What We Stand For, Not Against - Presenting Our Teacher Education Colleagues with the Case for Social Foundations in PK–12 Teacher Preparation Programs

Oct 15, 2026

Presents an argument for the indispensability of Social Foundations of Education (SFE) courses in PK–12 teacher preparation. The authors contend that SFE teacher educators and their course content are often misunderstood as radical or burdensome, and they frame SFE by contrasting what the discipline stands for versus what outsiders assume it stands against. Drawing on scholarly debate and a supportive special issue in Critical Questions in Education, the paper outlines strategies to reassert SFE and warns about unintended consequences if SFE is marginalized or becomes extinct.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages16

Reading Time40 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Advocacy for SFE in teacher education

What SFE stands for

Historical origins and interdisciplinary approach

Learning goals: challenging inequity

Strategies for reasserting SFE

Risks of continued marginalization

Nicholas D. Hartlep is an assistant professor of social foundations of education in the College of Education at Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. Bradley J. Porfilio is an associate professor and director of the doctorate in educational leadership in the College of Education and Allied Studies at California State University, East Bay, Hayward, California. Stacy Otto is a professor of social foundations of education and qualitative inquiry in the College of Education at Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. Kathleen O’Brien is a lecturer in social foundations of education in the College of Education at Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. What We Stand For, Not Against: Presenting Our Teacher Education Colleagues with the Case for Social Foundations in PK–12 Teacher Preparation Programs By Nicholas D. Hartlep, Bradley J. Porfilio, Stacy Otto, & Kathleen O’Brien Courses in the social foundations of education are under attack. But if we want to prepare truly professional, high-quality teachers, those courses are essential. —Neumann (2009), p. 81 As Neumann (2009) argues, Social Foundations of Education (SFE) courses play a critical role in preparing professional, effective PK–12 teachers, yet, for reasons argued here and elsewhere, six years later such courses remain under attack (see e.g., Ryan, 2006).We each teach Social Foundations of Education1 courses and keenly feel our discipline’s extinction threatens. In this article, by arguing what SFE stands for as opposed to what it stands against, we intend persuasively to present non- SFE teacher educators with formerly unknown or unclear knowledge of the SFE discipline and its intended outcomes with the goal they may become comfortable with—if not outright advocates for—our courses’ content and knowledgeable on its purpose(s), rather than viewing SFE teacher educators and our courses as unnecessary, radical, and burdensome to PK–12 teacher preparation curricula. We first must express thanks and admiration to the group of SFE scholars who recently collaborated to produce a special issue of Critical Questions in Education (in spring 2013) guest edited by Benjamin Baez and Deron Boyles, whose work mountsan inspired defense of the Social Foundations of Education.2 The CQIE special issue was created to address what we mean when we say “Social Foundations of Education”; to explore how and if it functions within teacher education institutions; and to examine whether our field is rendered obsolete and “replaceable” by generalized knowledge on race, ethnicity, class, gender, ability, and heteronormativityour non-SFE colleagues attempt to infuse across content-area and methods courses. Significantly, our colleagues’work was done without allowing our discipline to inhabit a monolithic or static status. Our disciplinary colleagues’ hopes, reflections, and criticisms, along with recognition of maladies, tensions, and the fear we have become insular are represented in a powerful array of essays to which we refer as we explain the merits of SFEto our non-SFE colleagues, but also as we develop a way and means by which to communicate our utility and worth. We aim actively to work against the phenomenon that,“Over time, other departments have cannibalized [Foundations’] content while dismissing our relevance”(Schutz & Butin, 2013, p. 60), for there is not only room for many to be doing the important work of SFE, but, as U.S. demographics shift, so too does the rapidly escalating need for teachers fully to be prepared to serve all children, all families, all communities. We begin by stating what we understand SFE to stand for as a discipline and why we know it to be a critical component of teacher preparation (deMarrais, 2001), contrasting that with what those outside of SFE assume it to stand against. Our approach here is intentionally proactive and positive because we perceive non-SFE teacher educators frequently misunderstand SFE to be unduly critical,

FAQs

Why do the authors argue that SFE courses are essential in PK–12 teacher preparation programs?

They argue that SFE is critical for preparing truly professional, high-quality teachers and that it addresses sociopolitical context, inequities, and social transformation in ways that support effective teaching for all children and communities.

How do the authors contrast what SFE “stands for” versus what outsiders assume it “stands against”?

They state that SFE is often misunderstood by non-SFE educators as overly critical, polemic, ideological, or indoctrinating, while the authors emphasize SFE’s practical and morally just role in educating all children from all families and communities.

What strategies does the paper propose to reassert SFE within teacher preparation programs?

It outlines an intentionally proactive and positive approach to communicate SFE’s utility and worth, including using scholarship and argumentation to help non-SFE colleagues better understand SFE’s intended outcomes and purpose(s).

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by pixelkiddo