From global markets to household finances, economic decisions shape power, opportunity, and influence. Yet women remain underrepresented in the careers that determine how societies allocate wealth and value work.

In this conversation with George Vlachonikolis, Assistant Head (Staff Development) at Headington Rye Oxford, the Girls’ Schools Association explores why girls’ economic agency matters and considers what needs to change if the next generation is to shape the future economy rather than simply inherit it.

1. Economics shapes who holds power in society. So why are women still underrepresented in the career that decides how money and value work? What does that imbalance mean for how societies define success and worth?

It is undoubtedly true that women are underrepresented in economics, business and financial careers. I would assume that the kernels of interest for those careers start at school, so the starting point for explaining the gender imbalance must be there. AL economics has always had one of the biggest gender gaps of all subjects – alongside further maths, physics and computing. In a co-ed setting, about three boys take economics for every girl. So, in a small class of twenty, it’s likely that there will only be four or five girls. The gender divide only widens from there.

I’ve read lots of academic papers about how men and women tend to conceptualise money and economics differently. But honestly, my own experience of teaching in an all-girls school for the last ten years doesn’t align with that hypothesis. The literature suggests women often respond to public policy questions from a more ‘feminine’ perspective – prioritising things like social protection and broader measures of wellbeing. I’m not sure that my students do. They’re often the most critical of the welfare state and the most determined to defend growth, incentives and market efficiency.

2. Are we too quick to frame girls’ participation as a ‘pipeline problem’ rather than confronting deeper structural and cultural barriers around gender, ambition, and financial power?

My previous answer frames the participation gap as a pipeline problem. In simple terms, I’m arguing that if more girls study economics at school, then I would expect to see more women go on to careers in economics, business and finance. I have spent a lot of time thinking about ways to reduce the barriers that cause girls to think that economics “isn’t for them”. The most common one is maths. Or, more accurately: girls’ tendency to underestimate their ability in maths. Let me be clear: it is a myth that you need a high level of numerical ability to succeed at AL economics. I’ve spent the last decade telling anyone who will listen that this is a myth and that schools which still insist on a rigid GCSE maths grade 7 requirement to take AL economics or business are doing those students an enormous disservice.

But I also acknowledge that this cannot just be a pipeline issue. Even when girls do choose economics, they are still navigating cultural signals about what ambition should look like, what leadership should sound like and what financial power is ‘for’. So yes, we need to widen the pipeline. But we also need to normalise female ambition in economic spaces: to make it entirely unremarkable that a young woman wants to work at the Treasury or run a hedge fund. Schools can play a role in that normalisation. At Headington Rye, we work hard to invite recent alumnae back to talk about their careers in finance with the current cohort.

3. Are schools preparing girls simply to succeed within the current economic system, or to question and reshape it? What would a genuinely feminist approach to economics education look like?

Without a doubt, schools are seeking to prepare girls (and boys) to work within the current economic system, rather than to question or reshape it. Put simply, most schools just don’t have the resources to do the latter. First, you need excellent specialist teachers. Second, we are all struggling with time. There are so many competing demands that simply finishing an A-level course within five terms is hard enough without having to work out where pluralist economic ideas could fit in.

A lot of voices (too many, perhaps) are trying to influence what the future economics curriculum should look like. And, to be honest, it’s not just feminist economics that wants its moment, but behavioural economics, environmental economics, institutional economics, modern monetary theory … yet you simply can’t fit all of that into a single sixth-form qualification.

What would a genuinely feminist approach to economics education look like? If we consider some of the work done by leading female economists, that should give us an idea:

  • Diane Coyle – rethinking how we measure GDP
  • Kate Raworth – building a new macroeconomic tool of analysis (the doughnut)
  • Claudia Goldin – female labour market participation and wage gaps
  • Esther Duflo – alleviating global poverty
  • Elinor Ostrom – understanding collective action problems, like overfishing or public littering

I see the common thread here as expanding economics beyond narrow market efficiency to focus on real human and social outcomes. Stronger feminist voices might also call for greater emphasis on the role of care, power and gender in shaping economic life.

4. What distinctive role can girls’ schools play in challenging gender norms around money, influence, and leadership – and do they have a responsibility to cultivate future economic decision-makers?

The gender norm – if we want to call it that – is the idea that girls aren’t that interested in money; that they’re less drawn to finance, less motivated by markets and less incentivized by economic power. But that simply hasn’t been my experience.

Our Level 2 financial literacy course at Headington Rye has been unbelievably popular. Over the last four years, nearly 250 Year 10 students have completed it. That’s not a niche interest!

We consistently run full A-level economics and business classes, we have introduced BTEC Business as a viable pathway, and we even offer a mini-MBA elective. The demand is there.

What’s distinctive about a girls’ school is the way it shapes classroom dynamics – especially in terms of how girls make their voices heard. As a former GSA president once put it: “The first person to ask a question in my classroom is a girl. The last person to ask a question in my classroom is a girl.” That matters more than we sometimes realise. An incredible piece of research[1] recently showed that female speakers in economics seminars are more frequently interrupted compared to men – so much so that some universities have had to implement a no-interruption rule. In a girls’ school, that dynamic shifts: girls speak, challenge and disagree freely. Their voices are heard and valued.

I don’t think girls’ schools have an institutional duty to “cultivate future economic decision-makers,” but I do feel a personal responsibility. Right now, there are graduates from my economics classes working for each of the Big Four, the Treasury and the Bank of England. I hope they are making good decisions, because I hold myself at least partly responsible for the values they carry into those roles.

5. From pay gaps to the undervaluing of care and the rise of AI, how might the future economy entrench or disrupt gender inequality, and are we equipping girls to shape what comes next?

No doubt AI is one of the most transformative economic forces of our time, and the honest answer is that nobody really knows how it will fully play out. In terms of gender, I acknowledge that the stakes are high: AI certainly has the potential to reinforce existing inequalities or improve pathways for inclusion. So I see our role as teachers as helping students think critically about the systems they will inherit and giving them the tools to influence the future, even if that future remains uncertain.

The best we can do right now is keep scanning the horizon, noticing how AI and the wider economy are evolving, and help students adapt their thinking accordingly.

6. If we want a fairer economy, where should change begin – classrooms, culture, or policy – and who controls the future of economic power?

Sadly, I think the answer here is big tech, big billionaires and big state actors. But, I don’t see my role as trying to bring down the system. I believe my role is to help students understand the system (fully) and to give them the tools to question it (intelligently). I will always try to present the material as neutrally as I can, and then let them wrestle with what ‘fairness’ means.

I think a large proportion of my students would probably say that a fairer system would involve policies around income and wealth redistribution. And so, I’d signpost them towards brilliant authors like:

  • Eliza Filby – intergenerational wealth
  • Frances Coppola – the people’s QE
  • Rania Antonopoulou – job guarantee programmes
  • Annie Lowrey – universal basic income
  • Stefanie Stantcheva – tax optimisation policy

For me, real change starts in the classroom. Policies are shaped by culture, culture is shaped by norms, and norms only shift when people are given the space to question them. Excellent classrooms should provide exactly that: a safe space to challenge, explore and rethink the world around us.

[1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20241718

George is the Assistant Head at Headington Rye School, Oxford. An economics teacher at heart, George is also the Chair of Examiners for economics with one of the main exam boards in England.