It's still on the curriculum in England [1], though the class is called something like "Food Technology". I don't know how well it is taught though — do most children still actually cook themselves for this lesson? It seems the curriculum requires that.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curricul...

Back when I did it (fifteen years ago admittedly) we would cook once a week when doing food technology, which was part of the technology rotation where we'd study a particular subject for six weeks or so. In practice that probably meant twelve weeks or so a year. At about 15 you had to choose a single technology subject to study, so those who weren't taking it further wouldn't do any more.

I seem to remember it being quite focused on commercial cooking - lots of theory on portion calculations and pricing everything accordingly, but we would end up cooking something relatively simple and worthwhile. The commercial side apparently became much more pronounced for those who opted to continue, one friend of mine must have spent several months cooking endless variations on cannelloni trying to optimise it.

I remember something similar to that, we spent a chunk of time designing a box for the food to go in. But that doesn't seem to be on the curriculum any more, so that's progress.

(Studying boxes could be useful though, for example noticing the different ways companies emphasize nutritional information.)

Both of my children cooked during the lessons although I don't think it's was as important as them seeing and helping us cook at home regularly.

Again, the name changed - it used to be home economics in England too (or just home ec)

I took home economics in 1997 or 1998. Pretty much consisted of popping a container of Pillsbury biscuits or cinnamon rolls, placing them on a cookie sheet, and waiting 15-20 minutes to take them out of the oven.

I know how to cook because my mother cooked dinner every night of the week and encouraged me to help her.

I'm intrigued as to why you think political correctness led to the renaming of "home economics", and why you think "home economics" is a better name.

You may be better qualified to judge political correctness than I am, but "economics" seems much closer to what's going on that "science" does. That is, there are probably no controlled experiments, but the value and economic use of ingredients is considered.

> Because we got rid of well defined gender roles doesn't mean we should get rid of home economics.

i would argue that it's a reason to encourage it more.