In 2006 I was nominated by the RMIT University Pro Vice Chancellor, Science, Engineering and Technology to replace consumer scientist Dr Anne Sibbel as the RMIT nominee as a Managing Trustee of the King and Amy O'Malley Trust. At that time I was Head of the School of Education at RMIT and technically was not qualified to be the RMIT nominee as this person was meant to be “from among the members of the faculty [of science]”. My background is as a science and environmental sustainability educator, however, as my partner Noel Gough (1981) has argued since the 1970s, there is a close relationship between home economics and environmental education through their focus on concerns about sustainable management of households. So, I could see the connections, accepted the nomination, and then ended up staying for 15 years.
I knew virtually nothing about the Trust and its work but learned very quickly from my then co-Trustees Professor Marjory-Dore Martin (a scientist/educator nominated by Deakin University) and Wendy Down (a former home economics teacher nominated by the Victorian Minister of Education). However, I had known Marjory Martin for many years, including as my Head of School at Deakin University, and her presence helped sway my decision to accept the nomination to be a Trustee.
The past 15 years have been a time of change, both within and around the Trust and with home economics itself. These have included the office location, the Executive Officers, the Trustees, the Supreme Court determination on the will, the scholarships, and the field of home economics in Australian education.
The office started out as being a backroom in the Home Economics Victoria (HEV) premises opposite Jordanville station, but when HEV decided to move to Docklands, we thought we should move out on our own, and rented a serviced office in Hawthorn. This served as our base until the beginning of 2020 when the office became virtual.
Over the 15 years there have been three different Executive Officers: Fiona Wedding, Laura Murphy, and Hannah Lewincamp, and soon there will be a fourth, Michelle Parente. This is a very autonomous role, delivered over 10 hours a week, requiring a wide range of skills and knowledge, and it has often been a steep learning curve for the new person.
There have also been several changes in Managing Trustees, each of whom have taught me more about home economics. Following on from Marjory-Dore Martin and Wendy Down, over the years my colleagues have been Tony Worsley, Wendy Hunter, Debbie Ollis, Nerida Matthews, Gayle Jenkins and, most recently, Leanne Compton and Donna Pendergast. Robert Ford has joined the Committee as I depart.
In 2013 the State Trustees retired as the Custodian Trustees for the Trust funds, and Equity Trustees were appointed in their stead. This change highlighted what the Managing Trustees had recognised for some time, that the 1984 Supreme Court scheme of administration for the O’Malleys’ wills was getting more and more out of date. So, in 2017 we went back to the Supreme Court and sought an update on the administration scheme. This changed the Managing Trustees to being a Scholarship Advisory Committee (which was our function anyway), the members of which are now more nationally focused. The 1984 determination required the Managing Trustees to come from a nominee of the Victorian Minister of Education, a nominee of the Dean of the Faculty of Science of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and of the Dean of the Faculty of Education of the Victoria College. The Scholarship Advisory Committee members are now nominees from the Australian Council of Deans of Education and the Home Economics Institute of Australia together with an appointee from a public call for expressions of interest.
The changing nature of appropriate university courses to meet the scholarship program criteria have led the Trust to make a number of changes over the years too. For example, given that most relevant undergraduate courses are now four years, we have increased the number of years for an undergraduate scholarship to four. Similarly, as many students take four years to complete a PhD, the postgraduate level scholarships are now also up to four years. Undergraduate students still need to re-apply each year for renewal of the scholarship, but postgraduate students are now rolled over, subject to satisfactory progress reports from their supervisor.
The scholarship application process had already gone online a few years ago, but the selection of scholars’ process had remained as a face to face process in each state. This changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. When I started, all interviews had to be in person, but in recognition of the physical location of students at the time of interview not necessarily being accessible to the panels, we had moved to accepting telephone and Skype interviews. However, the pandemic meant that interviews in 2020 shifted to all being online, with Advisory Committee members being locked down in Melbourne. While these interviews missed the personal touch, the side conversations and friendly catch ups, they all worked, allowed for people to be at a distance, and will most likely continue. So, the virtual office is now joined by virtual events for scholar selection.
But perhaps the biggest changes have been in the field of Home Economics and related education programs. Home economics, for many baby boomers like me, was a subject taught in their secondary schools (mainly or only to girls), which generally meant cooking and sometimes, sewing, and maybe “mothercraft”. Indeed, I did not study home economics at school (it was then called domestic science and it was an alternative to the science I wanted to study in junior secondary school).
The term home economics was introduced in the mid 1960s from the United States, where the focus was more on developing a sense of responsibility for household management based on scientific principles, and as a field of service and knowledge primarily concerned with strengthening family life (Scott, 1959, p. 680). At this time, home economics was seen as a field of knowledge and service primarily concerned with strengthening family life through:
- Educating the individual for family living
- Improving the services and goods used by families
- Conducting research to discover the changing needs of individuals and families and the means of satisfying those needs
- Furthering community, national and world conditions favourable to family living.
The demise of Home Economics in schools began in the early 1990s with declining enrolments and the absorption of its key content into other subject areas (Grundy & Henry, 1995). This is particularly evident in the Australian (and state) Curriculum documents where food and textiles (as part of Design and Technologies) are now separated from health and human development (as part of Health and Physical Education (Australian Curriculum 2021a, 2021b; HEIA, 2010; Yeatman, 2013). For example, “In Queensland, Home Economics is taught under various banners, at the discretion of each school’s leadership. For example, it may be taught as one or a combination of: Home Economics; Food Technology; Food Studies; Food and Nutrition; Textiles Studies; Textiles and Fashion; Fashion Studies; Design; Design Studies; and Hospitality.” (https://heiaq.com.au/years-8-10/).
The field of home economics is also disappearing at the tertiary level with most teacher education courses being directed towards design and technology rather than the more holistic aspects of home economics (there are some exceptions such as Avondale College in New South Wales, Central Queensland University, Tabor College in South Australia, La Trobe University in Victoria and Edith Cowan University in Western Australia). Sadly, the Home Economics Institute of Australia (https://heia.com.au/?page_id=61) privileges the listing of these design and technology courses and does not list any Health and Physical Education tertiary courses as being appropriate for studying home economics, thus reinforcing a food and perhaps textiles focus rather than family wellbeing and respect for the natural environment orientations that are essential components in the O’Malley scholarship criteria.
Betty Mander (1987) wrote that “Home economics as a school subject has never been defined with clarity” (p. 7), and in this it has much is common with my field of interest, environmental education in that both are multidisciplinary in their focus. Both have their content spread around the curriculum (Sustainability is a cross-curriculum priority), both are concerned with human well-being, and both are concerned with achieving sustainable development across the world (see International Federation for Home Economics, 2007). Sadly, few people today think of home economics as a discipline that is highly relevant to today’s society, and yet it is more relevant than ever, as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change have brought home to us as we live through lockdowns and home isolation, heat waves, bushfires, and floods. From my perspective as an environmental sustainability educator I can see the potential for home economics in sustainability citizenship and I hope to encourage this convergence more in the future.
I am grateful for the learning and experiences that my 15 years of selecting scholars with my fellow Trustees and the dedicated members of the State Assessment Panels have provided, and I leave the Trust Committee in good hands with the current members all having home economics in their backgrounds. I wish everyone involved all the best as they continue the important work of the King and Amy O’Malley Trust in supporting the furthering of home economics through providing scholarships for tertiary studies related to the field.
References
- Australian Curriculum. (2021a). Design and Technologies F-10. Accessed at https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
- Australian Curriculum. (2021b). Health and Physical Education F-10. Accessed at https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
- Gough, N. (1981). Environmental education and the home economics teacher. In Environmental Education: A Sourcebook for Secondary Education (pp. 71-85). Canberra, ACT: Curriculum Development Centre.
- Grundy, S. & Henry, M. (1995). Which way home economics: An examination of the conceptual orientation of home economics curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(3), 281-297. https://doi.org
- Home Economics Association of Australia. (2010). Position paper: Home economics and the Australian Curriculum. Accessed at http://www.heia.com.au (pdf)
- International Federation for Home Economics. (2007). IFHE Position Statement, Home Economics in the 21st Century. Accessed at https://www.ifhe.org (pdf)
- Mander, E.M. (1987). A social-historical perspective on the development of home economics – Human development and society. Journal of the Home Economics Association of Australia, XIX(1), 7-14.
- Scott, D.D. (1959). Home Economics: New Directions. Journal of Home Economics, 51(8), 679-686.
- Yeatman, H. (2013, 3 April). Food and nutrition absent from draft national curriculum. The Conversation. Accessed at https://theconversation.com
