teaching about healthy eating and how to cook accordingly and, on the other hand, developing food products to be marketed to meet consumer needs' (p. 6). According to Rutland ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref44">64</reflink>]) 'learning how to cook can contribute to a healthy lifestyle, while food technology involves studying food as an academic subject' (p. 7).</p> <p>Subsequent policy developments in England resulted in the Government announcing that cooking would be a 'compulsory' component on the curriculum by 2011 for all 11 to 14 year olds as a direct response to the increasing prevalence of obesity in the UK (HM Government, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>]). This led initially to the development of the 'Licence to Cook' programme which did not become 'compulsory', but rather an entitlement for all students attending maintained (state-funded) second-level schools in England. Rutland ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref46">64</reflink>]) notes that the intention of this initiative was to integrate it into the food technology curriculum. The programme was based on a minimum entitlement of 16 hours of practical cooking sessions; three hours of theory; and five hours of online tutorials. It focused on four competencies – including Diet and Nutrition, Food Safety and Hygiene, Consumer Awareness and Basic Cooking Skills – and aimed to teach students how to prepare simple, healthy and nutritious meals, consumer discernment and food safety, and hygiene skills (Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref47">63</reflink>]). However, in the absence of the availability of a trained cohort of Home Economics teachers, this programme was delivered by non-specialists who had undertaken short upskilling courses. One-day training was provided to teachers to learn how to deliver the cookery sessions and they could avail themselves of online tutorials. The programme drew some criticism as concerns were expressed about its possible impact on the delivery of Food Technology in schools (Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref48">63</reflink>]). The Licence to Cook programme in schools lasted for three years, but the resources produced continued to be used by schools and are available on the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) website for teachers (Owen-Jackson & Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref49">56</reflink>]). The level of official support for the programme remains unclear and its placement on an industry non-governmental association website raises questions about its official role in school curricula.</p> <p>The government did adhere to their early indications that cooking would be a compulsory component of the curriculum. The revision of the National Curriculum in 2014 had a requirement for students (5–14 years old), in all local authority maintained schools, to study 'Cooking and Nutrition' as part of the subject Design and Technology at Key Stage 3 (11–14 years) (Ballam, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>]). The Department for Education has placed an emphasis on learning to cook, citing it as a 'crucial life skill that enables pupils to feed themselves and others affordably and well, now and in later life' ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref51">14</reflink>], p. 90). This particular aspect of Design and Technology aims to focus on instilling a love of cooking, mainly savoury dishes utilising a variety of basic techniques, and to teach students how to apply the principles of healthy eating and nutrition in the cooking of the dishes.</p> <p>Concurrent to this, policy change also occurred in the curriculum (2013) and resulted in a revised GCSE 'Food Preparation and Nutrition' (2015) subject, which follows two years of study (Key Stage 4: Year 10 and Year 11; aged 14–16 years). The subject was initially called 'GCSE Cooking and Nutrition' (2014) but this name was changed after the consultation process to 'Food Preparation and Nutrition'. This aims to teach students how to cook and apply the principles of nutrition, healthy eating and food science. Through studying 'Food Preparation and Nutrition', students are encouraged to apply their understanding of the theory of food and nutrition in practical cookery. At Key Stage 4 students are taught how to prepare dishes to feed themselves and others in an affordable and nutritious way; the principles of nutrition and health; recipe modification; planning and preparing meals; advanced cookery techniques including the use of a variety of commodities, including electrical appliances; food science, including the functional properties and chemical processes; appreciation of sensory attributes of food; sustainability and ethical considerations of food; food microbiology, health and safety; culinary traditions; and food provenance and seasonality (Department for Education, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]). However, food teachers and food teacher educators expressed concern during consultations on the initial curriculum and noted that as the new subject was essentially combining three pre-existing subjects, it had breadth but lacked depth. Consequently, it was argued there was too much of an emphasis on teaching lifeskills, practical food skills and cooking at the expense of scientific and technological understanding (Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref53">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>The revision of the curriculum also witnessed the removal of any food specific subject at Key Stage 5 (years 12 to 13; ages 17–18 years old). This caused much consternation and objection, as it now provides no academic based food progression route for students who take the 'Food Preparation and Nutrition' GCSE (Owen-Jackson & Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref54">56</reflink>]; Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref55">64</reflink>]). The Department for Education ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref56">16</reflink>]) justified this removal by noting firstly that Food Technology was not properly situated within the 'Design and Technology' curriculum area and had a low uptake among students; secondly, there are vocational routes available to study food should a student wish to progress to a career in this area; and, thirdly, most food science and nutrition courses require a science subject as opposed to Food Technology as entry requirements (p. 29).</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-8">3.4 Malta</hd> <p>The Ministry for Education and Employment has responsibility for curriculum policy in schools in Malta. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Home Economics has been offered on the Maltese curriculum and has been an examinable subject for second-level students since 1910. Similar to Ireland, the discipline has gone through various name changes including 'Domestic Economy', 'Housecraft', 'Domestic Science' and now 'Home Economics'. In the mid and late twentieth century, Home Economics was a compulsory subject for girls in the first two years of secondary schooling. However, a new National Curriculum Framework (NCF) was endorsed in 2012, and within this Framework Home Economics is an optional subject in second-level schools (Piscopo & Mggliett, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref57">59</reflink>]). A high proportion of both male and female students of the Form 1 (age 11/12) cohort choose to study Home Economics (Piscopo, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref58">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similar to other countries, Home Economics education in Malta, from a food education perspective, aims to enable students to 'foster an understanding of relevant scientific principles in nutrition and health; and promote a balanced, critical approach to food choice and eating habits and develop skills relating to the choice, preparation and presentation of food' (Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>], p. 9). The socio-ecological model which acknowledges the relationship between the individual and society is integral to the Home Economics curriculum in Malta. There are four key guiding principles for Home Economics which include: connectedness, whereby students explore their interaction and connection with their environment in order to promote, support and sustain the health and well-being of individuals, families and society; problem-solving skills to become critical reflective thinkers; sustainability to develop as advocates for sustainable future; and advocacy to enhance the health and well-being of individuals, families and society (Ministry of Education and Employment, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref60">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Home Economics education in Malta is underpinned by three strands of continuous learning:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Strand 1: 'Food, Nutrition and Health', which is further subdivided into four learning areas or sub-strands: 'Food, Health and Energy Balance'; 'Sustainable Resource Management'; 'Safety and Risk Management and Practical Interventions'</item> <p></p> <item> Strand 2: Home and Family Well-Being</item> <p></p> <item> Strand 3: Choice and Management of Resources.</item> </ulist> <p>The Home Economics curriculum is a unitised curriculum which aims to achieve a balance between the breadth of content and the available time for students' learning. The revised curriculum in 2012 resulted in a reduction of content in curriculum subjects. Each of the units in the curriculum has a specific set of teaching objectives and learning outcomes which can be reasonably achieved within the identified time for that unit (Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to the Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref62">19</reflink>]), the pedagogical approach for teaching and learning in Home Economics is 'a nurturing of skills that develop an inquiring mind' (p. 10). The practical nature of the subject is reinforced throughout the Teaching Objectives Framework and the Subject Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for Home Economics with an emphasis placed on experiential learning through a design brief process.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-9">3.5 Japan</hd> <p>The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) is responsible for curriculum policy and teacher education in Japan. Home Economics (Kateika) education in Japan enjoys an established and reputable place on the curriculum in both elementary (primary) and high school (secondary) education. It has been a required subject in elementary school for grades 5 and 6 for Japanese boys and girls since 1947. According to Kawamura ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref63">37</reflink>]), Kateika is based on an established pedagogical approach and places a strong emphasis on developing life skills and problem solving. The subject aims to develop independent students in their daily lives with a focus on developing competencies including cooking by themselves for themselves. This has been the approach for some time by teachers of Home Economics.</p> <p>In 2005 the Basic Law of Shokuiku was enacted, which targets all citizens of Japan. The law defines 'Shokuiku' as food education to acquire 'knowledge about food and the ability to make appropriate food choices' (Reiher, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref64">60</reflink>], p. 509). It positions food education at the core of society and offers a holistic approach to the integration of food education throughout the family, school and community. Home Economics as a mandatory school subject is one mechanism through which the principles of the law can be realised.</p> <p>The course of study includes family and family life; daily meals and basics in cooking; comfortable clothing and housing; daily consumer issues; and the environment (Arai, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>]). The aims of the course of study include reference to enabling students to 'acquire basic and fundamental knowledge and skills necessary for everyday life through practical and hands-on activities relating to food ... and to develop a positive attitude towards a better family life as a member of the family' (MEXT [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref66">53</reflink>], p. 2). With specific reference to the component 'daily meals and basics in cooking', students receive instruction on nutrition; balanced meals and healthy eating; meal enjoyment; menu planning; specific cooking techniques including boiling, stir-frying, rice cooking and making miso soup; serving meals; and safety in the kitchen (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [MEXT], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref67">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>In junior high school (grades 7 [age 13] and 8 [age 14]), Home Economics has been a required, co-educational subject since 1989. Prior to this the subject was called Home Economics and Technology and whilst the subject was centred around three practical skills (designing, building and operating), the content was differentiated based on gender: boys studied carpentry and machinery; girls studied cooking and childrearing. Consequently, there was no formal opportunity for males to learn food literacy skills. In 1989 the course of study was revised to minimise gender segregation; however, given the influences on gender stereotyping in society, the content continued to be differentiated based on gender. It was not until 1998, in light of growing societal criticism of gender discrimination in school curricula, that the course of study was amended to ensure learning outcomes were combined and would subsequently be studied by boys and girls in grades 7 and 8 (Arai, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>]; Kawamura, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]; Kudo, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>]). This resulted in boys as well as girls studying cooking, food, diet and nutrition, meal planning, and independent living. According to Kudo ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref71">39</reflink>]), a consequence of this change was assisting men to acquire lifelong practical lifeskills. The course of study in junior high school focuses on family, home and child growth; food, cooking and independent life; daily consumption and the environment; and clothing, housing and independent life. In order to develop their food literacy competencies, students receive instruction pertaining to diet and nutrition; preparation and cooking of daily meals; local food culture; menu planning; food quality; safe and hygienic preparation of food; consumer discernment; and sustainable consumption (Arai, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-10">3.6 Finland</hd> <p>Home Economics teaching was established in the 1890s (Elorinne, Arai, & Autio, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]). Anna Olsoni founded the Pedagogic Cooking School in Helsinki with the first students beginning their studies in 1891. The modern manifestation is one of compulsory home economics for both boys and girls (Kudo, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]; Turkki, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref75">73</reflink>]). The Finnish National Board of Education has responsibility for setting the core curriculum in schools in Finland. The core curriculum in Finland was revised in 2014 and replaced the 2004 curriculum. Implementation of the 2014 curriculum commenced in August 2017 with grade 7 (age 13).</p> <p>Similar to other countries in this study, food education and cooking skills are taught in Finland through the subject of Home Economics, which is a mandatory core subject at grade 7 (age 13) and an optional, albeit popular, area of study at grades 8 (age 14) and 9 (age 15). At grade 7 there is a strong emphasis on developing practical skills and each student is taught three hours per week of Home Economics, made up of practical instruction and theoretical input depending on the topic. The teaching and learning in Home Economics equips students with the essential lifeskills for 'sustainable living, food knowledge and skills as well as consumer skills' (Finnish National Board of Education, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref76">23</reflink>], p. 470).</p> <p>At grades 7–9 there are three content areas which relate to the objectives of Home Economics with an emphasis on students applying what they learn in class to their everyday living situations. The three content areas include: (C1) food knowledge and skills and food culture; (C2) housing and living together; and (C3) consumer and financial skills at home. Of particular interest to this paper is the (C1) content area of food knowledge and skills and food culture. Home Economics objectives include a focus on developing practical skills that encourage students to use materials, utensils and appliances to promote well-being and sustainable consumption. The C1 content area includes a focus on food preparation and baking skills; meal planning; considering food choices and habits; nutrition and healthy eating; food safety; the food chain; food knowledge and skills; ethical considerations of food; economical use of food; and food culture and customs (Finish National Board of Education, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref77">23</reflink>]). For the first time, in September 2016, as a result of policy change in the 2014 curriculum, Home Economics can now also be taught as an optional subject at primary school level (grades 1–6). The content areas are as set out in the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2014), but are taught in a way that is developmentally appropriate for the children of this age group and involve developing children's knowledge, skills and understanding of Home Economics related areas, including food and nutrition. Work has also been conducted to align and integrate Home Economics knowledge in cross curricular themes to have a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of students e.g. school lunches (Turkki, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref78">74</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-11">3.7 Australia – State of Victoria</hd> <p>The Victorian Minister for Education is responsible for education in all schools with the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) responsible for developing curriculum and assessment in the state. In the junior second-level curriculum there are two learning areas which are concerned with food education. These include 'Home Economics' and 'Food and Nutrition', whereby content for each of these areas is drawn from two curricula: 'Design and Technologies' and 'Health and Physical Education'. 'Home Economics' is concerned with the practical concerns of individuals, families and communities. One element of this is food education, which relates to food; nutrition; healthy food choices; influences on human growth and development; and wellbeing. In the 'Food and Nutrition' area students are provided with the opportunity to learn knowledge and skills associated with food including nutrition principles; food origins; food production; healthy eating and food choices; as well as technology related food issues such as food processing and packaging. They are provided with the opportunity to apply this knowledge in the selection and preparation of food in hands-on practical cookery sessions (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref79">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>Victoria's new senior curriculum commenced in schools in 2017. The Victorian Certificate of Education '(VCE) Food Studies' (2017–2021) replaces the previous curriculum 'Food and Technology'. 'VCE Food Studies' aims to develop students who can make informed food choices as capable food citizens; apply the principles of nutrition and food science; take ownership of their food decisions; and be conscious of the environmental, ethical and economic dimensions of food. Practical food skills are integral to the curriculum and include the planning, preparing, evaluation and enjoyment of food (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref80">75</reflink>]). There are four units of study: food origins; food makers; food in daily life; and food issues, challenges and futures. Each of the units is based on 50 hours of scheduled classroom instruction. The new 'VCE Food Studies' was developed following extensive consultation and has been broadly welcomed. According to Compton ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref81">10</reflink>]) this curriculum takes an interdisciplinary approach to food studies and has an emphasis on developing a pathway for students to health and wellbeing through the theoretical and practical application of food skills.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The curriculum policy for six of the seven countries in this study identified Home Economics as the subject on the curriculum to teach food education to second-level school students (Table 1). The exception to this is England, where Home Economics as a subject is not on the curriculum, although food education is taught in Design and Technology in the form of 'Cooking and Nutrition' and the 'Food Preparation and Nutrition' GCSE in local authority maintained schools. Here, in the absence of a trained professional group, there is heavy reliance on outside support to deliver curricular content (Caraher, Seeley, Wu, & Lloyd, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref82">7</reflink>]). However, between countries it is also apparent that variations occur in the policy regarding whether food education is mandatory for all students or an optional area of study; the pedagogical basis and philosophical underpinning of the curriculum; and the status of the profession of teachers who teach food education and Home Economics in each of these countries. Exactly how this influences the nature, provision and quality of food education in second-level schools is set out later in this article.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-13">4.1 Nomenclature</hd> <p>Findings from this comparative analysis demonstrate that the nomenclature around food education and Home Economics utilised formally in the seven countries often varied between junior and senior second-level curricula. The IFHE identify the name 'Home Economics' as the preferred name for the field and the profession. They note internationally that the name has been retained and is recognised within and beyond the profession (IFHE, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>]). In reviewing the seven countries in this study, the name 'Home Economics' was used when referring to food education in curriculum policy in the Republic of Ireland; Finland; Japan; Northern Ireland; Malta; and Australia with nomenclature such as 'Food and Nutrition' (Australia) and 'Food Studies' (Australia) also evident in curriculum policy. In practice, the use of various nomenclatures can lead to dilution of the discipline from a philosophical perspective; it can also lead to confusion and fragmentation of the mission of Home Economics, particularly when taught by non-specialist teachers. In countries such as Finland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Malta and Japan there is a consistency of nomenclature with the use of the name 'Home Economics' in second-level curriculum and university teacher education programmes. This can lead to Home Economics teachers having a strong sense of identity and belonging to the Home Economics discipline. What is important is how the teachers can transmit a coherent philosophical perspective on food education from a Home Economics lens in their everyday teaching.</p> <p>England was the only country reviewed where there was no reference to 'Home Economics' in any curriculum policy documents as a medium for teaching food education. According to Caraher and Seeley ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>]) cooking, as a lifeskill, was no longer in favour with industry in England in the 1980/90s, which instead preferred skills such as food product development; marketing; packaging; and costing of food products. This had significant and influential consequences on the curriculum policy of the time. Leith ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref85">45</reflink>]) noted that a technological and industrial approach to teaching food in schools; a lack of qualified teachers; costs associated with the class; replacement of kitchens in schools with computer rooms or general facilities; and the perceived lack of academic rigour associated with cooking resulted in the decline in schools offering 'Home Economics' in England. Food Technology was introduced within the Design and Technology curriculum area and the focus was mainly on food product development for industry as opposed to health. However, the thinking has come almost full circle as Food Technology has now been replaced with 'Cooking and Nutrition' as part of the subject Design and Technology to Key Stage 3 and the optional GCSE subject 'Food Preparation and Nutrition'.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-14">4.2 Home economics as the vehicle for food education in curriculum policy</hd> <p>This study demonstrates the focus and value countries such as Japan, Finland and Northern Ireland place on ensuring second-level students are taught food education lifeskills as part of their formal curriculum. In these three countries Home Economics is the vehicle for teaching food education. In Japan, from elementary school to high school, Home Economics education is the mechanism for developing comprehensive, sustained, practical food and lifeskills in children and young people. From a policy perspective, Japan has invested in ensuring that mandatory Home Economics education, for both males and females, has an established place on the curriculum due to the importance it places on being able to have these essential food education lifeskills. Consequently, every student, regardless of gender, has an opportunity to study food education as a component of Home Economics with a focus on the practical lifeskills of cooking and meal preparation. In Japan the status of the profession of a Home Economics teacher is well regarded and the subject in schools is taught by specialised, and university educated, Home Economics teachers who have a strong pedagogical basis and philosophical underpinning.</p> <p>Similarly, in Finland, a consistently high performing education system ranking in the top five of OECD countries in PISA results (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref86">55</reflink>]) has ensured Home Economics is a mandatory subject for all young people and is a highly regarded practical lifeskills subject on the curriculum. From a Finnish perspective the main goal of Home Economics is to teach students practical and theoretical everyday lifeskills and competencies (Hokkanen & Kosonen, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref87">29</reflink>]; Kuusisaari, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref88">41</reflink>]) and a value is placed on these skills in society. Evidently, a key strength of the subject, from a food education perspective in Finland, is the developmental process students engage with in order to assist them to take responsibility for their health; develop a positive attitude towards health and well-being; increase knowledge and understanding of food, nutrition and health issues; and introduce health promoting food habits. Likewise, in Northern Ireland, Home Economics has a mandatory place on the curriculum and plays a pivotal role in educating young people on food, nutrition and practical cookery skills. Baird ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref89">2</reflink>]) concludes that this area of learning, which provides knowledge and understanding necessary to make healthy food choices, as well as the practical cookery skills to apply this knowledge, is one of the most important learning areas for our young people in the current era.</p> <p>However, in contrast to countries such as Japan, Finland and Northern Ireland, Home Economics still remains an optional subject in curriculum policy in the Republic of Ireland, despite a recognition of the contribution it makes to teaching food lifeskills. In a national consultation with young people, the subject was identified as an essential lifeskills subject where they stated that learning to prepare and cook food in Home Economics classes was regarded as one of the most useful things ever learned (Department of Children and Youth Affairs [DoCYA], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref90">20</reflink>]). There is no question as to regard its popularity, with 36% of the total cohort of Junior Cycle students studying the subject in the Republic of Ireland in comparison to subjects such as Art, Craft and Design (33%); Materials Technology (28%); and Music (18%) (State Examinations Commission [SEC], [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref91">69</reflink>]). Despite the popularity and numerous public calls in the media to make the subject mandatory (Boland, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref92">4</reflink>]; Gray, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref93">25</reflink>]; Hickey, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref94">27</reflink>]; Maguire, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref95">47</reflink>]; McCloat, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref96">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref97">49</reflink>]; Safefood, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref98">65</reflink>]; St. Angela's College, Sligo, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref99">68</reflink>]; Sweeney, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref100">70</reflink>]), it remains as an optional area of study on the new Junior Cycle Framework. In November 2018 the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children and Youth Affairs' Report on Tackling Childhood Obesity recommended that the 'Government should consider the introduction of Home Economics as a compulsory subject on the Junior Cycle Curriculum for post-primary schools' (House of the Oireachtas, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>], p. 6). This report is a positive step forward for Home Economics in the Republic of Ireland and affirms the important role the subject can play in teaching young people essential practical food lifeskills underpinned by scientific theory.</p> <p>A similar, but less advantageous, situation exists in Australia where, although Home Economics is identified as the most 'logical and favourable' place to teach comprehensive food literacy skills, incorporating a theoretical and practical component, there is a reported lack of status and value applied to Home Economics and food education programmes in Australian high schools (Ronto et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref102">62</reflink>]). Compounding this issue is the varying curriculum policies implemented across the States of Australia which do not value Home Economics. This lack of status is regrettable as a recent nationwide study, conducted by Worsley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref103">81</reflink>]), showed that Home Economics (and similar) education was associated with higher levels of food knowledge among adults in Australia. The researchers stated there is substantial evidence which suggests that Home Economics education can have a long-lasting impact on the learning of food knowledge in adults, but identified the negative impact of having different curricula across the states in Australia on the food knowledge of the adults. Leahy and Wright ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref104">44</reflink>]) note that instead of having initiatives in school with a narrow focus, an interdisciplinary approach to teaching food education using a socio-critical lens is required in the Australian context.</p> <p>Arguably, teaching young people essential lifeskills pertaining to food and cooking has been in a state of disarray for some years in England (Jamie Oliver Food Foundation, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref105">35</reflink>]; Owen-Jackson & Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref106">56</reflink>]; Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref107">64</reflink>]). Whilst the re-introduction of a statutory requirement for food and cooking skills to the curriculum in England is welcome, the auspices under which it is done need to be carefully considered. The use of the 'Licence to Cook' initiative as a mechanism for teaching food education lacked a coherent pedagogical basis and was piecemeal in design. It focused not on the holistic development of food skills over a sustained period of time, but rather aimed to equip students with 'essential lifeskills' in approximately 24 hours of input. This approach cannot be compared, in terms of effectiveness, to a subject with a sound pedagogical basis taught in a sequential, comprehensive manner over a period of three years by qualified teachers. Furthermore, it appears the change in the National Curriculum for maintained schools, which required all students to study Cooking and Nutrition as a component of Design and Technology, did not have the desired impact in schools. According to the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref108">35</reflink>]), the new curriculum requirements were being broadly implemented but a wide variation existed between schools in terms of the duration, frequency, content and quality of delivery of food education to students at Key Stage 3. Teachers reported that the statutory changes had little to no impact on the delivery of food education in their schools, with 65% noting no change to the amount of time spent on food education; 74% stated there was no change to lesson duration; 68% and 69% reported no change to teaching resource provision and ingredient provision respectively (British Nutrition Foundation, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref109">5</reflink>]). The scale of the teaching of food education was also reported as being low at Key Stage 3, with 44% of teachers noting that pupils receive only 11–20 hours of food education per year; 13% identified their students receive 10 hours or less; 23% reported 21–30 hours and 20% reported 30 hours or more (p. 3). A more holistic approach, moving away from focusing only on the practical skills to a curriculum which facilitates students to consider the wider food science, political, social, ethical, nutritional issues which pertain to food, has been advocated for (Owen-Jackson & Rutland, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref110">56</reflink>]). Food education and cooking skills should form part of a comprehensive curriculum, similar to other countries in this study which have situated it within the subject Home Economics. In these countries Home Economics is sequentially planned in a developmentally appropriate manner and taught by expert teachers qualified in the pedagogy underpinning the discipline (McCloat & Caraher, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref111">50</reflink>]). Skills should be regarded as a priority for inclusion as essential lifeskills and taught regardless of their impact (Fordyce-Voorham, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref112">24</reflink>]). Furthermore, England is the only country where there is no opportunity for students to study an academic focused food subject in the senior cycle (ages 16+) of secondary school. The decision taken by the Department of Education to remove Food Technology and not develop a food subject specification, emphasising instead the vocational programmes available, demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the potential for a holistic food education subject as is taught in other countries. Food education, as is evident when it is taught through Home Economics, is more than teaching people how to cook. It encompasses the wider health, social, environmental and political aspects of food.</p> <p>It is evident from the analysis of the curriculum policy in six of the seven countries that Home Economics, as a vehicle for teaching food education, has an underpinning pedagogical approach. This was explicitly stated in the curriculum policy documents analysed whereby a socio-ecological pedagogical approach, which acknowledges the relationship between the individual and society, is applied in the teaching and learning of food education in Home Economics. Practical experiential learning underpins this approach where the instruction is based on practical activity. Interestingly, across the curriculum policy analysed, a systemic approach is utilised in Home Economics which encourages students to address practical, perennial problems of individuals and families in a critical, thoughtful and socially responsible manner. Home Economics teaches more than the technical skill of cooking; it also teaches scientific and nutritional theory and the application of these to food. It aims to develop students who are sustainable, responsible consumers of food. Critical social theory is applied to the teaching and learning in Home Economics in order to develop in society reflective critical citizens who have an emancipatory approach to problem solving (Piscopo & Mggliett, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref113">59</reflink>]). Home Economics equips students with the requisite skills to manage day-to-day life and the application of these skills in a variety of contexts where students are encouraged to take responsibility for their personal and family health, wellbeing and sustainable living (Turkki, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref114">74</reflink>]). It is interesting to note that Home Economics has a pedagogical practice history, including practical problem solving and constructivist pedagogy, that 'transcend[s] the transmissive, technical method and focuses on interpretive action and critical thinking' (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref115">67</reflink>], p. 10).</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-15">4.3 Teacher education</hd> <p>The evidence from each of these countries suggests a strong link between countries educating specialised Home Economics teachers and having a coherent and strong subject presence on the school curriculum. Finland, Ireland, Malta and Japan educate Home Economics teachers at both undergraduate and postgraduate University level. Two of these countries – Ireland and Finland – have a concurrent/integrated Home Economics teacher education programme to Masters level. Additionally, Finland offers a structured Ph.D. programme in Home Economics education. In practice this means that students, on completion of their secondary education, apply to enter a full time undergraduate teacher education degree in Home Economics and Education resulting in a Masters qualification. This is usually of five years' duration and demand for these programmes far exceeds places. There is a strong degree of interlinking between Home Economics and pedagogical studies (Turkki, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref116">73</reflink>]). Consequently, students are dedicated and interested in becoming a Home Economics teacher from an early age and throughout the five years are provided with a strong pedagogical and philosophical basis in the discipline. According to Turkki ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref117">73</reflink>]), students have an 'excellent attitude towards their studies and to the field [Home Economics] as a whole' (p. 280). In Malta and Japan, students study an undergraduate degree in Home Economics and then undertake a postgraduate teacher education programme in Home Economics education. This is referred to as a consecutive model of teacher education. Similarly to Ireland and Finland, students elect to study Home Economics as a discipline from an early age and have a strong philosophical and pedagogical understanding of the discipline. It is interesting to note that Home Economists from countries such as Republic of Ireland, Japan, Malta, Finland and Australia are active participants in the IFHE as an international professional association for the discipline (International Federation for Home Economics (IFHE, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref118">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Victoria, Australia and Northern Ireland have no undergraduate degree in Home Economics. Cognate areas linked to Home Economics, for example, consumer studies, nutrition, food, health, and culinary arts related courses are all accepted as entry to graduate teacher education programmes. In Victoria, Australia, qualified teachers wishing to upskill to teach Home Economics can undertake a Graduate Diploma in Home Economics Education which is a two-year part time course offered by Home Economics Victoria (Home Economics Victoria, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref119">30</reflink>]). In Northern Ireland, students apply for a place on a Post Graduate Certificate Education (PGCE) Home Economics course offered by the University of Ulster. As students enter these postgraduate courses from a myriad of undergraduate degrees, the conclusion can be drawn that their philosophical understanding of the discipline can be limited.</p> <p>In England, reflecting the situation on the school curriculum, there are no undergraduate or postgraduate courses in Home Economics available for students wishing to study the discipline despite 92% of food teachers surveyed in England expressing a desire that food education should be taught by specialist teachers in schools (British Nutrition Foundation, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Having a formal, clear university education route into Home Economics teacher education in countries such as the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Finland and Japan has led to having specialised teachers who have a strong pedagogical and philosophical basis in the teaching of food education through Home Economics. Teachers of Home Economics in these four countries have normally studied an undergraduate degree in Home Economics and have a teacher education qualification. It is evident that these countries are also those who have a comprehensive second-level food education curriculum policy; whether this is chicken or egg is not a question that can be answered by this research, but there appears to be a clear link. It is possible that the demands of a curriculum drive teacher education, but it is also equally conceivable that an existing strong professional group keeps alive the need for the subject, as can be seen in the case of the Republic of Ireland, Malta, Finland and Japan.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-16">5. Conclusion</hd> <p>Internationally, there have been numerous calls for a comprehensive curriculum of food education to be taught in schools. Robertson and Schneidler-Benns ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref121">61</reflink>]) invite policy makers and actors to consider a 'wider lens' on food and health in education curriculum policy. Lichtenstein and Ludwig ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref122">46</reflink>]) publicly state that an investment in food education and 'bringing back' Home Economics may be among the best investments that a society can make. This study set out to establish the current situation with regard to food education in second-level curriculum policy. Consequently, a comparative case study approach was utilised to analyse second-level food education curriculum policy across seven countries: the Republic of Ireland; Northern Ireland; England; Malta; Japan; Finland; and Australia (State of Victoria). Analysis of the curriculum policy for almost all of the countries in this study illustrates that Home Economics is tasked as the subject on the curriculum to teach food education to second-level students. This analysis concludes that as a curriculum area, Home Economics is a wide-ranging education programme which incorporates nutritional knowledge, scientific theory, practical culinary and food skills in a sequential and integrated manner. It maximises practical experiential learning for the student and teaches a sustainable healthy approach to, and relationship with, food. Home Economics, in teaching food education, is ideally placed to utilise its pedagogical approaches and philosophical underpinning to deliver a holistic and comprehensive programme to young people.</p> <hd id="AN0144260757-17">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0144260757-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Arai, N. (2012). The advancement of home economics education in post-war era. In K. Makino (Ed.), Home economics education in Japan (pp. 23–37). Tokyo: Japan Association of Home Economics Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baird, P. (2010). Food and nutrition matters in schools in Northern Ireland – An update. British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 35, 37 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref25" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ballam, R. (2014). Learn, do and apply. British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 40, 4 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref26" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boland, R. (2017, November 20). Home economics: No longer the 'wife material' course. Irish Times Newspaper. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/home-economics-no-longer-the-wife-material-course-1.3291314">www.irishtimes.com/news/education/home-economics-no-longer-the-wife-material-course-1.3291314</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref109" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> British Nutrition Foundation. (2017). Food education learning landscape. Teacher Research. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.nutrition.org.uk">www.nutrition.org.uk</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref38" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Caraher, M., & Seeley, A. (2010). Cooking in schools: Lessons from the UK. Journal of Home Economics Institute of Australia, 17 (1), 2 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref82" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Caraher, M., Seeley, A., Wu, M., & Lloyd, S. (2013). When chefs adopt a school? An evaluation of a cooking intervention in English primary schools. Appetite, 62, 50 – 59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref7" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Caraher, M., Wu, M., & Seeley, A. (2010). Should we teach cooking in schools? A systematic review of the literature of school-based cooking interventions. Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, 17 (1), 10 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Collins, T. (2005). Health policy analysis: A simple tool for policy makers. Public Health, 119, 192 – 196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Compton, L. (2016). Introducing the new VCE food studies. Victorian Journal of Home Economics, 55 (2), 2 – 3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). (2007). The statutory curriculum at key stage 3. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ccea.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/curriculum/area%5fof%5flearning/statutory%5frequirements/statutory%5fcurriculum%5fks3.pdf">http://ccea.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/curriculum/area%5fof%5flearning/statutory%5frequirements/statutory%5fcurriculum%5fks3.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). (2016). CCEA GCSE home economics: Food and nutrition from September 2017. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ccea.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/qualifications/the%5frevision/gcse/specs/final/GCSE%20Food%20and%20Nutrition%5fSpecification.pdf">http://ccea.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/qualifications/the%5frevision/gcse/specs/final/GCSE%20Food%20and%20Nutrition%5fSpecification.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). (2017). Areas of learning: Home economics. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://ccea.org.uk/curriculum/key%5fstage%5f3/areas%5flearning/learning%5flife%5fand%5fwork/home%5feconomics">http://ccea.org.uk/curriculum/key%5fstage%5f3/areas%5flearning/learning%5flife%5fand%5fwork/home%5feconomics</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2014). United Kingdom. The national curriculum in England Key stages 3 and 4 framework document. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/381754/SECONDARY_national_curriculum.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2015). United Kingdom. Food preparation and nutrition. GCSE subject content. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405328/Food_preparation_and_nutrition_180215.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. (2016) United Kingdom. Reformed GCSE, AS and a level subject content. Government consultation response. Retrieved from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//20516/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills. (2017). Junior cycle home economics specification. Dublin : The Stationery Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Development Initiatives. (2017). Global nutrition report 2017; Nourishing the SDGs. Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Directorate for Quality and Standards in Education. (2012). Handbook for the teaching of home economics. Malta: Curriculum Management and E-Learning Department.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DoCYA (Department of Children and Youth Affairs). (2014). Better outcomes, brighter futures. The national policy framework for children and young people 2014–2020. Dublin : The Stationery Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elorinne, A., Arai, N., & Autio, M. (2017). Pedagogics in home economics meet everyday life. In E. Kimonen & R. Nevalainen (Eds.), Reforming teaching and teacher education: Bright prospects for active schools (pp. 145 – 168). Rotterdam : SensePublishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Union. (2014). EU action plan on childhood obesity (2014–2020). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/childhoodobesity_actionplan_2014_2020_en.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fordyce-Voorham, S. (2011). Identification of essential food skills for skill-based healthful eating programs in secondary schools. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 43 (2), 116 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, A. (2015). Restaurants Association of Ireland president's address. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.rai.ie/presidents-update/">http://www.rai.ie/presidents-update/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkes, C., Smith, T., Jewell, J., Wardle, J., Hammond, R., Friel, S., ... Kain, J. (2015). Smart food policies for obesity prevention. The Lancet, 385, 410 – 2421.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hickey, M. (2018). President of Association of Teachers of Home Economics. World home economics day 2018 press release. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.athe-ireland.com/articles/world-home-economics-day-2018/41/">www.athe-ireland.com/articles/world-home-economics-day-2018/41/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> HM Government. (2008). Healthy Weight, Healthy lives: A cross-government strategy for England. London : HMSO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hokkanen, S., & Kosonen, A. L. (2013). Do Finnish home economics and health education textbooks promote constructivist learning in nutrition education? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37 (2013), 279 – 285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Home Economics Victoria. (2017). Graduate diploma home economics education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.homeeconomics.com.au/images/PDFs/v5.2%5f2017%5f%5fGrad%5fDip%5fcourse%5fhandbook.pdf">www.homeeconomics.com.au/images/PDFs/v5.2%5f2017%5f%5fGrad%5fDip%5fcourse%5fhandbook.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> House of the Oireachtas. (2018, November 15). Joint committee on children and youth affairs report on tackling childhood obesity. Retrieved from https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/select_committee_on_children_and_youth_affairs/reports/2018/2018-11-14_report-on-tackling-childhood-obesity_en.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Federation for Home Economics (IFHE). (2008). IFHE position paper. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.ifhe.org">www.ifhe.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Federation for Home Economics (IFHE). (2018). Who We Are. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ifhe.org/about-ifhe/who-we-are/">www.ifhe.org/about-ifhe/who-we-are/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Federation for Home Economics (IFHE). (2016). Press Release World Home Economics Day 2016 : Home Economics Literacy: Skills for Families and Consumers. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ifhe.org/fileadmin/user%5fupload/PR%5fWHED%5f2016%5fweb.pdf">www.ifhe.org/fileadmin/user%5fupload/PR%5fWHED%5f2016%5fweb.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jamie Oliver Food Foundation. (2017). A report on the food education learning landscape. Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Japan Association of Home Economics Education. (2012). Home economics education in Japan. Japan : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kawamura, M. (2016). Japanese home economics education 'Kateika': All children love it. Journal of the Japan Association of Home Economics Education, 59 (1), 46 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keselman, J. (2015, June 26). University of Manitoba, message from Dr. Joanne C. Keselman, Vice-President (Academic) and Provost. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://umanitoba.ca/admin/vp%5facademic/media/Facutly%5fof%5fHuman%5fEcology%5fcommunique%5fJune%5f2015.pdf">http://umanitoba.ca/admin/vp%5facademic/media/Facutly%5fof%5fHuman%5fEcology%5fcommunique%5fJune%5f2015.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kudo, Y. (2015). Current status and future direction of home economics curriculum in Japan. In Proceedings of XXII IFHE World Congress 2016, pre-congress conference 'current status and future directions of home economics curriculum around the world', South Korea. Daejeon, Korea.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kudo, Y. (2015). IFHE home economics education document - A global curriculum overview: Japan. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://he.ifhe.org/912/">http://he.ifhe.org/912/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuusisaari, H. (2013). Teachers' collaborative learning – Development of teaching in group discussions. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19 (1), 50 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavelle, F., Benson, T., Hollywood, L., Surgenor, D., McCloat, A., Mooney, E., ... Dean, M. (2019). Modern transference of domestic cooking skills. Nutrients, 11 (4), 870.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavelle, F., McGowan, L., Spence, M., Caraher, M., Raats, M., Hollywood, L., ... Dean, M. (2016). Learning cooking skills at different ages: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13, 119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leahy, D., & Wright, J. (2015). Governing food choices: A critical analysis of school food pedagogies and young people's responses in contemporary times. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46 (2), 233 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leith, P. (1997, July 4th). Braising standards. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/braising-standards/103753.article">www.timeshighereducation.com/features/braising-standards/103753.article</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lichenstein, A., & Ludwig, D. (2010). Bring back home economics education. Journal American Medical Association (JAMA), 303 (18), 1857 – 1858.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maguire, N. (2017, September 29th). Celeb chef Neven Maguire wants obligatory school cooking lessons. Irish Examiner Newspaper. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/celeb-chef-neven-maguire-wants-obligatory-school-cooking-lessons-459917.html">www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/celeb-chef-neven-maguire-wants-obligatory-school-cooking-lessons-459917.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCloat, A. (2012). St. Angela's academic hits the national airwaves with call to make home economics part of the compulsory curriculum for all second-level students. Press release. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.stangelas.nuigalway.ie/news%5fdetails.php?id=334">http://www.stangelas.nuigalway.ie/news%5fdetails.php?id=334</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCloat, A. (2013). Recognising the value of home economics as education for life. World home economics day 2018 press release. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.stangelas.nuigalway.ie/news%5fdetails.php?id=340">http://www.stangelas.nuigalway.ie/news%5fdetails.php?id=340</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCloat, A., & Caraher, M. (2016). Home economics as a food education intervention: Lessons from the Irish secondary education context. Education and Health, 34 (4), 104 – 110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCloat, A., Mooney, E., & Hollywood, L. E. (2017). Have Irish parents put cooking on the back burner? An Island of Ireland study of the food skills, cooking confidence and practices of parents. British Food Journal, 119 (5), 992 – 1002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGowan, L., Caraher, M., Raats, M., Lavelle, F., Spence, M., Hollywood, L., ... Dean, M. (2015). Domestic cooking and food skills: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57 (11), 2412 – 2431.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan). (2008). Course of study for elementary school home economics. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/elsec/title02/detail02/1373859.htm">http://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/elsec/title02/detail02/1373859.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education and Employment. (2014). Home economics within the health and physical education learning area (N.C.F). Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.mt/en/Curriculum/Form-1/Documents/curric_f1/curric_f1_home_econ_units.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2016). PISA 2015, PISA results in focus. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf">http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owen-Jackson, G., & Rutland, M. (2016). Food in the school curriculum in England: Its development from cookery to cookery. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, 21 (3), 63 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pendergast, D. (2012). The intention of home economics education. In D. Pendergast, S. McGregor, & K. Turkki (Eds.), Creating home economics futures: The next 100 years (pp. 12–23). Samford Valley, QLD: Australian Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piscopo, S. (2006). Home economics in Malta: When it started, how it grew, where it's at. Consumer Sciences Today, 7 (1), 6 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piscopo, S., & Mggliett, K. (2014). Redefining and repackaging home economics: Case of a Mediterranean island. Victorian Journal of Home Economics, 53 (1), 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiher, J. (2012). Food pedagogies in Japan: From the implementation of the basic law on food education to Fukushima. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 52 (3), 507 – 531.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, L., & Schneidler-Benns, J. (2015). Using a wider lens to shift the discourse on food in Canadian curriculum policies. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46 (2), 157 – 175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronto, R., Ball, L., Pendergast, D., & Harris, N. (2016). Food literacy at secondary schools in Australia. Journal of School Health, 86 (11), 823–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutland, M., (2008). Licence to cook: The death knell for food technology? In: E. W. L. Norman & D. Spendlove. (eds.). The design and technology association international research conference, [Loughborough University, 2–4 July]. Wellesbourne : The Design and Technology Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rutland, M. (2017). Food in the school curriculum: A discussion of alternative approaches. In M. J. De Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 289–302). Cham: Springer International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Safefood. (2018). Submission to joint Oireachtas committee on children and youth affairs. Tackling Childhood Obesity. Retrieved from https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_children_and_youth_affairs/submissions/2018/2018-08-22_submission-safefood_en.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, S., Elston, J., & Abbott, S. (2004). Comparative analysis of health policy implementation. Policy Studies, 25 (4), 259 – 266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, M. G. (2016). Bring back home economics? Challenging contested discourses on obesity. Journal Family Consumer Sciences, 108 (4), 7 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> St. Angela's College, Sligo. (2018). Submission to joint Oireachtas committee on children and youth affairs. Tackling Childhood Obesity. Retrieved from https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_children_and_youth_affairs/submissions/2018/2018-08-22_submission-st-angela-s-college-sligo_en.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State Examinations Commission (SEC). (2019). Junior certificate statistics. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.examinations.ie/statistics/">www.examinations.ie/statistics/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweeney, J. (2015, October 21st). Home economics, a vital subject Irish Times Newspaper. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/home-economics-a-vital-subject-1.2399091">www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/home-economics-a-vital-subject-1.2399091</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, G. (2010). Doing case study: Abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (7), 575 – 582.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, G. (2016). How to do your case study. London : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turkki, K. (2005, May). Pre-professionals' perceptions of home economics in Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29 (3), 273 – 282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turkki, K. (2015). Envisioning literacy to promote sustainable wellbeing. In V. Thoresen, D. Doyle, J. Klein, & R. Didham (Eds.), Responsible living (pp. 151 – 178). Cham: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2016). Victorian certificate of education food studies. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/technology/FoodStudiesSD%5f2017.pdf">http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/technology/FoodStudiesSD%5f2017.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2017). Learning in design and technologies. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/technologies/design-and-technologies/introduction/learning-in-design-and-technologies">http://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au/technologies/design-and-technologies/introduction/learning-in-design-and-technologies</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vidgen, H., & Gallegos, D. (2014). Defining food literacy and its components. Appetite, 76 (1), 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organisation (WHO). (2016a). Obesity and overweight factsheet. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/">http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organisation (WHO). (2016b). Report of the commission on ending childhood obesity. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/204176/9789241510066_eng.pdf;jsessionid=C0A535790835151B766EA77DB52143E0?sequence=1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organisation (WHO). (2017). Health promoting school. An effective approach to early action on non-communicable disease risk factors. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255625/1/WHO-NMH-PND-17.3-eng.pdf?ua=1">http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/255625/1/WHO-NMH-PND-17.3-eng.pdf?ua=1</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worsley, A., Wang, W. C., Yeatman, H., Byrne, S., & Wijayaratne, P. (2015). Does school health and home economics education influence adults' food knowledge? Health Promotion International, (2015, 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Amanda McCloat and Martin Caraher</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref121"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1257527
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An International Review of Second-Level Food Education Curriculum Policy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McCloat%2C+Amanda%22">McCloat, Amanda</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Caraher%2C+Martin%22">Caraher, Martin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Cambridge+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>Cambridge Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2020 50(3):303-324.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Education%22">Comparative Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foods+Instruction%22">Foods Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Curriculum%22">Secondary School Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Home+Economics%22">Home Economics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Evaluation%22">Curriculum Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Empowerment%22">Student Empowerment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Practical+Arts%22">Practical Arts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Home+Economics+Teachers%22">Home Economics Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Northern+Ireland%29%22">United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Japan%22">Japan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Malta%22">Malta</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Finland%22">Finland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/0305764X.2019.1694641
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-764X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Recently, there has been an intensification of calls for comprehensive food education curriculum in schools. Despite this, there is limited international comparative data on the provision of food education. This study uses a comparative case study approach to analyse second-level food education curriculum policy across seven countries. It explores curriculum policy regarding the status of food education, nomenclature and the pedagogical and philosophical approaches. In six of the seven countries, Home Economics is identified as the school subject which teaches practical food education. Coherence in the discourse and pedagogical approaches is evident; however, disparity between countries exists as to whether the subject is optional or mandatory. The authors conclude that food education should form part of the curriculum, but rather than a piecemeal approach, they recommend it be taught, by specialist teachers, in an integrated, sequential and developmentally appropriate manner through an established subject such as Home Economics.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1257527
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1257527
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/0305764X.2019.1694641
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 303
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foods Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Home Economics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Empowerment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Practical Arts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Home Economics Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Japan
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Malta
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Finland
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An International Review of Second-Level Food Education Curriculum Policy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McCloat, Amanda
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Caraher, Martin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-764X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Cambridge Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1