Irvine, Jean, “History of home economics in British Columbia schools – 1896 – 1975.” THESA Journal, 14, 1: 8-19.

This article is one that relates to my research project on the evolution of Home Economics in British Columbia in the 20th century. Irvine’s article is an easy-to-read breakdown of the history of home economics, from its beginnings in the late 19th century, all the way to 1975, when the article was written. What is interesting to note is that the author, Jean Irvine, was the “Coordinator of Home Economics” at the University of British Columbia until her retirement in 1975. This suggests that she is very much “pro” home economics. In fact, at the very beginning of the article she references that 1975 was deemed “International Women’s Year,” and that the women who worked together to develop Home Economics as a program should be celebrated. Essentially, her position creates a strong bias as she writes about this subject’s history. This is definitely something to be considered while reading the article.

Her stance on the topic, however, provides insight into why the discipline was created. Looking at it today, it seems antiquated and perhaps demeaning to women to think that a program was put in place to teach women how to cook, clean and take care of their families more effectively. The women who created the program, however, obviously felt like they were doing important work for women.  How has our way of thinking changed in the last century to allow for such a change of opinion? It is similar to many of the topics we have covered in this course so far, from segregated schooling to residential schools and special programs for children with special needs. At the time that these thing were done, “experts” believed it was being done for the greater good. We may know these things to be awful now, but at the time, it was considered a good idea. Obviously residential schooling and home economics are very different, but the same can be said about home economics programs. Even though feminists today may scoff at them, they were developed with the best intentions, in a time where programs for women were few and far between.

Stamp, Robert M. “Growing Up Progressive? Part II : Going to High School in 1950s Ontario.” Historical Studies in Education vol. 17, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 321-31.

In the second part of Stamp’s story of his “progressive” education, the reader is told about the details of attending secondary school in Ontario in the 1950s. I find this first-hand account very interesting and easy to read. Stamp’s tone is generally positive towards his schooling experience, though he is definitely skeptical of the “progressive” label the curriculum had been given. One interesting note he makes is the difference between most academic subjects (English, Latin, History, etc.) and science. Science seems to be the only class that allows for hands-on learning rather than memorization, which is one of distinguishing factors between progressive and traditional education. Overall, Stamp’s depictions of progressive education in the 1940s and 50s does not seem very progressive at all.

I’ve noticed that Stamp’s depiction of secondary school is quite similar to my own, even though they are more than fifty years apart, and in opposite ends of Canada. The classes seem similar; I also learned about Shakespeare, and English kings, and completed chemistry labs. One big difference, however, is the inclusion of current events in my schooling. Stamp mentioned that his classes required them to memorize lists without taking any time to reflect on meaning; my secondary school courses focused much more on real-world application and current day happenings.

Both of Stamp’s articles refer to home economics and gendered curriculum, which happens to be my research topic for this course. His statements about home economics are very similar to other research on the topic; he states that home economics was offered to the girls and “shop” class to the boys. He also states that 90% of those enrolled in the “commercial” curriculum in secondary were girls. This “commercial” curriculum taught things like typing and shorthand, which would have been common careers for women during this time period. As Stamps puts it, “…boys shy away from what seem to be gender-specific courses and programs” (323). The opposite also seems to be true, as Stamp states it is almost all boys in the Grade 13 program that is “heavy on mathematics, physics and chemistry” (324).

Hoffschwelle, Mary S. “The Science of Domesticity: Home Economics at George Peabody College for Teachers, 1914-1939.” The Journal of Southern History 57, no. 4 (1991): 659. doi:10.2307/2210600.

This article is relevant to my research paper topic. Although it is not based on Canadian history, it is still relevant because it is about the conception of home economics as a subject in schools. The article outlines how home economics was established at George Peabody College in the early 20th century. One interesting point mentioned in the article is how home economics was established as part of a movement to legitimize “homemaking.” It was believed it could offer women more respect as a housewife. Personally, I do feel it is important to provide students, both male and female, with an education about how to manage a household. However, I do not believe that it would necessarily provide women with more respect as homemakers.

I’ve noticed that many articles I’ve found for this topic have referenced the same books and articles. This article was interesting because, since it is not specifically Canadian, it referenced a number of articles I had not come across yet. Overall, the article was informative and provided a solid background on the history of home economics as a topic in school.

Slater, Joyce. “Is cooking dead? The state of Home Economics Food and Nutrition education in a Canadian province.” International Journal of Consumer Studies 37, no. 6 (2013): 617-24. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12042.

This article examines the role of nutritional education provided in Canadian schools during the beginning of the 21st century, and how this relates to increased obesity rates. It relates to my research topic of gendered studies in Canada from the 1950s to today. The main point of interest will be how public schooling focused on teaching boy and girls differently, and if that is still happening today. This particular article is based on the early 2000s, which is when I was in high school.

The overall tone of this article is much more scientific than the other articles we have read this week. It determines through a number of surveys that high school students receive less nutritional education today than in previous years, and that the female to male ration in these classes still favours females. This relates back to the Hidden Workers article, which mentioned that females were often expected to help with domestic duties, whereas males were expected to help outside the home. This article shows that even today, females are trained to be more helpful in the home. It appears that in today’s society, neither girls nor boys are learning enough about nutrition. It would have been better to teach both sexes about nutrition, but it seems like instead they chose to teach neither sex about it.