Young people: can't cook, won't cook? - issue 9

[ukyp]

http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/.../hot_topic.pdf

In February, the Government announced it would be investing £3.3m to recruit 750 cookery teaching assistants and boost existing teachers’ cookery skills, as well as introducing compulsory cookery lessons for children aged 11 to 14. This announcement is part of the Government’s Change4Life scheme, which aims to start a “lifestyle revolution” to help people eat more healthily and be more active. MYPs were asked for their thoughts on the Government’s plans.

-------------

Nicole Harding, Age 17, Deputy MYP Hertfordshire

I think compulsory cooking lessons in schools is an excellent strategy to reduce obesity. To learn to cook quickly and cheaply is a wonderful skill to have, one that could be easily taught in schools. It can improve young people’s relationship with food, possibly reducing incidences of eating disorders as well as encouraging the use of healthier meals. This is especially important as there are too many stories of students living on baked beans, toast and alcohol. However, this proposal doesn’t go far enough. There should be provision for schools to grow some of their own food, in order to promote a fully active, independent and green lifestyle.

-------------


Thomas Turrell, Age 17, Deputy MYP Northamptonshire

School is not the best place for young people to learn to cook. There are too many distractions and it costs the parents as they have to pay for the ingredients. It’s education in favour of the middle classes. This is why I am having discussions with my local MP and youth worker over educational reform. Lower income families may not have enough money to afford the necessary ingredients, which will fuel bullying or students will pretend to forget and get punished. If an individual does not want to learn then they will not behave and those who do want to learn will suffer.

[kaity221]

I can cook.. some things..
Our catering rooms are rubbish though, all the ovens suck, the equipment is old and broken and there isn't a high enough budget to fix this.
And it can be a problem for lots of people not having the money to buy ingredients, the excuse that you couldnt afford ehat you needed isn't seen an acceptable excuse.

[orcprocess]

Originally Posted by ukyp

School is not the best place for young people to learn to cook.

Yes it is. Where should they learn? At home? this is unfeasible because their parents might not let them or have enough time (or experience themselves) to teach them.

There are too many distractions and it costs the parents as they have to pay for the ingredients.

Distractions? like what? Can we not just divert some of the funds from other areas of education to cooking (not food tech).

It’s education in favour of the middle classes.

How so? The middle classes are the ones most likely to be able to learn outside of school.

Lower income families may not have enough money to afford the necessary ingredients

Which is why the school should provide it.

which will fuel bullying

In my personal experience, poor pupils do not get bullied as they are often "chavs". It is ridiculous to suggest that failing to bring in ingredients would increase the chances of being bullied

If an individual does not want to learn then they will not behave and those who do want to learn will suffer.

That could be applied to any subject of learning.

[kaity221]

Originally Posted by orcprocess

In my personal experience, poor pupils do not get bullied as they are often "chavs". It is ridiculous to suggest that failing to bring in ingredients would increase the chances of being bullied

Wow, thats pretty ignorant..
im a poor pupil.. in no way a chav, and neither are most of the people at my school

[schanrai]

I'm against this.

(1) What is the opportunity cost of pumping Government money into this scheme? Surely the money would be better spent elsewhere, for example improving the current state of some schools (which, let's be frank, can be pretty damn appalling).

(2) Where does religion come in? Some pupils, through their religion/faith, may not be able to come into contact with meat which is not halaal, kosher or even meat full stop. How can you cater (excuse the pun) to everyone? A "one size fits all" plan would simply be unfeasible.

(3) It is not the Government's job to teach children how to cook. It is not the schools' jobs to teach children how to cook. It is the parents' job. Taxpayers should not have to fund a scheme to teach children culinary skills. If parents fail to teach their children the appropriate culinary skills then the responsibility should not be passed onto the Government.

[CharlieGirl]

I think that cooking in schools is a great idea. Even if it is just simple things like an omlette etc. I know alot of people who didnt know how to make beans on toast even when they were in year 9. Just basic cooking skills can lead to more independance as you dont need to rely on your parents to cook for you.

[orcprocess]

Originally Posted by kaity221

Wow, thats pretty ignorant..

Although it was a generalization, I did not mean to give the impression that all poor pupils are chavs or all chavs are poor, but a dispraportianiate (sp?) amount are.

im a poor pupil.. in no way a chav, and neither are most of the people at my school

Most poor people are not chavs but more chavs are poor.

This is all irrelevant anyway because I was just trying to disprove the myth that poor pupils are more likely to get bullied.

[orcprocess]

Originally Posted by schanrai

(1) What is the opportunity cost of pumping Government money into this scheme? Surely the money would be better spent elsewhere, for example improving the current state of some schools (which, let's be frank, can be pretty damn appalling).

But being able to cook food is very important for future life, is that not the school's job? To equip us for future life?

(2) Where does religion come in? Some pupils, through their religion/faith, may not be able to come into contact with meat which is not halaal, kosher or even meat full stop. How can you cater (excuse the pun) to everyone? A "one size fits all" plan would simply be unfeasible.

There are two solutions to this problem.

A) Create an "opt-out" system which means vegetarians, muslims etc. can bring in a parent's/guardian's note that excludes them from having to do it and they can spend the lesson doing theory, homework etc.

B) Implement freedom into the cooking lessons, so that they can make a meal which they can eat without breaking their principles. For example the teacher could tell the class to make a "pasta dish" and they can add sauces and other things to it.

I prefer the second because not only will it include everyone, it will also allow children to use their initiative and creative cooking skills.

(3) It is not the Government's job to teach children how to cook. It is not the schools' jobs to teach children how to cook.

It is the school's role to equip us for the future. I would say cooking is fairly important. Wouldn't you?

It is the parents' job.

Why?

Taxpayers should not have to fund a scheme to teach children culinary skills.

In that case why should taxpayers fund a scheme to teach children mathmatical skills or artistic skills or geographical skills etc?

If parents fail to teach their children the appropriate culinary skills then the responsibility should not be passed onto the Government.

If the schools teach them to cook then no-one will want to pass the blame to the government.

[kaity221]

I would say schools need more money, if they use it properly, before i started a catering course at my school we only cooked fancy things really and not much practical stuff.

[Matt. P]

It is not the Government's job to teach children how to cook. It is not the schools' jobs to teach children how to cook. It is the parents' job. Taxpayers should not have to fund a scheme to teach children culinary skills. If parents fail to teach their children the appropriate culinary skills then the responsibility should not be passed onto the Government.

It becomes the governments's responsibility when the NHS is flooded with obese and unhealthy people because their only source of norishment is fast food. In an ideal world, I would agree that it should be the parents who teach their children about proper eating habits.

However times have changed. Most parents don't have the time or experience to teach their children how to cook, and we're coming from an age where cheap, unhealthy (and often addicitve) food is plentiful. This has led to the rise of large multi-nationals that make billions in the food industry, and correspondingly targeted advertisment campaigns that simply outgun government campaigns.

Whether or not you think it should be the government's role to teach children about eating, it has certainly become the governments problem. And will the nations health falling, and corerespondingly rises in costs for diabetes and other obesitiy-related diseases, this could easily be cost-effective for the government.

I agree however there is a problem with a "one size fits all" polciy, what with the many cultural and religious difference over food. It needs to be thought out better.