| The field of Social Foundations of Education has been called upon time and time again to justify its place and curricular space in teacher education. Scholars have described the field as marginalized (Greene, 1976; Nash and Agne, 1982); in "crisis" (Shea, Sola and Jones, 1987); "eroding" (Sirotnik, 1990); in "disarray" (Johanningmeier, 1991); and in "transit" (Warren, 1998). In responding to these challenges, various scholars have attempted to reconnect (Shulman, 1990), reconceptualize (Soltis, 1991), reconstruct (Butts, 1993), reframe (Beadie, 1996), and reconceive of (Bredo, 2002) the field of social foundations in teacher education. In the past, critiquing social foundations was largely academic because states required coursework in the social foundations as one of the prerequisites to certification (deMarrais, 2005; Shields, 1968). Today, as states replace course requirements with standardized, outcomes-based tests as prerequisites to certification (deMarrais, 2005; Watras, 2006), school of education administrators and teacher educators hold extraordinary power over the place and curricular space for the field of social foundations in teacher education.;In this qualitative, interpretive study, I set out to understand how school of education administrators and teacher educators at a large, urban university in the Middle Atlantic Region of the United States that I call Jefferson University conceived of the field of social foundations and how and why the field appeared to be being squeezed out of teacher education. In doing so, I come to deeper understandings about where the field of social foundations has been and might be headed, not only at Jefferson University but in teacher education writ large. I then begin to reimagine the place and curricular space for the field in teacher education. Consequently, I call for communication and collaboration between foundations scholars on one hand and school of education administrators and teacher educators on the other. |
