STEMINISM: Women Missing from National Curriculum for Science

[ArranUpsideDown]

Not a single woman's name features in the national curriculum for science - government should act over a "lack of visible role models for girls". - Seven female scientists you may not have heard of - but should know all about

twitter.com/WiebkeArlt/status/1225483729801555969

[Calls] for the government to act over a "lack of visible role models for girls".

Teach First has launched the STEMinism camapign, calling to close gender gaps in science and maths careers.

It says no female scientists were mentioned in the GCSE science curriculum, while just two - DNA pioneer Rosalind Franklin and paleoanthropologist Mary Leakey - were referred to in three double science GCSE specifications from the major exam boards. In comparison, more than 40 male scientists or their discoveries were mentioned.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51399835

Not surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.
If anyone (or their children, or their students) are interested in reading about more female scientists (and a more diverse bunch than the BBC selection) then this book is great:

www.waterstones.com/book/women-in-science/rachel-ignotofsky/9781526360519

That's worse than it has ever been. Used to at least get Marie Curie in there!

My 6yo is learning about Mary Anning this term (along with David Attenborough). It's a shame the syllabus for older students isn't as balanced.

FFS.
Because it would be so horrible to teach children that women can actually do important stuff.

No, I am sure it's just because they wanted to pick the best of the best as examples, and of course it's just unfortunate that none of them are women , surely?

It says no female scientists were mentioned in the GCSE science curriculum

The are no male scientists mentioned either. The GCSE NC doesn't specify any content about named Scientists, only about subject knowlege.

There is a really good point to be made here but:

1. They are making it about the wrong document- it is the exam boards and schools who control that level of detail (whether they should is another matter).

1. Making the point with deliberately misleading information is not going to help.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study#key-stage-4

donquixotedelamancha - having taken a look at their report and references, I confess that I'm none the wiser. I find it particularly confusing that the original analysis was done in 2015 but updated 2019 without ever giving a reference to the methodology etc.

www.teachfirst.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-02/teach_first_steminism_report.pdf?

Let me share with you my favorite riddle.
Q, What did Watson & Crick receive the Nobel Prize for discovering?
A, Rosalind Franklin's notes.

I find it particularly confusing that the original analysis was done in 2015 but updated 2019 without ever giving a reference to the methodology etc.

I think, from looking at the referrences that they have used the old guidance (which was close to out of date in 15).

In fairness they are not wrong that more female role models would be helpful in Science education. Lots of work has been done on this (many schools are well on with it) and I don't really think the NC is very relevant.

It's worth noting that research seems to indicate that positive role models is only a small part of the story. We may have broken down most of that barrier already- uptake at A-level and uni of Science, amongst women, is much improved.

There is a chart in their report which shows many more girls taking biology but (in the old NC used) biology was the one with all the male role models.

The bigger barriers to women in top research jobs are probably structural ones in the workplace.

It raises the question about school science. It is not part of science to provide inspirational "role models." Science teaches us that something is right because it is, not because someone inspirational says so.

It's not really as role models that they are presented - more like "this person discovered...."
Quick skim through AQA Biology GCSE finds 6 scientists mentioned by name (as I said, quick skim so I might have missed some).
Fleming, Darwin, Lamarck, Wallace, Linnaeus, Mendel.

DNA structure is taught but there is no mention of who discovered it.

The idea that things are "discovered" by brilliant individuals working alone long into the night until they reach a "Eureka!" moment is also highly unscientific.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have eg KS3 history having a topic on the history of science, which could include some information re when women started to be allowed to participate and a few of the most significant and successful (eg Marie Curie, Dorothy Hodgson).

From a Chemistry perspective, it’s really difficult to try to include the contribution of female scientists up to GCSE level.

Chemistry, as taught up to GCSE level, is pretty much stuck in the Niels Bohr era in our understanding of the atom. Trying to go any further involves starting to discuss concepts involving quantum theory and it’s just not a subject worth going into. To try to model the atom and describe/explain chemical properties to GCSE students means simplifying chemical concepts back to the point of understanding that the scientific world was at back in the 1920s/30s and, sadly, there just weren’t enough women in chemical research to make an impact.

Stephanie Kwokek was discussed as the inventor of Kevlar, but the description and explanation of how the material behaves is way beyond the scope of GCSE and so the material was never discussed in much detail.

In my 14 years of Chemistry teaching I can honestly say that I don’t believe the lack of historical female chemists ever put a female student off studying the subject. The take up of the subject at triple science GCSE and A level was pretty much 50% by sex.

The best way to get more girls interested in STEM subjects is exactly the same as boys - through good teaching of the subject.

Yes, and crystallography is a bit beyond GCSE too, which cuts out some of the obvious choices. I suppose you could have a selection of PowerPoint slides lurking in case of opportunity eg if you get a kid asking the 'but how do you know what molecules look like'.

In my 14 years of Chemistry teaching I can honestly say that I don’t believe the lack of historical female chemists ever put a female student off studying the subject. The take up of the subject at triple science GCSE and A level was pretty much 50% by sex.

Just because we are accustomed to discrimination doesn't mean it has no effect on us.

The idea that things are "discovered" by brilliant individuals working alone long into the night until they reach a "Eureka!" moment is also highly unscientific.

It's not really as role models that they are presented - more like "this person discovered...."

It is not part of science to provide inspirational "role models."

I don't agree. I think it is the job of Science education to explain why Science matters, part of that is humanising it. I don't see how you can look at the determination of Marie Curie or the insight of Gregor Mendel and not be in awe.

Part of the historic barrier to women in STEM has been the 'it's for boys' perception. I've heard those stereotypes many, many times in teaching. I do think they matter.

From a Chemistry perspective, it’s really difficult to try to include the contribution of female scientists up to GCSE level. Chemistry, as taught up to GCSE level, is pretty much stuck in the Niels Bohr era in our understanding of the atom.

Yes, wouldn't it be great if, say, the first person to win two nobel prizes had been a woman.

Instead of looking backward, how about looking forward and showing case studies of real women (and men) working in various stem careers where their Science and Maths can take them?