(Re)Imagining Our Foundations - One Social Foundations of Education Program’s Attempt to Reclaim, Reestablish, and Redefine Itself

Oct 15, 2026

The paper analyzes the continuing marginalization and disappearance of Social Foundations of Education (SFE) courses, linking these changes to institutional closures, shifts in graduate training opportunities, and system-wide pressure for tiered certification emphasizing accountability and “functionable” coursework. It critiques how reforms can signal that SFE content is “less than” and reduces education to technical skills and teaching-to-the-test. The authors argue SFE must retain a distinct curriculum and sustained semester-long engagement to support reflective, critical, justice-oriented teacher development.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Marginalization and disappearance of SFE programs

Accountability-driven curriculum and perceived loss of value

Need for SFE integrity through dedicated, sustained coursework

(Re)Imagining Our Foundations: One Social Foundations of Education Program’s Attempt to Reclaim, Reestablish, and Redefine Itself By Sheri C. Hardee & Kelly McFaden Sheri C. Hardee is an associate professor and Kelly McFadenis an assistant professor, both with the College of Education atthe University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, Georgia. Introduction As many have noted, we are seeing the continuing marginalization of Social Foundations of Education (SFE) courses and programs to the point at which some are disappearing completely (Butin, 2007; Carter, 2008; Hess, Rotherham,&Walsh,2004;Lewis,2013;Morrison, 2007; Sirotnik, 1990; Swain, 2013; Tutwiler, deMarrais, Gabbard, Hyde, Konkol, Li, Medina, Rayle, & Swain, 2013). In addition to the closing of Emory University’s Educational Studies department mentioned in the Journal of Educational Foundations’ call for submissions, one of the authors of this article is a recent graduate and oneof the last graduates from a state flagship institution’s Ph.D. program in SFE that is now defunct. While the undergraduate component of the department lives on, the opportunity for in-depth graduate study in this SFE program has been all but lost. The renewed emphasis on SFE standards published in Educational Studies (Tutwiler et al., 2013) was especially timely for us, the SFE faculty atthe University of North Georgia (UNG), in light ofour university system’s recent suggestions that SFE courses be revised to reflect the new tiered certification process for educators, with specific emphasis on accountability. Moreover, the university system’s SFE taskforce suggested that we “make coursework more functionable” and move “some content” to graduate-level courses and professional development workshops (B. Michael, personal communication, February 6, 2014) . This movement is in direct opposition to the importance of SFE, as outlined by Dotts (2013): As an academic discipline grounded in the liberal arts, social foundations programs serve a unique purpose in teacher preparation by giving future educators opportunities to interpret, reflectupon, and normatively critique the social, political, economic, religious, and historical dimensions of public schooling. (p. 163) These types of“revisions” send the message to future educators that SFE content is somehow “less than.” While Swain (2013) contended that “SFE scholars are obviously not doing a good job of connecting our content to practice ifpre-service teachers feel that history and philosophy courses are inconsequential”(p. 127), we would argue that the national direction of teacher education preparation toward“reducing the art of teaching to a technical skill intended to meet the demands of modern schooling, including the well-known cliché of ‘teaching-to-the-test’”(Dotts, 2013, p. 165) broadly diminishes the perceived importance of the SFE both within the student population and within academia. This focus on functionability and accountability reflects what Swain (2013) pinpointed as the overemphasis on the nuts and bolts of education, including ready-made responses to classroom management and teaching (Butin, 2004; Carter, 2008; Swain, 2013) . In a similar vein, Carter (2008) has argued that many pre-service and new teachers “see their coursework as only marginally important to the work of teaching” and thus “relegate social foundations concepts to the heap of learning considered not directly applicable to the classroom”(pp. 223-224) . This dismissal of SFE can further separate teachers from the practice of being reflective and analytical of not only themselves and their pedagogies, but of their school, the education system, and the profession of teaching. At the organizational level, these suggested “revisions” from our university system also send the message to departments, colleagues, administrators, and educational partners that SFEisunimportant. Given current trends in teacher preparation, for example, the very idea of graduate edu

FAQs

What issue does the article focus on regarding Social Foundations of Education (SFE)?

It focuses on the marginalization of SFE courses and programs, including closures and the near loss of in-depth graduate study opportunities.

How do the authors critique the proposed SFE “revisions” by the university system?

They argue reforms that emphasize accountability and move content into other formats implicitly tell future educators that SFE is “less than,” while narrowing education to technical skills.

Why do the authors insist SFE cannot be condensed into short professional development?

They contend a day-long workshop or even a brief format cannot adequately cover histories of inequities or explore the philosophies behind current trends and practices.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pixelkiddo