Philosophy for Children

Theories and praxis in teacher education

Babs Anderson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317276630
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Philosophy for Children (P4C) is a movement that teaches reasoning and argumentative skills to children of all ages. This book looks at the progress that P4C has made in the UK in addressing issues of literacy, critical thinking, PSHE, education for sustainable development and wider issues such as bullying.

Chapters identify the different theories and practices that have emerged and discuss the necessity for a reflective approach that P4C brings to education. The book highlights how this movement can fit into the early years, primary and secondary curriculum and the challenges and rewards that come with it. Chapters include:

• 
  
  

• The Evolution of Philosophy for Children in the UK

• 
  
  

• Pedagogical Judgement

• 
  
  

• Negotiating meaning in classrooms: P4C as an exemplar of dialogic pedagogy

• 
  
  

• The impact of P4C on teacher educators

• 
  
  

• Being and becoming a philosophical teacher

This will be an invaluable guide for all those interested in P4C and studying courses on Early Childhood Studies, Education Studies and Initial Teacher Training courses.

PART 1
The context

1
THE EVOLUTION OF PHILOSOPHY FOR CHILDREN IN THE UK

Roger Sutcliffe

Pointers from the past

The Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460–400 BC) was an almost exact contemporary of Socrates (c. 470–399 BC) and would surely have been familiar with the famous philosopher’s project of seeing to the ‘welfare of souls’. Soul, of course, is an English word, and only a rough equivalent of the word Socrates would have used: psyche. The modern English use of psyche, moreover, is different again. What Socrates meant might be better rendered as something like moral sense or sensibility.

Thucydides’ vision of the purpose of philosophy, indeed, was probably not far removed from that of his illustrious contemporary. He is reputed to have said that history was ‘philosophy teaching by example’, meaning, presumably, that our philosophies – our understanding and appreciation of the world, especially of other humans, and our engagement with it, and with them – benefit from reflection on real life, such as historical examples.

Socrates’ own reliance on examples in the building of understanding is surely consistent with this vision, even if his metaphysical beliefs – in divine influence in human affairs and, perhaps, the permanence of meanings – might not have gone down so well with Thucydides. He has earned the sobriquet of a founder of scientific method by his strict adherence to robust evidence gathering and careful analysis of cause and effect, without recourse to the power of the gods.

But what do these examples have to do with the theme of this chapter, the evolution of P4C in the UK? Well, they are clearly not examples of P4C in the UK. It would also be rash to claim that either Socrates or Thucydides regarded children as their prime clients, where the Latin cliens means ‘follower’, though it could be equally rash to claim that they would have excluded them. Their concepts, however, help set a context for this introductory chapter.

The models of philosophical (often ethical) enquiries that Socrates bequeathed, courtesy of Plato, were certainly an inspiration for Matthew Lipman in his development of Philosophy for Children. We can see this both in Lipman’s own declared purposes and in his emphasis on the importance of dialogue in pursuing them.

The approach that I have created in Philosophy for Children is not about prescribing any one philosophy to children, but about encouraging them to develop their own philosophy, their own way of thinking about the world. It is about giving the youngest of minds the opportunity to express ideas with confidence and in an environment where they feel safe to do so (Lipman, 2009, p.166). He reiterates his views that: ‘The aim of a thinking skills program such as P4C is to help children become more thoughtful, more reflective, more considerate and more reasonable individuals’ (Lipman, 1980, p.15).

It was surely significant, moreover, that Lipman agreed for this inspiration to be recognised in the title of the 1990 BBC documentary, Socrates for Six Year Olds. This broadcast was itself seminal in the history of P4C in the UK, since it led to the founding of the network that became SAPERE, the charitable Society for Advancing Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education. More of that anon.

The significance of Thucydides to our argument is more oblique. For certain, he gives us an important reminder that philosophy in its Western birthplace was regarded as the moral foundation, if not the model formula, for good education and for the good life. This was a perspective maintained by most educated people in Europe into the Middle Ages, but has sadly been minimised by designers of ‘educational’ curricula since then – and especially since ‘mass education’ emerged in the nineteenth century, in the service of industrialised societies.

But I have a more particular and peculiar purpose in quoting Thucydides: namely, to draw attention to the fact that I shall be able to provide only a few examples – of practices and people – among many thousands who have played their part in the evolution of P4C in the UK. I hope the examples will be illuminating, of course, but, as selected examples, they cannot tell the whole story. If I fail to mention any individuals who might better have been mentioned, I apologise in advance. Let it be thought, simply, that my purpose is to ‘teach P4C by examples’, rather than to write a comprehensive history.

Crossroads in 1990

So, what was the philosophy behind Socrates for Six Year Olds and why was this television documentary a seminal event?

Most viewers have naturally assumed that, since Matthew Lipman was the chief spokesperson in the film, it primarily reflected his own project, which he had labelled ‘Philosophy for Children’ and which had already by 1990 become commonly abbreviated to P4C. And perhaps that is true. But it also reflected a practice and philosophy that was different from his, and deserves clear recognition, namely the COPI (Community of Philosophical Inquiry) approach developed by Dr Catherine McCall, who also appeared in the film. The model of practice with 6 year olds that it showed, indeed, was hers. Now is not the place to go into full details about the commonalities and differences between Lipman’s P4C and McCall’s COPI, but it should be certainly be registered that both saw the ‘community of inquiry’ as central to their practice.

One distinctive difference between the two approaches was that COPI placed more emphasis on developing the skills of the philosophical facilitator by learning about philosophical traditions and practising some models in particular (especially Hegelian dialectic). In contrast, Lipman relied more on teachers’ immersion in the large body of stories for children and support materials that he and his associates at Montclair University had produced in the 1970s and 1980s.

This writer takes an even-handed view of these two emphases, which are mixed to varying degrees in different countries, and indeed continue to be represented in different ways and approaches within the UK itself. It is probably fair to say that the COPI approach has had more traction in Scotland, McCall’s native country, where she returned after several years of working with Lipman in USA, while the more gradual (but less reliable) approach of encouraging teachers to get going and ‘learn on the job’ is more prevalent in other countries in the UK.

Notwithstanding, many of those who came to Philosophy for Children as a result of the BBC documentary and contributed to the development of SAPERE might still regard Lipman’s materials as the Gold Standard, or at least the benchmark, of philosophical resources for children, and McCall’s COPI as a benchmark for philosophical facilitation with children.

Mapping a route

Did SAPERE set off with the best of both worlds, then? Not exactly. There were good reasons for developing a new route map, and not least of these was that SAPERE was certainly not setting off in the ‘best of all possible worlds’. 1990, when 200 viewers of the BBC documentary met for a first conference at the West London Institute, was a turbulent enough year in world politics – the Berlin Wall had been opened in the previous year – but, more to the point of this chapter, the educational world in the UK (or, to be more accurate, in England and Wales) was literally coming to terms with a new National Curriculum, whose first programmes of study came into effect in September 1989. This was a process that one high-profile chief education officer referred to as ‘death by a thousand files’, and the imposition of a state-determined curriculum was, at the time, much more controversial in principle than it is now.

In such circumstances, it would have been foolhardy to have staked the future of P4C in the country on the foundation of Lipman’s (similarly voluminous) materials; and it would have been almost equally quixotic to have suggested that teachers, let alone schools, might invest money and time in extensive professional development. Yet this was clearly a moment to be seized, with over 2,000 people having contacted the BBC to ask what P4C, if any, was going on in the UK. Actually, there had been some pioneers who had introduced P4C into their practice before the documentary, and among them was Dr Will Robinson. He had even run a P4C course for teachers at Edge Hill College, and was an obvious person to serve as first chair of SAPERE.

But if Lipman’s materials were only potential starting points, and full-blown training for teachers was a pipe dream, what sensible strategy could there be for giving P4C a chance in schools, let alone for its becoming established? Well, the strategy was still to offer training. One cannot start building a community of enquiry on the back of just reading a book – without any experience of it, still less any reflection on one’s practice. But it would have to be very carefully designed training, and with some simple, inexpensive resources for teachers to use.

Happily, both of these things came to be. In the first place, a group of people with very varied expertise but common sense (I might say, phronesis) fairly quickly developed a three-stage training programme that has, in essence, stood the test of 25 years. Robert Fisher, a former primary head but by then a teacher educator at the West London Institute, soon to be part of Brunel University, was perhaps the most in tune with what would be suitable for teachers in these circumstances. But every voice was heard, and the outcome was a programme of training that provided exactly the right balance of theory and practice, of realism and idealism.

At roughly the same time, a key step was made by another member of the core group, Karin Murris, who had trialled the Lipman materials in some of her local schools with mixed results. As an experienced librarian, she recognised the potential of picture books for stimulating philosophical enquiry, especially with younger children, and her book, Teaching Philosophy with Picture Books (Murris, 1992), seized the imagination of every primary teacher introduced to it. This, together with the original publication Stories for Thinking (Fisher, 1996) and the subsequent Stories for Thinking series (1996–2000), also written by Fisher, provided models of the sort of resources that teachers could readily access and use effectively with their children.

True to say, P4C did not suddenly crop up all over the country. Several of the early courses did not recruit well; a few even ran at a loss financially. Schools were struggling to cope with ‘curriculum overload’ well into the 1990s (they still do) and many teachers still reacted with incredulity at the idea of ‘adding’ philosophy to the timetable. ‘You can’t be serious!’ must have been in the minds, if not specifically articulated, of many head teachers.

Every good project needs good people

So, more was needed than just an infrastructure of courses and resources. At least two other vital things had to be in place. One was a dedicated team that could hold the Society and central organisation together. The other was, in effect, an argument: a powerful rationale for doing philosophy with children.

At the start of this chapter I made clear that it would be only a partial account of the evolution of P4C in the UK, and I shall certainly not go into the intricacies of the development of SAPERE itself as an organisation. But it would be wrong not to mention Steve Williams and Sara Liptai, secretaries in its early days, and Will Ord and Alison Hall, later chairs. It is probably no exaggeration to say that without the efforts of any of these people, the Society – and almost certainly the P4C project – would have collapsed. And these people continue to influence its evolution in ways varying from strategic and intellectual guidance to project management and quality control. (Lizzy Lewis, the first appointed member of staff but still serving as development manager, has also been essential to the whole project’s success.)

But back to the argument(s) …

A good rationale and evidence base

A preliminary argument needed to be met – one that Lipman himself spent years facing down in the USA – namely, that children (loosely defined, of course) were simply incapable of doing philosophy, and so it would be a complete waste of time to try and get them to do it. I will not now rehearse the reasons for and against this argument – partly because it has had less and less traction over time. But I do want to record that Joanna Haynes’ book, Children as Philosophers (2001), was very instrumental in changing people’s thinking for the better in this respect.

Children can and do wonder about the meaning of words (and the significance of ‘things’) just as adults do qua philosophers; moreover, they go on to figure out many meanings, causes, reasons, purposes and values for themselves, without over-reliance on ideas set in texts. In that sense, indeed, they are ‘natural’ philosophers.

What, though, were the positive arguments to promote P4C in schools? To be fair and accurate, some of them were, themselves, very instrumentalist – and SAPERE did not flinch from using them. So, if there was concern about children’s confidence or competence in speaking, it was argued (with good reason) that P4C helped most children grow in either or both respects. If there was concern about children’s literacy scores, it was argued (with evidence from Derby and Dyfed in the 1990s, supporting the welter of test scores from the USA in 1980s) that children’s comprehension skills improved with P4C. And if there was concern about children’s will or skill to think critically – or creatively – the 2003 ‘Clackmannanshire’ project, run by Paul Cleghorn and validated by Professor Topping of University of Dundee, was often quoted to demonstrate the cognitive benefits of P4C.

There was, it must be admitted, a glossing over of the fact that not all of the research results involved Lipman’s materials, and that different projects had facilitators who had experienced a diverse range of training. If anything, though, it could have been seen as both remarkable and the more significant that, despite such variety, ‘results’ seemed steadily positive. (And, of course, they continue to come. Very recent research projects in Texas and in England have added to the impressive collection.)

What can be said, with some security, is that a common strand to all of the projects has been the intended and actual practice of a community of enquiry approach, and this has increasingly been the banner under which P4C has been promoted, at least by SAPERE.

Extending the reach

What is more, even from the start it was recognised that this practice is as powerful for adults as it is for children and young people, and there was always an ambition to promote it in adult and informal contexts as well as in schools. Realistically, SAPERE’s work on fulfilling this ambition could not begin in earnest until the idea of communities of philosophical enquiry in schools had taken root. But there were some early initiatives, whic...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Part 1 The context
• Part 2 P4C as a pedagogical approach
• Part 3 P4C in school
• Part 4 The higher education context
• Index