“Mom, I’ve just repainted my bedroom and need you to make four king-size pillow shams and three throw pillows. I’ll send you the material.” After some hesitation on my part to take on the task, my daughter added, “Well, it’s not my fault you never taught me to sew!”
She was right. Somewhere amidst tennis, sailing, ski, and flute lessons, as well as numerous Girl Scout and basketball camps, domestic skills as a part of her education were, in hindsight, overlooked. She had never experienced home economics with Miss Baker, the drill sergeant of the measuring cup and sewing machine in my junior high years.
As most of my generation will remember, “home ec” for girls and “shop” for boys were a required part of our junior high curriculum. As children of those who had lived through the Great Depression and World War II, and, in my case, living in a farming community, everyday household activities included cooking, sewing, and do-it-yourself building and repair projects. While World War II had opened many job opportunities for women, “stay-at-home” moms were still the norm (except in my household). Women began straddling the line between the stereotypical June Cleavers and the emerging Gloria Steinems.
Seventy years later, newspaper headlines such as A Maine Lobster Town Sees Its Future in Shop Class (WSJ April 2024) and the renewed discussions of skills training versus an expensive college degree suggest that we may be entering another phase of our educational systems’ emphasis on what is now called Career and Technical Education (CTE) or courses under the heading of family and consumer sciences.
Historically, the purpose of such courses was “to professionalize housework, to provide intellectual fulfillment for women, to emphasize the value of ‘women’s work’ in society, and to prepare them for traditional roles.” However, it may surprise many that for most of the late 19th and 20th centuries, home economics was based on science, championed by colleges to expose women to physics, chemistry, and engineering in an era when these topics were not accessible.
Early advocates and pioneers included Catharine Beecher, sister of Harriet Beecher Stowe, who championed the “economics” of running a home. In the late 19th century, conferences such as one held in Lake Placid, NY in 1899 convened educators to work together to elevate “home economics” to a legitimate profession.
During America’s pre–World War II days, home economics, under the leadership of institutions like Cornell University, exploded to include the study of nutrition-related factors, textiles, cooking and food storage methods, pure economics, and mechanics related to rapidly evolving time-saving equipment. Home economists were hired to convince families of the advantages of electricity and the importance of balanced diets. The government distributed thousands of pamphlets, produced numerous documentary films, and deployed over 2,000 nutritionists. Home economists hosted radio shows, and broadened the focus to include childcare and parenting, family dynamics and personal finance.
Eleanor Roosevelt also actively supported home economics in her book, My Day. In fact, she featured in a fashion show for the press that featured newly designed women’s clothes for those employed on farms, and in factory, medical and newly created laboratory positions.
Beginning in the 1960s, home economics declined in popularity. Shifting societal roles for women, budget challenges in schools, changing educational priorities and societal norms, the women’s liberation movement, and an emphasis on standardized testing and college preparation courses all contributed to this decline. However, despite our ever-changing social landscape, more than 38,000 degrees in family and consumer sciences were granted by almost 800 universities as recently as 2018.
