Well, using pragmatist's cited definition of correspondence theory, a proposition is true if and only if it bears some sort of congruence relation to a state of affairs that obtains.

What state of affairs is "correspondence theory is true" congruent with?

I can't think of any.

If you can, I'll happily be convinced my argument doesn't hold, but basically it seems to me that correspondence theory lays out a framework for thinking about truth, just as governmental constitutions lay out a framework for thinking about law. Correspondence theory itself is no more true (or false) than constitutions are legal (or illegal).