The politics of preparation for parenthood
The focus of this study is preparation for parenthood in U.K. secondary 
schools in the decade of the 1970s. During this period it was suggested 
that cycles of deprivation are set up by inadequacies in parenting, 
resulting in a range of social problems, and preparation for parenthood 
was supported as a means of breaking this cycle. The study explores 
relevant educational policy in the U.K. between the second world war, and 
the end of the 1970s, and the views of teachers and pupils involved in 
preparation for parenthood. Methods have involved semi-structured 
interviews, reviews of literature and policy, and discourse analysis. The 
theoretical perspective used is a feminist one. A number of questions are 
considered, including why preparation for parenthood became popular in 
the 1970s; why the call for this curriculum is sustained even though 
girls express knowledge and commitment in relation to future parental 
responsibilities; and what is the likely influence on the adult lives of 
girls of involvement with this aspect of schooling. In'addition there is 
a consideration of gender divisions, how these relate to preparation for 
parenthood, and also how the personal views of teachers might influence 
this aspect of their work. The role of the state, and of educational 
policy, is explored and the possibility is raised that the preparation 
for parenthood curriculum might contribute to the creation or maintenance 
of the deprivation that it sets out to oppose.
The Sociology of Women's Education as a Field of Academic Study
(1984). The Sociology of Women's Education as a Field of Academic Study. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education: Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 42-62.
The New ‘U’
Today's talk about tenure must be framed within broader discussions about the role of the university. Our university system is now over one hundred years old, the “Old-Time College” is gone, the “cold war” university is no longer viable, and the foundations of the modern “multiversity” are cracking, so it is time to talk about change. But change is not necessarily reform, and resisting change probably will not keep things the way they are, so academics must understand the forces reshaping the university. Whenever I listen to colleagues defend the status quo by saying that the United States has a university system that is the envy of the world, I hear echoes of the Detroit automobile industry's casual dismissal of foreign competitors in the early 1960s. The decision not to change did not preserve the auto industry, and it is unlikely to preserve public universities as we know them. The current debates about tenure began with ideological attacks on “tenured radicals” who used their secure jobs to subvert conservative cultural values. The attack on tenure gathered steam as fiscal hawks in financially-strapped states looked for ways to save money and found huge state university systems with budgets to match. When asked why he robbed banks, the legendary Willie Sutton replied, “Because that's where the money is.” When asked why they are robbing tenure, legislators, regents, and administrators reply, “Because that's where the money is.” Personnel costs are a large share of university budgets and tenure ties the hands of administrators and legislators accustomed to using purse strings to control universities.