Band 9.0 answer
I agree, with one qualification: cooking belongs in the school curriculum, but as a modest, well-integrated element rather than a subject that competes with core learning.
The strongest argument is practical. Almost every adult must feed themselves for decades, yet the skill is rarely taught formally; most people absorb it, or fail to, by accident. The consequences are visible in the way that busy households drift towards ready meals that are high in salt and sugar. Teaching children to prepare even a handful of simple dishes does not guarantee healthy habits, but it removes one common obstacle to them: the belief that a decent meal requires time, money or talent that one lacks.
A second consideration is fairness. Children whose parents cook confidently inherit the skill without effort, while those whose parents work long or irregular hours often do not. A school lesson offers the second group what the first receives at home, and a modest investment in kitchen equipment can therefore narrow a gap that otherwise widens with age.
The principal objection, that the timetable is already full, is reasonable but less decisive than it seems. Cooking is not merely an additional topic; it provides a context in which other subjects become concrete. Adjusting a recipe for twelve people is arithmetic with a purpose, and explaining why dough rises is chemistry that students can taste. A single weekly session, partly drawn from existing science and mathematics time, would therefore cost far less than its critics assume.
Overall, the case for teaching cooking rests on its lasting usefulness, its contribution to equality and its capacity to enrich other subjects, and these advantages comfortably outweigh the limited demands it would place on the school day.