Características de las series hidrológicas

Acknowledging the risk of being overly simplistic, all curriculum subjects may be reasonably expected to aim to prepare young people for the life they lead outside school and adulthood. Home economics is more oriented to preparing young people for everyday life and/or the world of work than some subjects, for example, the hard sciences. The curriculum set down for home economics enjoys a type of double existence; one being the body of knowledge and content developed over the years and another, the design and structuring of this corpus of knowledge to deliver young people who are ready for this world. Paradoxically, however, the curriculum has stayed broadly the same over the decades and is arguably quite resistant to change in relation to what society feels is necessary for young people’s development. This may be due to the changing values of the wider society not being accepted by those who are charged with deciding the content of the curriculum. The mediating process is the teaching and learning that schools provide in order to deliver the stated curriculum with the result that ‘older’ values or put another way, values that are no longer appropriate to modern society continue to be promoted.

This is not to say that the subject has not historically responded to broader societal influences on the family with changes in curriculum content and focus. The Curriculum Corporation (1996) argue that the central focus of home economics education throughout time was the ‘wellbeing of families and individuals in everyday activities’ (p.7) and with this central tenet, there is the need for home economics to change as the structure and nature of home and family changed. Siddiqui (2008) argues that home economics has indeed evolved to address socio-economic changes in society and changes in family systems and functions.

52

A common theme in classes during the 1800s and early 1900s was that of thrift, particularly relevant as education was seen as a medium of improving living standards. Wynn (1983) argues that this ultimately ‘gave way to the middle-class “ideal home” image, thus ensuring a market for mass-produced consumer goods’ (p.201). She notes that there was ‘an obsession with the creation of order’ (p.203). In her view, one of the most destructive aspects of home economics was ‘the widening of boundaries of this concept of disorder so that women are encouraged to become obsessed with trivial household tasks, as “the house-proud woman”’ (p.203). For example, she identifies the persistent ‘ritualisation of meal patterns’ as another way of ‘maintaining order and ceremony in the home’ (p.203).

The Curriculum Corporation (1996) note how management principles such as ‘efficiency to maximise output’ were introduced in the workplace after World War I in America (p.5). They argue that ‘scientific management’ diffused into the knowledge base of home economics and that the ‘home worker in her workplace was to be trained to apply work simplification techniques to the management of the home and family’ (p.5). Household routines were evident in textbooks at the time with lists of rules and guidelines for efficient home management. Technological and scientific developments introduced new challenges to family life. Economic necessities and increased leisure time resulted in greater numbers of women entering the work-force. Wynn (1983) notes how the world of work was integrated into home economics and the ‘dual role’ of women was acknowledged (p.204). She observes how a dual role was seldom considered for men and how ‘even the idea of one and a half roles for both sexes has rarely merited serious treatment’ (p.204).

IFHE (2012) argue that home economics responded to changes in society. Home economics reoriented focus from the work of the housewife (1950-1960s) to the dual career woman and then the unpaid and paid work of both men and women, thus reflecting the viewpoint of gender equality. There was a greater focus on social science during the 1970s, as well as scientific principles. The Curriculum Corporation (1996) observed that there was a ‘realisation that the social sciences also had application to the household. The focus shifted from a concern about basic health and living conditions towards social and emotional aspects of family and individual lives’ (p.6). From the 1970s, the subject reflected the growth of consumerism and the development of

53

consumer legislation. The Curriculum Corporation (1996) argue plausibly that this emphasis on consumer economics was an attempt to make the subject more relevant to boys. During the 1980s, economic and social changes influenced the home economics curriculum, with substantial emphasis on budgeting and thrift in recessionary times. From the 1990s, there was then a greater technological focus reflecting the growth in the use of technology in society and its extension to the home.

The ubiquitous debates on climate and ecological changes have also prompted a reorientation of the subject towards education for sustainable development. The Curriculum Corporation (1996) argue that in modern society, the lives of individuals, families and society have ‘become more complicated as a result of socio-cultural, legal, economic, technological and ecological changes’ (p.7). Families and individuals are increasingly affected by ‘global economic trends, ecological sustainability, gender equity, and social justice and they are also more aware that these factors are important to their well-being’ (p.9). The Curriculum Corporation (1996) links well-being ‘to satisfactory ways of meeting social, emotional, physical and intellectual needs, as well as needs for food, clothing and housing’ (p.7).

In summary, home economics has responded to a plethora of changes over time and the subject has enabled students to ‘interpret’ and adjust to these changes. However, Wynn (1983) argues that as a discipline home economics tends not to consider issues in depth, for example in relation to wider economic and political factors (p.204). For instance, the exploitation of food technology by business (e.g. use of food additives or genetically engineered foods).