Hidden Figures, Missing Names – Why the Curriculum Still Can’t See Women

We sat down with GSA Chief Executive Jeanette Cochrane to talk about the women missing from the national curriculum, why good intentions haven’t been enough, and what girls’ schools already know about showing girls where they belong.

Cambridge researchers recently counted the scientists named in UK GCSE and National 5 science curricula. There were 86, and just one was a woman – Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work helped reveal the structure of DNA and who was nearly written out of the discovery altogether. Seventy years on, she is still on her own. Science is not the exception, research by End Sexism in Schools found that women are just as absent from history in schools, where the national curriculum names only two women.

Only one woman out of 86 as a named scientist in the curriculum. What was your first reaction when you saw that number?

Unfortunately, when I saw that only one of the 86 named scientists in the GCSE curriculum was a woman, I was genuinely shocked. Even more striking is the fact that at A level, only a handful of the named scientists are women. I thought we had made far more progress than that.

I have worked in education for over 30 years, and for much of that time schools have actively encouraged girls to pursue STEM subjects. This has not simply been the work of individual schools or female leaders. It has been a clear policy objective of successive governments, supported by employers, universities and the wider scientific community.
Given that sustained effort, it is profoundly disappointing to discover that in 2026 the curriculum still presents such an unequal picture of scientific achievement.

Women have made hugely important contributions to scientific discovery throughout history, often overcoming significant barriers to do so. Yet those contributions remain largely invisible in the very curriculum that is supposed to inspire the next generation.

Disappointment hardly seems a strong enough word. When young people study science, they should see an accurate reflection of the people who shaped it. At present, the curriculum is failing to do that

Successive governments have said they want more girls in science, and the exam boards accept that change is needed. So why hasn’t it happened?

It is a very good question. If encouraging girls into science has been a priority for governments, exam boards and employers for decades, why does the curriculum still look like this?

I am not involved in the processes through which scientific content is selected, but I can only assume that somewhere between policy ambitions and curriculum design, the message has been lost. There is a clear disconnect between what we say we want to achieve and what students are actually taught.

Part of the issue may be a tendency to rely on a traditional scientific canon. The scientists who are already well known are often regarded as the worthiest of study, which can make it difficult for previously overlooked figures to gain recognition. There may also be a reluctance to move away from content that has been taught for generations.

However, if we do not make space for those whose contributions have historically been ignored, overlooked or undervalued, change simply cannot happen.

Expanding representation is not about lowering standards; it is about presenting a more accurate and complete account of scientific achievement.

That is why I hope the current Curriculum and Assessment Review will shine a fresh light on the remarkable contributions women have made to science throughout history and ensure those achievements are properly reflected in what young people learn.

The cynical response is that a specification is just a list of topics. Does it really matter whose names are on it?

I think the idea that a specification is simply a list of topics is over-simplification. A good specification outlines not only what students should know, understand and be able to do, but also the wider context in which that knowledge has been developed.

Learning is a fundamentally human endeavour. Scientific knowledge did not appear overnight. It is the result of curiosity, experimentation, resilience, collaboration, and, very often, failure. To teach science solely as a collection of facts is to miss an essential part of what science is.

Students need to understand how knowledge is created, who contributed to it, and how discoveries emerged from real people’s efforts. That understanding helps them appreciate the scientific process itself. It also enables them to imagine themselves as participants in that process.

When women’s contributions are absent, students receive an incomplete picture of the history of science. The issue is not simply whether names appear on a specification. It is whether students are being given an accurate account of the people and ideas that have shaped our understanding of the world.

Science is not just knowledge. It is a story of discovery. The people in that story matter.

You’ve said this isn’t just a science problem. What does the picture look like across the rest of the curriculum, and what does it teach girls when they don’t see themselves in it?

No, this is not just a science problem. Across many areas of the curriculum, there remains a tendency to focus on the work of historically celebrated figures who have predominantly been white and male. As a result, there are wider questions about diversity, representation and whose contributions are recognised as significant and directives on curriculum and examination specifications, like in science, have not gone far enough. The End Sexism in Schools campaign shines a great light on under-representation across many subjects.

What makes this particularly striking in relation to women is that we are not talking about a small minority. Women and girls make up half the population; they are an under-represented majority. Although they have not always been given equal access to education, academic recognition or professional opportunities, they have always contributed to every area of human endeavour. In literature, history, the arts, science and mathematics, women’s achievements are there to be found.

The issue is not a lack of female figures to teach. Research has repeatedly shown that there are many women whose contributions could be included. The challenge is that their work has often been overlooked because it sits outside what has traditionally been regarded as the accepted canon.

When girls do not see people like themselves reflected in the curriculum, they are required to draw on more personal confidence and resilience than should be necessary. Role models exist in every field, but when they are invisible, young women can begin to question whether there is a place for them.

Education should open doors. Seeing women who have gone before them helps girls recognise that those doors are already open and that they belong in those spaces too.

Walk into a girls’ school and the walls tell a different story. What are girls’ schools doing that the curriculum isn’t, and could other schools do it too?

In many ways, girls’ schools are doing exactly what the curriculum should be doing. They are providing broad and visible representation of women from a wide range of fields and backgrounds, enabling girls to see that there is a pathway for them into any area of life they may wish to pursue.

The importance of that representation goes beyond simply seeing women featured on displays or hearing their stories in lessons. Girls are also exposed to the qualities those women demonstrated: courage, determination, creativity, leadership and resilience. They learn about pioneers who were the first in their field, who challenged accepted norms, and who succeeded despite significant obstacles.

That matters because it sends a powerful message. It tells girls not only that women have achieved remarkable things, but also that progress often comes from people who are willing to do something different.

Girls’ schools lead on this and we’re ready to share how an education built for girls, that truly recognises them, can work for girls everywhere, in every kind of school.
Any school can broaden the range of role models it presents to students and ensure that the stories it tells better reflect the diversity of those who have shaped our society. What it requires is a deliberate commitment to representation, rather than assuming it will happen naturally.

What would you say to a girl choosing her GCSEs this year?

I would say exactly what I have said to girls throughout my career: follow your interests and your ambitions.

Women have always contributed to every area of human progress. They have advanced science, transformed literature, led social change, created new ideas, and challenged established ways of thinking. Their achievements may not always have received the recognition they deserved, but they are there, nonetheless.

Do not allow your choices to be limited by outdated assumptions about what girls should or should not do, nor a resurgence of those stereotypes. Follow the subjects that genuinely excite you. Choose the areas in which you are curious, engaged, and eager to learn more.

Every generation has included women who have broken new ground and forged paths where none previously existed. Their example shows that barriers can be challenged, and expectations can be changed.

Choosing your GCSEs is an important step, but it is only the beginning of a journey. The future rarely follows a straight line, and the opportunities available to you today may lead to destinations you cannot yet imagine.

Have confidence in your ability, pursue what inspires you, and remember that countless women have walked difficult paths before you. Their achievements have helped make your journey possible, and yours may do the same for the generations that follow.