A Philosophical Interlude

Yesterday I attended a "round table" (aka 9 rapid-fire talks) on Philosophy for Children, run at LSE by the Forum for European Philosophy. I didn't learn a lot about what Philosophy for Children actually involves in the classroom; in fact I was struck by how closely the advocates for this movement reproduce the language that seems to be used by pretty much anybody advocating a new approach or topic in education: adopt X, they say, and children will acquire "improved reasoning skills, increased self-confidence and improved emotional intelligence" and will support primary teaching aimed at "empowerment, autonomy and dialogue."

Indeed, most of the learning outcomes given in The Philosophy Shop's White Paper almost exactly mirror the outcomes claimed by media educators in primary schools (see for example Bearne and Bazalgette (2010) Beyond Words, UKLA). This is not to sneer at the Philosophy for Children movement, which seems jolly good to me. In fact I was gratified by the extent to which the speakers last night almost all laid more emphasis on the need for different pedagogies, different attitudes to children and their capabilities, more and better teacher training and indeed a whole new approach to education, than they did on making the case for "subject philosophy" to be added to the ever-lengthening wish list of stuff to be crammed into the curriculum. "Gratified", because this reflects the same argument that I have been making since writing my entry for the Manifesto for Media Education which concluded thus:

Lack of attention to media education is a symptom of a much larger malaise in our education system: its failure to take account of children’s and young people’s lives as they are lived now, and may be in the future. Media education won’t save the world, as Julian Sefton-Green said (to the great irritation of many of our comrades) at the 2004 Media Education in Europe Conference. But a radically reformed education system just might.

I wanted to ask all the speakers last night whether they would agree that there might be more to be gained through a broader alliance for progressive reform in education, than through narrow sectoral advocacy, but by the last session it became clear to me that they were all effectively arguing this anyway, though I fear they didn't recognise this. The only ones with immediate advantages to gain from Philosophy for Children (P4C) having a larger public profile will be the providers Sapere and The Philosophy Shop. I'm sure that children can enjoy P4C (with the possible exception of the girl studiously adjusting her trainer laces in the film Peter Worley showed us) but on the whole, children in UK schools - that's all of them, not the independent schools from which most of the examples seemed to come - need a lot more besides.

Easily the most impressive speakers last night (to look at as well as to listen to) were the three philosophers, Katerina Deligiorgi, Angela Hobbs and Vivienne Orchard. They were incisive, articulate, informative and fascinating, and I was too daunted to think of a question; given time, I'd probably have thought of several dozen. In contrast, there was a question I was burning to ask in the last session, but thought of it too late. Phillip Blond welcomed the proposed simplification of the curriculum, so long as "we don't allow any dross to creep in"; John White deplored the fact that in a marketised education sector, schools are at the mercy of unscrupulous salespeople for their resources and training. If they're both right (and I wouldn't argue much with either of them) then I think Jonathan Douglas, who did at least attempt to include remarks on policy, which was what this session was meant to be about, while expressing a somewhat Panglossian optimism about Michael Gove's forthcoming reforms, needs to tell us: who'll identify the dross and how will we keep it out?

Despite a rather downbeat and hesitant style of delivery, only John White's presentation seemed to me in the end to be right on the button. He rightly criticised the earlier speakers' over-emphasis on pedagogy, lack of attention to learning progression and failure to identify clarity and distinctiveness of purpose. Not dissimilar to the kinds of critique I've been offering to media educators for I hate to think how long. The event as a whole left me feeling daunted at the idea of trying to build cross-disciplinary alliances in the name of radical educational reform. I'll just go and get on with my PhD, then.