Whilst I agree with some of the points raised by Douglas Osler ("Time to rejuvenate a Victorian curriculum," TESS, October 31) I was saddened to find that he considers home economics one of the "fillers which have crept into the curriculum". He does admit that it has "worthwhile content" but "not for two years for all".
I put it to him that pupils require to be taught home economics as never before and that two years is barely sufficient time in which to prepare pupils for adult life. Large numbers of our young people are obese and are at risk of serious health problems because they lack the knowledge to make healthy choices. Furthermore, many do not see their parents preparing fresh foods and so are unable to gain cooking skills in their own homes.
If home economics was not taught in schools, some pupils would be denied the opportunity to learn these important life skills. Douglas Osler wants a curriculum to "prepare pupils for contemporary society". Home economics teaches pupils to make informed choices about their lifestyle whether they eventually become a corporate banker, joiner or academic. What could be more relevant than that?
Mary M Dow
Acting principal teacher of home economics