What Philosophy with Children is not: responses to some critics and

constructive suggestions for dialogue about the role of P4C in Higher

Education

Karin Murris, Steve Bramall, Shirley Egley, Maughn Gregory, J oanna Haynes, Steve
Williams

Introduction

by Karin Murris

Increasingly the theory and practice of Philosophy with Children (P4C) is critiqued by
colleagues in academia. This Symposium opens up a space to respond to some of this
critique, to engage with its critics with a willingness to construct new ideas about P4C
itself and to put forward not only some suggestions for researchers in this field, but also
about the possible role of P4C in Higher Education.

Four respondents focus on what critics claim (we conclude wrongly) what P4C is. One
published paper (Vansieleghem, 2006), two chapters of the book Philosophy in Schools
(Hand, 2008; Suissa, 2008), and one co-authored book (Ecclestone & Hayes, 2006) were
chosen because their critique opens up opportunities for us to reject some common
misunderstandings and prejudices about P4C. Arguably, P4C is not philosophy lite, not
undialogical, not therapy, and not primarily a truth-seeking process. At the same time
the activity of writing the responses and reading each others contributions and
subsequently responding to each others take on P4C has been helpful to think again
about the recurrent question amongst P4Cers themselves - what is P4C?

Like the question what is philosophy? the question what P4C is, resists an unequivocal
answer all P4Cers would agree with. As argued elsewhere
i
, P4C houses a complex
mixture of educational ideas and philosophical traditions as practitioners situate the
approach in their own cultural context and infuse the practice with their own identity and
philosophical beliefs. In a profound sense, what P4C is, can be experienced only in
practice, and it embraces a wide range of practices worldwide. In a Wittgensteinian sense,
they are united in the way members of a family share certain resemblancesany
generalisations about P4C fail to do justice to what is unique about each family member.

My choice of P4C critics, however, serves a useful purpose. They are all European
academics in the field of philosophy of education, broadly speaking, and their
publications are recent. They serve us well as they have created the opportunity for
P4Cers to say what P4C is not. The respondents to the critics have been carefully selected
for their combination of practical P4C experience, their writings and other public
engagements with the theory and practice of P4C. Steve Bramall taught philosophy of
education at the Institute of Education in London before pursuing training and a career in
philosophy in education (including P4C). Maughn Gregory from the U.S.A. is well-
known for his publications on P4C, a scholar in American Pragmatism and a colleague of
Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp. Joanna Haynes is the author of one of the UKs core
P4C texts called Children as Philosophers and her PhD was on P4C and listening as a
critical practice. Like Joanna, Steve Williams helped to establish the S.A.P.E.R.E. (=UK
P4C charity) courses and he was until very recently editor of the magazine Teaching
Thinking and Creativity. All have extensive experience of working with children in
classrooms as well as teachers in the context of P4C. Their comments are summarised
below and their short papers are attached separately. The intention is to send these
separately to the respective critics in the hope that they will attend and participate in the
Symposium.

Finally, we will also be making constructive suggestions for how P4C could be used in
the context of Higher Education (HE). Shirley Egley exemplifies one of the four ways in
which the community of enquiry pedagogy can be used in HE. Shirley is a trained
P4Cer and experienced in using this approach with initial teacher training students at
Newport School of Education.

Questionable sources
One of the things our response to the critique reveals is the importance of the correct
sources for research and we acknowledge that 40 years of worldwide P4C theory and
practice can be challenging for the novice. Characteristic of all five critics is the ease with
which P4C has been dismissed as if it has one clear identity. Critics opinions about P4C
theory and practice have been formed mostly by either visiting a website, some D.F.E.S.
documents, classroom resource materials, or a DvD of classroom practice
ii
. Even a
newsletter published by the national P4C charity S.A.P.E.R.E.
iii
has been used as source
of information about P4C, despite the fact that the views in it are unedited expressions by
individuals. With the exception of Nancy Vansieleghem, the critics have ignored a rich
P4C literature and created their own account of P4C, after which they have subsequently
expressed their own weak or misconstrued conception of what P4C is. The respondents
argue that each of the critics have committed the straw man fallacy when presenting
their view of what P4C is and that this philosophical sinning served them to pursue their
own agenda or put forward their preferred alternative, ranging between a particular way
of teaching philosophy (Hand and Suissa), non-oppressive dialoguing (Vansieleghem), or
a return to traditional education based on Cartesian dichotomies (Ecclestone & Hayes).

Few critics refer to Matthew Lipmans work. This is peculiar and bad research practice
considering his theoretical contributions to philosophy of education and his substantial
P4C programme - the inspiration and cornerstone for subsequent P4C practice and theory
worldwide. Although one critic has researched the field extensively - Nancy
Vansieleghem - her mistake is to amalgamate them into one voice rather than take
account of their substantial philosophical differences, and to treat P4C as though it has
one identity. The P4Cers she quotes - Matthew Lipman, David Kennedy, Walter Kohan,
Ann Sharp, Gareth Matthews, Laurence Splitter and Karin Murris - are epistemologically
as different from each other as night and day
iv
. Moreover, Vansieleghem makes bold
claims without proper referencing, for example, her claim that Lipman asserts that the
main purpose of philosophy is to free every individual from determination
(Vansieleghem, 2006, p 176). The irony is that Vansieleghem kills off the dialogue with
P4C and that the other [here: P4C] suffers injustice this silencing of other voices she
accuses P4C of. My take is that any essentialist definition of P4C fails to the justice to the
rich diversity in the field, and the lost opportunity for mutually productive dialogue is
regrettable.

The fuel that feeds the engine of any community of enquiry (the pedagogy of P4C) is
dissensus; it is when people disagree that strong and relevant reasons for ones own
position need to be developed (it is for this reason we very much welcome a critical
stance towards P4C!). However this has implications for what it means to know about
P4C or to understand its practice and theory. As a democratic laboratory, learning about
the community of enquiry is ultimately possible only through active participation in such
communities. P4C cannot be learned from books. An experiential base is essential, so what
could one recommend to a researcher as far as finding out about P4C is concerned? Would it
be sufficient to observe a classroom session? Again, no is the answer. Practice alone is not
sufficient as theory helps the researcher construe meaning of what s/he sees and hears. The
attached papers offer some (indirect) guidance to the researcher new to the P4C field and
hope to open up a space in which respectful and mutually productive dialogue between
philosophers of education including P4Cers - is possible.

What follows is my very brief introduction to each respondent to the critics.

P4C is not philosophy lite a response to Michael Hand by Steve Bramall
Steve Bramall invites Michael Hand to reconsider the reductionist conception of philosophy
that can be taught to young children. This diluted version of analytic academic philosophy
(philosophy lite) focuses on conceptual analysis and ignores the dialogical, political,
social, lived and meta-reflective dimension of philosophy as phronesis. He argues that P4C
is not only about concept analysis, but also about process, critical action, values and
meaning. Bramall urges Hand to stop insulting children and to regard dialogical engagement
with the rich tradition of P4C as a unique opportunity for both philosophers of and in
education to reflect on the aims and purpose of both, education and philosophy.

P4C is not just a truth-seeking process a response to Judith Suissa by Maughn
Gregory
Unwittingly, J udith Suissa puts forward convincing arguments for the introduction of
P4C in the secondary curriculum, rather than the rejection of it, which was her intention.
Her premise is that secondary pupils unlike primary pupils (a claim for which no
evidence is given) yearn for meaning. She mistakenly perceives P4C as focusing on
truth, rather than meaning, and claims that P4C fails to address questions of meaning in
human life, as advocated by J ohn Dewey. With his extensive knowledge of American
Pragmatism (including Dewey), Gregory argues that for him (as for many others,
including the founder of P4C, Matthew Lipman) the philosophical roots of P4C originate
particularly from J ohn Dewey. Suissa is mistaken in identifying P4C as a mere process
approach, focusing too narrowly on truth criteria. Some study of Lipmans work quickly
reveals that P4C is also concerned with creative and caring thinking (multidimensional
thinking) and reasonableness, which entails that reasons and arguments are not only
informed by multiple and diverse perspectives, but also tested on their strength and
relevance in a community of enquiry. P4C pays attention to process, but also to content
the subject matter of philosophy. Gregory agrees with Suissa that the body of
philosophical knowledge as usually presented in academia offers little meaning to
adolescents, but the content of P4C, i.e., philosophical concept analyses, helps to develop
what he calls a philosophical ear to discern the philosophical in the everyday.
Gregory also agrees with Suissa that adolescents need to philosophise about the meaning
of life, but uses Dewey to argue against her that they also need to find meaning in their
own lives, and that philosophy which opens up the ethical, political, and aesthetic
dimensions of experience is an ideal vehicle for this.

P4C is not therapy a response to Kathryn Ecclestone and Dennis Hayes by Joanna
Haynes
Joanna Haynes has sympathy for the critics passionate rejection of the dominance of
psychological accounts of human nature and behaviour, and the damaging effect this can
have on teaching good reasoning and judgment. The deterministic, fragile self (diminished
self) it presupposes lowers expectations and aspirations, narrows education down and
encourages dependence on emotional support. However, she continues, this so-called
therapeutic turn is an expression of a much more general trend to critique the
marginalisation of children as objects to be measured and manipulated, and she regrets that
Ecclestone and Hayes somehow miss the political point. Haynes strongly disagrees with
their view of child, and suggests that P4C is not dangerous, as the critics claim, but that the
trivialisation and ritualisation of childrens thinking is. She argues that P4C is not dangerous
enough, and that it should challenge authoritarianism and coercion, and position teacher
alongside child. Finally, Haynes rejects their limited analysis of the role of emotions in
learning and their badly researched account of P4C. She agrees that although poor P4C
practice indeed does exist, the solution lies not in the rejection of P4C, but in good quality
teacher education.

P4C is not undialogical a response to Nancy Vansieleghem by Steve Williams
Steve Williams refutes Vansieleghems critique that P4C is too dominated by argumentation
and other forms of critical thinking. Puzzled about the origins of her idea that the so-called
aim of a community of enquiry is agreement, Williams proposes that Bakhtin (the
inspiration for her alternative conception of dialogue) would support a view of dialogue as
critical. Like Bakhtin, Williams understands P4C to be active, evaluative and infinitely
responsive.


Some ideas about the role of P4C in Higher Education

The phrase Philosophy for Children may suggest that P4C is only about teaching
philosophy and/or that P4C is relevant or appropriate only for children, but the potential
and value of P4C as a critical pedagogy and democratic method for decision-making in
H.E. is increasingly appreciated. What follows is a brief overview:

The most obvious possibilities are:
1. P4C as a means to complement the teaching of the subject philosophy in H.E.
2. P4C as integral part of pre-service teacher training to educate students in the theory
and practice of P4C as a means to teach philosophy in the classroom at primary and
secondary level.

Less obvious possibilities are:
3. P4C as a means to open up discussions about more general core issues in teacher
education, e.g. the role of the teacher, democratic interventions, right and wrong answers,
the dominance of psychological approaches to education, the role of text books for
teaching, issues about knowledge and meaning, and power issues such as who asks the
questions and who listens (and how). Such discussions are easily provoked using P4C
and illustrate a profound and welcome clash of educational paradigms provoked by
dialogical learning and teaching, philosophy as a form of life, democratic practice and a
different ontology of child.
As argued elsewhere (see first endnote), the link between community and enquiry in
P4C, challenges practitioners to make their philosophy of education explicit. The rigour
that accompanies a philosophical building on ideas through argument and democratic
enquiry is a real challenge for teachers; unfamiliar with teaching enquiry, let alone
philosophical enquiry, and both the intellectual challenge and lack of control over the
content that is shaped and constructed by the students can cause great anxiety. This
disequilibrium can be encouraged and deliberately provoked. It exposes educators
struggle with the changed teacher/pupil relationships and their different role as educator.
These situated pedagogical tensions offer creative opportunities to reflect on the values
and beliefs about learning and teaching that educators bring to their practice. The
transformative power of such philosophical reflections goes beyond the teaching of a
subject, and invites educators to re-think education, and their role in it, afresh. P4C
practice profoundly questions educational practice that implicitly claims knowledge
about child (as object) handing over control to adults and affirming their position of
power. When introduced to P4C, educators insecurities can cause resistance or other
responses that aim to restore equilibrium as soon as possible. My suggestion is to use this
emotional upheaval constructively and in an educationally productive manner.

4. The community of enquiry method as a pedagogical approach for all courses at
university, e.g. lectures can be followed up by community of enquiries in small groups to
aid understanding. For guidance about monitoring progress of groups of students, see:
Laverty & Gregory (2007).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the benefits for the university classroom are similar to
those of school classrooms, e.g. more profound engagement with the subject at hand,
increased tolerance of and appreciation of new ideas, rise in self-confidence, better
questioning and responsive listening, more creative and thoughtful writing.

Feedback Action research with Initial Teacher Training Students by Shirley Egley

At the end of the Symposium, Shirley Egley will exemplify 4. and summarise her
findings of two action research projects conducted by the University of Wales in
Newport. For the last two years Shirley has been examining some lessons that can be
learnt from P4C as a pedagogy applied in the undergraduate classroom. In a collaborative
research project with Lynn Foulston, they tracked a group of initial teacher training
students who elected to specialise in Religious Education and set out to see how the
learning gained from the experience of visiting various faiths (both here in Wales and in
India) was enhanced through the disciplined practice of philosophical enquiry when
returning to the classroom. Allowing students space to explore / reflect / connect while
out on field visits to faith communities was mirrored back in the classroom community of
enquiry where students generated the questions that form the basis for further critical
reflection.

Biographies

Karin Murris
Dr Karin Murris is Visiting Professor of Practical Philosophy and Ethics at the University
of Wales in Newport. Since J anuary 2009, she is also senior lecturer in Philosophy of
Education at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. As co-
director of consultancy Dialogueworks she has worked as a P4C senior trainer and
mentor with children and adults in schools, businesses and universities for 20 years.
Trained under Prof Matthew Lipman, she has pioneered the use of picturebooks for the
teaching of philosophy, and helped to set up the SAPERE training courses in P4C in the
UK. She is a past executive member of the P.E.S.G.B., a reviewer of the journal and was
invited to write a chapter on Philosophy with Children for a special issue of J .O.P.E to be
published in 2009.

Steve Bramall
Dr Steve Bramall BSc MA PhD studied and taught Philosophy of Education at the
University of London Institute of Education and IIUM, China. He is a past executive
member and London Branch organiser for the Philosophy of Education Society of Great
Britain. An experienced teacher educator, Steve currently heads SBA, an independent
provider of education services based in Hertfordshire. Steve is a SAPERE P4C registered
trainer, currently delivering INSET independently and through SAPERE, and lectures at
undergraduate and Masters Level for Oxford Brookes University and the University of
Hertfordshire.

Shirley Egley
Dr Shirley Egley is Director of the M.A. Programmes and the Subject Leader for
Religious Education and Critical and Creative Thinking at the School of Education
University of Wales, Newport. As well as her extensive responsibilities, she also teaches
on the Religious Studies and Philosophy undergraduate programme.

Maughn Gregory
Maughn Gregory, Ph.D., J .D. is Associate Professor of Educational Foundations at
Montclair State University, where he also directs the Institute for the Advancement of
Philosophy for Children and Project THISTLE: Thinking Skills in Teaching and
Learning. He publishes and teaches in the areas of Pragmatism, Political Philosophy,
Philosophy for Children, Philosophy of Education, Gender and Critical Thinking.

Joanna Haynes
Dr Joanna Haynes is a senior lecturer in Educational Studies at the University of
Plymouth. She is a recognised SAPERE teacher trainer, has led many workshops,
presented keynotes and courses for teachers and student teachers on philosophy with
children. J oanna has been involving primary school children in philosophical enquiry for
over a decade and this teaching has provided the basis for her PhD studies, her co-
authorship of the teachers' resource, Storywise; Thinking through Stories, and her book
Children as Philosophers, published by Routledge Falmer. She is currently co-writing
with Karin Murris Philosophical Perspectives on Picturebooks and Pedagogy.

Steve Williams
Steve Williams taught English and Media Studies for 14 years in secondary schools and
served for five years as head of an English department. He helped to found SAPERE, the
Philosophy for Children network in the UK, and was the first person in Britain to
introduce P4C as curriculum subject in a secondary school. Over the years, he has
worked with children of all ages and teachers in a wide variety of schools. He has been
involved with national and international projects in these fields and has worked for five
years as a full-time senior editor for an educational publishing company, editing books
and magazines including Teaching Thinking and Creativity. He is co-director of P4C.com
and works as a freelance teacher, writer, and editor.

References

Hand, Michael. (2008) Can Children be Taught Philosophy; in: M. Hand & C.
Winstanley (eds) Philosophy in Schools. Continuum, pp 3-18.
Ecclestone, K and D. Hayes. (2009) The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education,
London, Routledge.
Laverty, M, and M. Gregory (2007) Evaluating classroom dialogue Reconciling internal
and external accountability, In: Theory and Research in Education, Vol 5(3) 281307.
Suissa, J . (2008) Philosophy in the Secondary School a Deweyan Perspective; in: M.
Hand & C. Winstanley (eds) Philosophy in Schools. Continuum, pp 132-145.
Vansieleghem, N. (2006) Listening to Dialogue; in: Studies in Philosophy and Education.
Vol 25, pp 175-190.
Murris, K (2008) Philosophy with Children, The Stingray and the Educative Value of
Disequilibrium; In: Special Issue of Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 42, No. 3,
2008




i
Karin Murris. Philosophy with Children, the Stingray and the Educative value of Disequilibrium. In:
Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008

ii
The DvD in question is Thinking Allowed (2007) DvD; published by Gallions Primary School, London
(orders@gallions.newham.sch.uk).
iii
S.A.P.E.R.E. stands for the Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in
Education. At present their independent office is at Westminster College, Harcourt Campus, Oxford
Brookes University, UK.

iv
For an excellent article on these fundamental differences between P4Cers and the central question to what
extent P4Cers need to adhere to a particular theory of truth, see Maughn Rollins (1995), Epistemological
Considerations for the Community of Inquiry; In: Thinking, Vol. 12, nr. 2, pp. 31-41. Please note that this
article was written by Maughn Gregory before he changed his name.