84

Reflections from Teachers on Philosophy and Teaching

Reflections From Teachers
on Philosophy andTeaching
Philosophy and the Classroom
Teacher
By Linda Oho
Linda Oho (linda_oho@hotmail.com) is a doctoral candidate in theCollege of Education, UH/Manoa and teaches first grade at Wahiawa
Elementary School. She has been a teacher for thirty years and involved with P4C since 1992.

P

hilosophy for Children has been an intimate part of
my life for more than a decade. It is with deliberatethought and intent that I have chosen to use thisword as it best describes the impact that philosophy has had
in my life. It was not always the case that I viewed philosophy to be interesting or useful to me. Rudyard Kipling once
wrote, "East is east and west is west and never the twain
shall meet." This adage seemed to appropriately describe
what I believed to be true with regard to the world of theclassroom teacher and that of the philosopher. Like a Venn
diagram that shares no common space, these two worlds
appeared so unrelated to one another that it was almost
plausible for me to perceive them as entirely separate entities. However, as life would have it, in learning to face allits difficulties and joys, I found myself turning to philosophy to better understand myself as a person. My appreciation for Philosophy for Children did not come all at once. It
was after many years of teaching had passed before things
began to fall into place for me. Factors, both professional
and personal, came into play to fertilize my soil in anticipation for this journey.
On a professional level, at least three events stand out
in my mind. The first seed was planted when I was in mythird year of teaching. It was an event that created somedoubt in my mind and, at the same time, piqued my curiosity. I enjoyed being in the classroom with my children, andI taught them conscientiously as I had been taught as a student and as a pre-service teacher. The transmission modelof teacher as the vessel of knowledge and student as receptor of that knowledge prevailed. This was the frame of reference from which I measured myself. It was in those earlyyears of teaching that I remember puzzling over how I
would challenge my first graders to think. I asked questions
from the back of the basal reader and felt very uncomfortable about the rigidity and narrow exchange of ideas that
occurred. The most frightening part of all was the realization that I did not have the skills necessary to proficiently
model a level and quality of thinking that would help mystudents to pursue their own thoughts at a deeper level. Not
knowing where or how to address this concern, I quietly put
it to rest somew here in the back of my mind. As I continued
to teach in the system, much like quicksand, I sank deeper
and deeper into the rigid schedules, demands and proc edures that were part and parcel of the Department of Education. Being a neophyte teacher at the time, I was soon thrust
into a new school on a new grade level with new curriculum
to learn. While this concern had not yet been addressed, nor
was it at the forefront of my thoughts, it was never forgotten.
The second event which occurred in my professional
career was the introduction of whole language. I began toattend works hops that introduced me to the concept of thewhole child. This was all new to me as my pre-service years
were dominated by the developmental approach of Piaget,
whose theory emphasized optimal stages of learning. Whena child reached one of these stages, then they were "ready"to be taught. Whole language, on the other hand, approached learning from a different point of view. Children
were exposed to concepts using the venue of personal experience as a way of helping students gain meaning in theirlearning. While I did not wholeheartedly buy into all aspects of how one educated the whole child, there were ideas

Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2and principles embedded in this philosophy that resonatedwith my evolving, personal philosophy of education. Those
who saw the value of educating the whole child through"whole language," struggled to put it into practice within asystem that valued a more "lock-step" method to learning.
There was also much resistance from colleagues who could
not see outside of the box from whic h they were taught. At
that time, many of us who took these workshops were under
the impression that "whole language" was a revolutionary
idea. With minimum guidance, I attempted to duplicate aclassroom where choices were given and children's voices
would be heard. Albeit seeing the joy in their faces as they
engaged in their work was rewarding, it was also a major
struggle to set up a classroom modeled on democracy when
the knowledge gained was vague and limited to what waslearned in these workshops. It was not until many years
later that I realized that the conceptof the whole child was grounded in
the educational research of John
Dewey. Knowing that "whole language" was grounded in Dewey's
works would have alleviated some of
my doubts and provided me with theneeded guidance to better understanddemocracy in the classroom setting.
The third, and probably the mostinfluential event that further nourished my thinking came just a few
years later. I had heard about the
project called Philosophy for Children or P4C. It focused on helping
students to develop their abilities tothink for themselves in responsible
ways. This was to be accomplishedby the "doing" of philosophical inquiry within a community. The internalization of these thinking skills
would come with practice, and overtime the application of these skills toother disciplines would become second nature. In this project, the development of higher order thinking
skills is encouraged in the community of inquiry, nestledwithin a safe place. This was a place where all voices werevalued and respected. It is within this setting that membersof the community reflect and engage in inquiry that is bothdynamic and relevant to their own lives. The ideas that I
valued in the education of the whole child seemed to dovetail with the essential elements of Philosophy for Children.
As a result, I decided to enroll in the workshop. Even after"doing" philosophy with my children for a couple of years,
I had not yet internalized what it meant to engage in a philosophical discussion. I was still operating under the assumption that learning to do higher order thinking was nodifferent than learning any other methodology. The expectation that I would follow some prescribed approach that85

would yield the desired results, clearly, did not materialize.
In fact, because the parameters of P4C were different fromthat of a traditional curriculum, I struggled to understandand “master” it. Such a mentality presumed that one would
be able to take from the outside and somehow magicallytransform the way students think. Then in 1992, I had theopportunity of a lifetime to work under the mentorship ofDr. Thomas Jackson of the Philosophy Department on the
Manoa campus. While I felt honored to work with Dr. J, I
was also a little apprehensive as my vision of what it meant
to be involved in philosophy was of an esoteric nature. I
began to question myself and thinking, "What am I doing
here?" Although I had been in the project for two years, I
felt like a fraud. What did I know about philosophy? My
only experience had been an introductory course back when
I was a college student. For the most part, I studied thethoughts of famous philosophers and what was elucidated
throughout history. These profound thoughts certainly did
not enter or exist in my own
mind. I wondered and worried
about how I would do justice
to my job and be a credible
source of support and help toothers.
On a personal level, as I
continued to work on this project, I slowly became more
and more cognizant of theclose relationship between
philosophy and myself as aperson as I began to value myown thinking. This change
within me came when a gentle
soul, disguised as a philosopher, literally took me by thehand and ushered me into aplace that was always unintelligible, unsafe and terrifying tome in the past. I think back of
the time when I was at Dr.
Jackson's home. In his very down to earth manner, he was
explaining to Chris, another teacher in the project, and me
about Plato's allegory of the cave. Just the idea of discussing philosophical matters felt uncomfortable and out ofplace to me. But on that day, as Dr. J patiently and humorously walked us through that allegory, I found a new window opening up in my mind. Like the people chained in
Plato's cave, our reality is based on the belief that what weare experiencing is real. If for a moment one were to accept
Plato's thinking that what we believe to be reality are
merely shadows, one could either go into denial and continue to exist in the same way, or one could begin to challenge that thought. The acceptance of the status quo without
question places one in a passive state. At some level, the86connection between thoughts and actions would be obvious,
but the examination of that relationship would appear redundant and pointless. On the other hand, challenging thatthought would compel one to raise questions about practices and ideas that are often taken for granted as truth. I
spent a great deal of time thinking about this allegory, and I
recognized myself in that cave. At that point in my life, taking risks and making changes were not high on my priority
list. My fears were based on two beliefs. The first had to dowith sec urity. I believed that I was safe, secure and happy
so why would I feel the need to risk or make changes thatthreatened my comfort zone? As it was, the need for me tostep outside of this zone came not by my own choosing. Because life's wind can shift at any given moment, what wasonce calm and peaceful became a turbulent, unsettling place
to be. Understanding the nature of change as being part oflife has allowed me to loosen the chains of security that I
once held onto so tightly. The second belief was that things
were always done in a particular way and, therefore, thatmust be the only way to do it. When changes occur,whether expected or unexpected, the need to adjust andadapt becomes critical to one's survival, and the familiar
ways of resolving problems may no longer be useful. The
allegory of the cave allowed me to examine myself andsituations that opened my mind to different options and perspectives. I began to recognize and understand my own
fears a little better. Each day I would remind myself to continue to loosen my own chains because I know how easy it
is to fall back into that place where we begin to believe onlyin shadows. Perhaps people, in general, deny their state ofcaptivity or choose to remain chained because it is the easier thing to do. Becoming liberated from these chains requires one to be vigilant, always tending to the fires that
seek truth. Being mindful to this fire is paramount lest one
fall back into captivity. Philosophy for Children has broughta heightened awareness of the quality of one's power tothink as it affects one's actions. When Socrates says that theunexamined life is not worth living, it now holds incredible
meaning to me and I have come to understand the wisdom
behind these words. While words of wisdom may comefrom an extrinsic source, it is not wisdom to the individual
until it becomes personally meaningful. For me, Philosophy
for Children has provided me a way to think about life,strengthening that connection between my thoughts and myactions, allowing me to grow both personally and professionally. Eleven years have passed since I questioned anddoubted my ability to do this work. I have yet to "arrive" as
my journey continues to unfold, reminding me that there ismuch to learn. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps
one never "arrives" because it is the journey, itself, thatbrings growth to one's life. I now realize that the world of
the classroom teacher and the philosopher, indeed, are notseparate entities but exist and evolve together as one. The
knowledge that philosophy is an integral part of my life anddefines who I am, are my credentials for doing this workthat I love.

Reflections from Teachers on Philosophy and Teaching

P4C: The Four C’s in Philosophy
for Children
By Elaine Roumasset
Elaine Roumasset (ebbrmst @hawaii.rr.com) is a 2nd grade teacher at
Haha’ione Elementary School and has been teaching for 22 years.
She holds a teaching credential from U.C. Davis. She has been involved with P4C since 1992.

T

he Philosophy in the Schools Project in Hawaii isfounded on an intellectually safe community of children where inquiry occurs and where no one person
knows or has the answer(s). Philosophy for Children promotes four C’s: Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, Caring Thinking and Children’s Thinking. Many programs focus on one or two of these areas, but P4C is the first andonly program, to my knowledge, that addresses all four areas, thus making it a philosophy for living, i.e., an intellectually safe community of children where thinking and wonder are encouraged.
When P4C was first mentioned at a faculty meeting at
my school as a means to promote and improve criticalthinking amongst the students, I was one of its biggest critics because I had already suffered through two philosophy
classes as an undergraduate student at the university andboth were so boring and inapplicable to my world. So, how
was I to teach a class of second graders philosophy when I
myself couldn’t get stimulated as a college student? The
two teachers who urged us to adopt this program were wellrespected seasoned faculty members and we trusted their
judgment. We, therefore, agreed to investigate this projectand invited its Hawaii founder, Dr. Thomas Jacks on fromthe Philosophy Department at the University of Hawaii totalk to us. What he shared with us was so unlike the classes
I had taken in his very own department. Dr. Jackson talked
about children engaged in conversation in an intellectually“safe” place. Children and adults alike would sit in a circle
and build a community in our classrooms where critical andcreative thinking were encouraged and ideas were supported with reasons. It would be similar to King Arthur’sround table where there would be no head and everyone
would be equal. I could not believe what I was hearing.
There would be no lecturing and no memorization of philosophers’ names and their claim to fame. After an intensive week of training of the entire faculty that summer wewelcomed philosophy graduate students into our rooms one
period a week for a year to help guide us through this project. They would be the philosophy teachers modeling for
us how to promote inquiry in this community circle. We, inturn, would help to keep the students focused and engaged
while also being a part of the community of inquirers. What
proceeded to happen was incredible. Children participatedin an intellectual discussion like I had never heard or seen
before. They were sharing their ideas about things I never
dreamed they were capable of or even interested in. They

Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2

talked about what was real and not real, what was beyond
the blue sky, and whether they could have more than one
name and if changing their names would change who they
were. They discussed things to which I thought I knew all
the answers and no discussion was necessary. I remember
the first session when the question, “If you jumped off athree-story building would you be hurt?” was posed. My
immediate thought was, “Of course you’d be hurt!” Anydummy could tell you that. Then came a student’s reply,“No, not necessarily.” My eyes almost popped out of myhead. I thought, “What? Are you insane? Maybe you don’tknow how high three stories really are.” The student thenfollowed up with his reason. “If I were wearing a parachute
I may not get hurt.” And then another student, upon hearing
the first, responded with, “Not if there were a mattress atthe bottom that could cushion my fall lik e for a stuntman.”
I then realized that maybe I don’t have all the answers andit really was not necessary. So began my introduction to
P4C. I realized that learning is a two-way process between
student and teacher.
P4C also taught me about the necessity for “think time”
for students and the importance of seeking reasons behind
their statements. I have seen students come up with profound ideas given the time to formulate them. Because thevocabulary of second graders is limited, it is sometimes
harder for them to express what they are thinking. As Dr.
Jackson continues to iterate, “We aren’t in a hurry to getthere, but we’ll get there. Frequently simple statements
made by students are packed with logical reasoning thatteachers fail to investigate because the students’ ideas fall“outside the box” and are misunderstood as responses that
do not make sense. We need to slow down and take the time
to listen to what these students want to say.
So, when I was recently asked to address the question,“Why do you teach Philosophy for Children?” I excitedly
accepted. However, I think one would get a better sense of
its impact on education and the reason for my teaching it for
more than ten years from my second graders when I posed asimilar question to them. I asked, “What would the world
be like if there were no P4C?” One child answered,“Children would not be able to learn and think. It is really
good to stretch your mind because if you don’t stretch yourmind then it will be hard to think. I also think P4C is important because it lets air into our minds to think.” Discussions
that occur during a P4C session expand their thinking process and one sees creative thinking occurring. The students
begin to think outside of the box and start looking at the
many possibilities of any given situation, i.e., as in the earlier example of the session when students were asked aboutjumping off of a three-story building. They become creative
thinkers and because they are not taught to put limits on
their thinking, the discussion becomes richly innovative andthought provoking. The students begin to think like inventors, artists, composers, poets or any other creative genius.
When we evaluate our philosophy session at the end of
the period we see whether critical and/or creative thinking

87

occurred by asking them whether or not individuals had“scratched beneath the surface” or not. Students know when
they are challenged to think or not and they can discern if
the discussion was meaningful or not. The students know
when they have given their minds a good workout because
there is intellectual sparring occurring. The children question each other by asking, “What do you mean by…?” orask to have a point clarified. They also learn how to accept
each other’s reasons and explanations as either being logical or illogical by giving their own reason(s) for agreeing or
disagreeing or by providing counterexamples to show fallacies in their assumptions. Students may also ask someone to
explain a point more clearly by saying, “I don’t understandwhat you are saying. Can you say it again?” After careful
listening and evaluating they even change their own minds
because they see a more reasonable answer to a question.
P4C has empowered children to use inquiry as a means toimprove their ability to think and have their voices heard.
On occasion we have even skipped recess to continue ourinquiry or continued well into the second hour to finish our
discussion. P4C provides children with an opportunity tothink critically as well as creatively during these inquiry
sessions.
Another child wrote, “Nobody will be safe and nobody
will learn. Children would be shy. They would not shareideas. If that happened they would not gain knowledge.” At
the beginning of the year we talk about how we need to listen to the words and ideas of the person rather than focus on
who is the speaker. In other words, just because someone
happens to be your friend or not is not a good reason toagree or disagree. It is all right to disagree with a friend because we disagree with what the person has said and notwith them as a person. Thus, the seed is planted very earlyin their minds that it is good to have intellectual discussions. They realize an exchange of ideas can improve theirthinking and is healthy if done in a caring and respectfulmanner. I can safely say my students feel truly safe to share
their ideas with one another. In fact, the children feel sosafe that in the early years when we were first implementing P4C in the classroom, Dr. Jackson would sit in our inquiry circle and participate as a member of that community.
The children knew we were having a university professor
visit and yet they felt safe enough to openly disagree withhim and give reasons as to why they did so. They would
openly explain how they had found a counterexample to hisargument. His stature, both physical and intellectual, did not
intimidate them in the least because they knew that it was
all right to disagree as long as they could support it withgood reasons and do it in a caring manner.
So if you ask me why I teach philosophy, I can truly
say that it has helped me improve as a teacher. I have become a better listener and I now listen to the students’voices and what they are saying. Our class discussions arericher with a lot more participation. I no longer accept answers at face value, even from Special Education and ESLL
(English for Second Language Learners) students. In P4C

88

Reflections from Teachers on Philosophy and Teachingsessions everyone is equal. No one person dominates theconversation or has all the right answers. And, everyone has
a voice should they choose to speak. It continues to truly
amaze me to see these 7- and 8-year olds discuss a topic
without an adult leading them. For many this is a time when
they discover their voices and feel secure enough to speak
up inside the P4C circle. I have seen this happen with children whose former teachers have told me refuse to speak
up. Once they feel the safety of not being condemned fortheir thoughts and feelings, these students slowly begin toblossom and become active participants in the community.
P4C has helped these children to find their safety net. And,
their ability to think critically, creatively and caringly has
helped them to develop into the person that was hiddenfrom us. P4C is truly remarkable and both teacher and students who have implemented it have realized its worth.
When questioning my grandson who was recently involvedin a P4C session about what it felt like to have his voiceheard by adults, his reply was, “I feel stronger than mydaddy.”

Aretêic Philosophy for Children
By Steve Bein
Steve Bein (bujinbugeijutsu@hotmail.com) is a Ph.D. candidate inphilosophy at UH/Manoa where he specializes in Japanese philosophy and ethics. He is also a Title I teacher at Waikiki School. He recently published a comparative article on Watsuji Tetsuro and Martin
Heidegger in the on-line journal for Asian Studies on the Pacific
Coast, as well as an award-winning short story in volume XIX of L.
Ron Hubbard's Writers of the Future. He has been involved with P4C
since 1997.

P

atience, they say, is a virtue. That may be, but it iscertainly not one of mine. Becoming more patient
has been annually renewed as my New Year’s resolution for some time now, and with little success. I cannot
blame the insignificance of my progress in this matter on alack of advice. On the contrary, those who want to become
more patient will never be left wanting for counsel: selfhelp books and the sagacity of friends and relatives are always available in abundance. The problem, of course, isthat in order to develop patience, one needs to be patientenough to apply such wisdom on a sustained basis. I am
bound in a catch-22: the only way to develop patience
seems to be to have patience in the first place.
There is exactly one activity in life in which I reliably
demonstrate patience, and in this arena I feel endowed —much to my own surprise — with almost limitless serenity
and tolerance. I am undoubtedly most patient when doing
philosophy with children. I know this both introspectively
and because of the remarks of others. The teachers I workwith sometimes compliment me on how very patient I am,
only to have me correct them — this time to their surprise — that this is only true of me in the classroom. In conversation with adults my instinct is to react immediately toanything said which I feel to be incorrect. But when sitting
in a circle on the floor of a classroom, the children sittingwith me can do no wrong. My first instinct is not to correct
but to seek clarification. To my ears the children are almost
incapable of saying “stupid” things; they can only say
things I am not sure I fully understand, things I am sure I
will make sense of once I more fully adopt the child’s perspective.
This is certainly not the case for me when speaking
with adults. They are more than capable of being stupid; on
my less patient days, I seem to be the only adult who canreliably say anything intelligent at all. I am not writing thisto insult my readers, nor to lament my own personal failings, nor to warn people that I am not the friendliest personin the world. I am writing to describe at least one of P4C’s
effects outside of the classroom environment. The methodology of doing philosophy with children is, in my experience, uniquely capable of developing certain personal virtues, that this development can happen in both teachers andstudents, and that this can be seen as one of P4C’s greatest
merits.
Aristotle developed an ethical philosophy based on thecultivation of aretê, or “virtue.” According to Aristotle, human beings are capable of cultivating a great number of virtues within themselves, and these virtues — such as wisdom, temperance, courage, generosity, and so on — are thewellspring of human goodness and flourishing. For Aristotle, the primary goal of ethics is not to derive some formula or principle by which we can discover what the properanswer is to an ethical dilemma. Rather, the goal is to develop the virtues such that one becomes a person of goodcharacter, trusting that the truly virtuous person can be relied upon to correctly resolve all ethical dilemmas. My contention is that philosophy for children can be seen as engaging in a very similar project, and that it can cultivate virtues
not only in students but also in their teachers. Philosophy
for children is therefore potentially an aretêic endeavor, onethat cultivates virtue in its participants.
I will not develop an argument in defense of this position. My experience tells me it is self-evident, and is therefore accompanied by the strength and weakness of all selfevident claims: those who accept them require no arguments, and for those who do not accept them no argument
will be convincing. My aim is to show how and why P4C
has been an aretêic endeavor in my own life, and to recommend its practice based on its potential for self-cultivationand self-transformation.
An initial observation many may have is that doing philosophy with children has nothing to do with the story I told
about my own patience: might it not be the case that I am
more patient with children in general, no matter what I happen to be doing with them, and that what I should be con-Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2

cerned about is my lack of patience with adults? Both of thelatter claims are true: I am generally more patient when
dealing with children, and if I want to be a happier person I
should try to figure out how to be more patient with adults.
But it is not the case that I was patient with children first,
and then extended my patience to the realm of P4C. Rather,
I am afraid I was a generally impatient person in all aspectsof life until I started doing P4C.
How does P4C itself account for the change? The “GoodThinker’s Toolkit” developed by Thomas Jackson contains
part of the answer: I think the question “what do you meanby that?” is a powerful tool in developing tolerance of others’ ideas. When sitting behind the wheel of a car, I rarely
think, “that was an interesting way to make a left turn” or“my, that’s quite an accomplishment, cutting off threewhole lanes with a car that small.” I do not seek to interpretthe other drivers’ behavior: I let the insults fly.
In order to do this, my immediate assumption must bethat I know what I’m doing, and that the fool in front of me(though ordinarily I don’t use the word “fool”) clearly has
no idea how to drive. In some cases this is entirely true.
However, the initial assumption was essentially that theother person was in the wrong. This assumption is rejected
whenever one is prepared to ask, “what do you mean by
that?” It may still be that the other person is wrong. Indeed,that may even still be a lingering suspicion, but in the moment one asks, “what do you mean by that?” one is allowing for the possibility of the other’s being correct. When the“W” question is asked honestly, a fundamental shift in attitude takes place: the default position is now that the othersees things correctly, and that the questioner is the one whodoes not fully understand.
Similarly, the drive to seek out assumptions, examples
and counterexamples — the “A,” “E” and “C” letters of thetoolkit — also indicates a shift in attitude. Were I to try tothink of examples in my own past behavior similar to thatof the moron in front of me cutting off three lanes of traffic,
I do not doubt I could find one. If I were evaluate my assumptions about the other driver, I might realize that I haveoverlooked the possibility that this person is fifteen and one
half years old, has never driven before, is paying more attention to the nerve-wracking screams of the parent in thepassenger seat than to the surrounding traffic, and would
really appreciate it if some of the other drivers on the roadwould cut a kid a little slack. I might realize that, were I in
this poor teenager’s position, the last thing in the world thatwould help me drive intelligently is to hear the blaring hornof the impatient driver behind me. If I really wracked mybrain, I might be able to come up with some situation that
constitutes a counterexample to the thesis that this partic ular driving maneuver is irretrievably stupid.
But impatience threatens to render one incapable of thiskind of thought. Indeed, it seems impatience is opposed tophilosophical thinking. Identifying assumptions, examples,and counterexamples requires time, and impatience is notwilling to linger. Impatience demands only superficial

89

analyses of situations so that it can move on. It does not
scratch beneath the surface of things, while on the other
hand the whole point of philosophy can be said to be
scratching beneath the surface, getting under the skin totake a look at the core of what is at stake.
Now if this is the case, if philosophical thinking is diametrically opposed to the attitude of impatience, whyshould children enter the picture? All I have said so far istrue of philosophy itself, not P4C. True, the good thinker’s
toolkit is a pedagogical device of P4C, but it need not be —and indeed should not be — restricted to dialogues withchildren. Why was it not philosophy but philosophy withchildren that helps me cultivate the aretê of patience?
There are several potential answers to this question.
One is that when philosophy is taught to adults, it is often
presented as an antagonistic discipline. Philosophers speakof “shooting down,” “sinking,” and “defeating” arguments,of “shoring up” and “defending” their own positions. These
are all militaristic terms. There are professors of analytic
philosophy who speak of “the three D’s” when dealing withanother philosopher’s argument in term papers: the student
is to Define the terms and scope of the argument, Defend
the argument in the strongest possible terms, and then Destroy it. A fundamental assumption of this approach to philosophy must be that the “opponent” is wrong, for surely weshould only wish to destroy arguments that are incorrect.
Rather than teaching patience, this approach to philosophy
will actually tend to encourage impatience, for not only
does it begin with the same assumption in which impatienceis grounded — namely, that others are by default incorrect — but it provides one with the intellectual tools to“defeat” others in arguments (with such “victories” often
being interpreted as proof of one’s own correctness).
A second reason doing philosophy with adults does notnecessarily encourage patience is because certain assumptions seem to be more universally shared, assumptions
which thereby escape scrutiny. When adults engage in discussions of metaphysics, for instance, they often share an
initial agreement of what counts as real and unreal. The
only questions, then, are why reality works the way it does;
the what of reality is often left unexamined. This kind of
discussion can be immeasurably deepened by such notablephilosophical figures as Santa Claus. The question ofwhether Santa Claus is real is a legitimate problem of metaphysics provided one is willing to respect it as such. The
trouble is that respect and intellectual openness are difficult
to come by when everyone in the discussion shares thesame pre-conceived answer to the question.
Children challenge many of our philosophical presuppositions, and in doing so they renew our ability to engage
subjects with respect and intellectual honesty. Too often
philosophical problems are of merely academic interest to
adults. The question of the reality of Santa Claus is of theutmost practical importance when you are six years old,particularly when it is late December. In my own case, doing philosophy with children reminded me that I do not90know what is at stake even with such “elementary” questions as whether or not Santa Claus is real. (Did you know,for example, that Santa Claus has a magic key that can open
any door or window? Having grown up in a house with achimney, I was never aware of it; it was a first grader living
in an apartment complex who taught me this.) Children reacquainted me with what intellectual honesty is really all
about.
Of course there is a last feature of P4C as we do it in
Hawai‘i that directly cultivates patience: the foundational
principle that when doing philosophy we must not be in arush to get somewhere. All too many teachers have lamented the fact that they are too hurried throughout the day.
Their syllabi are so demanding: they must make their students meet such-and-such a standard by such-and-such adate, they have so little time and so much to teach, while atthe same time additional subjects are being forced into thecurriculum. Educators are trained as greyhounds aretrained: to cross finish lines in a hurry. Anyone who hasever taken in a racing greyhound as a pet after its track career knows how difficult it can be to take these poor dogs
for walks. It’s something like having a perpetually popping
kernel of popcorn on the end of the leash; “jittery” scarcely
begins to describe an ex-racing dog. Educators often feelthe same nerves: there are so many finish lines to be crossedin the course of a school day.
Philosophy should be less like a race and more like aleisurely walk in the woods: if you don’t stop to enjoy thescenery, you’re missing the point. It’s not the case that thehiker doesn’t get anywhere. Eventually the end of the trail
is found, but the journey itself was the destination. An educator’s training can encourage impatience because of thepressure to cross finish lines, but philosophical education
demands a more relaxed approach, and therefore serves tocounteract the cultivation of impatience and encourage its
opposite. I know I am not the only one who thinks so. The
teachers I work with have described P4C as “coming up forair” in the middle of a hectic day, and even as giving theirkids a chance to “sit back and enjoy their education.” This
is not to say that children cannot enjoy their other subjects,
but both students and teachers recognize a certain pressure
being lifted when it comes time to sit in a circle and do
P4C.
My professional and academic training describe me as aphilosopher and an educator. As both philosophers and educators are too often driven to develop habits that encourage
impatience, perhaps it is not entirely my own fault that I
find it difficult to demonstrate patience. On the other hand,
perhaps it was my natural impatience that led me to bothphilosophy and education, fields in which my impatiencemight be disguised. Whatever the causes of my lack of patience may be, the techniques, practices, and overall intellectual environment of P4C have proven uniquely therapeutic.
Please do not misunderstand me: I am not claiming thatdoing philosophy with adults is necessarily harmful, nor

Reflections from Teachers on Philosophy and Teachingthat the teaching profession inherently encourages intolerance and hasty judgment, nor that P4C will automaticallymake one a more patient person. On the contrary, I believethat philosophical dialogue is immeasurably important, andthat many intellectual virtues can be cultivated through it. I
believe that teachers demonstrate exemplary patience andunderstanding on a daily basis. And I believe both that cultivating patience demands a great deal of personal effort,
and that P4C can encourage the cultivation of a host of virtues beyond patience. Curiosity, open-mindedness, introspection, self-respect, respect for others, intellectual honesty, and wisdom are some of the many virtues, both intellectual and moral, to be cultivated through the practice of
P4C. My central claim here has been only this: like philosophy, P4C is potentially an aretêic practice, and its aretêic
benefits beyond the classroom are potentially as importantas anything that happens in class. In my own case P4C has
been a transformative, life-altering experience, and this potential for self-transformation is as strong a recommendation for doing P4C as any of its in-class benefits.

My First Experience With
Philosophy for Children
By Laurie Tam
Laurie Tam (rara1dutch@aol.com) is a 1st grade teacher at Waikiki
School and has been teaching for 6 years. She is working on her M.A
at UH/Manoa on elementary education with an emphasis on earlychildhood. She has been involved with P4C for 1 year.

Philosophy for Children , also known as P4C, wasfirst introduced to me in the school year 2001-2002
when my fellow co-workers began implementing itin their classrooms. I began to hear so much positive feedback from their sessions that I decided to try it the following year. Philosophy for Children is not just a way ofteaching. It is a way of thinking. It makes you analyze
more and gets you to see many other points of view. Cognitive development, critical thinking skills and social skills
develop over the sessions.
Waikiki School is a small elementary school in the
Honolulu District from grades kindergarten through sixth
grade. There are primarily two classrooms per grade levelwith the exception of one grade that has three and one
combo class. The average enrollment is about 330 students.
The majority of the students are Asian.
When P4C was introduced to our faculty by Dr. Thomas E. Jackson of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, eightout of fifteen classroom teachers participated. Currently,
thirteen out of fifteen teachers are using Philosophy forChildren in their classroom.
I have to admit that using Philosophy for Children was
not easy at first. Because it was my first year using the pro-Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2gram in the classroom, two people from the University of
Hawaii program came to help me. I teach first grade withtwenty-one students. In the beginning it does seem like total chaos. I felt as though all I was doing was behavior
management and it was driving me crazy. It was hard forme to just “let the children go” in the discussions. There
were times when I thought nothing happened in the discussion when something really did. The students were gettingused to the format and were learning the Magic Words andTool Kit but I could not see the purpose of why I was doing
this and I could not see what the students were getting out
of it. I began to doubt how this program would benefit mystudents. There were so many other things that needed tobe covered under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. It
really felt like a waste of time. But, I stuck it out and I am
so grateful that I did. I started taking notes of the discussions and this is what really showed me what was happening during the discussions. When I’d get home and re-readthe notes, I began to notice the depth of the
discussions. Sometimes the adults in thegroup didn’t understand what was happening but the children did.
For example, during Christmas, we had
a discussion about how Santa knows ifyou’ve been naughty or nice. The children
began to say that maybe Santa has a magiceye. “That’s how he knows!” I had to ask
what that was and it was explained by another child that it is from the Japanese cards
called Yu-Gi-Oh. It’s fake eye that allows
you to see things. For instance, if you areholding a card and I can’t see it, the magiceye will allow you to see what card the person is holding. “It’s cheat!” according to
one student.
The benefits to using Philosophy forChildren are unimaginable. Discussions areoften about things that we are learning
about in class. Most of the time the students vote on topic s
to discuss. We started the program in the second quarter ofthe school semester. Now we are in the fourth quarter. The
discussions have become very philosophical. Disagreements and agreements go back and fourth. Children who
have been passive have begun participating more frequently. Even children who have English as a second language are able to participate in discussions. Recently thechildren had a discussion about water and could not decideif ice came from water or water came from ice. Some of
the things they said were:
It comes from cold air.
But how does it get into the sky.
If water is blue then how come the clouds are white?
How does it rain? There’s no one up in the sky holding
the ice.
Why don’t we turn into ice if it’s really cold?
The topics for discussions do not always come from the91

curriculum. Some of the topics that students have discussed
are about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Easter, sea animals
and water. It doesn’t matter if an answer is right or wrong.
Giving students a voice in a society where they are often
unheard can be very powerful.
Students learn to justify their answers by giving reasons. They learn to agree and disagree with others. They
begin to see that they don’t always have to agree withother’s opinions. They make connections to things they
have been learning about at home or school. Students become more inquisitive during discussions. They begin to
ask more questions or make inferences. The thinking doesn’t stop at the end of the sessions. There is a carry over into
other subject areas. The journal writings from the children
are much more detailed. They explain and give reasonsmore. After our sessions, I began to have the children write
about it. They often evaluate themselves in their journals.
There is no required time limit to using Philosophy forChildren. However, it is critical to take into
account age appropriateness. Younger children will not and should not be required to sit
for long periods of time. Take your cues
from the students. When they start squirming
or start becoming bored with the topic it isbest to stop. Some sessions may be longer
than others. I have had discussions last from
fifteen minutes to about an hour. Sometimes
it is hard to stop them.
During our talk about water, two girls became very involved in the topic and began aconversation between just the two of them. I
was amazed that the rest of the class just sat
and listened. They were making very
thoughtful agreements and disagreements towards each other.
I feel that Philosophy for Children has
great benefits for children. I have experienced less behavior problems in class because of the sense of community. Cognitive development iscurrently on the top of list for educators and this is where
Philosophy for Children helps. The first two objectives
from Goal three of Goals 2000 state that “The academic
performance of all students at the elementary and secondary
level will increase significantly every quartile” and “Thepercentage of all students who demonstrate the ability toreason, solve problems, apply knowledge and write andcommunicate effectively will increase substantially.”1 Philosophy for Children will help accomplish this goal.
I have seen the growth in the children. It is not easy at
first, but my advice is to stick it out. It is exciting to hear
the children for once in a world where they are hardly heard
at all. The benefits to using the program overflow into
other subject areas. It does work!
1(http://ww.ed/gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw10/eptw101.html, http:www.
negp.gov/page3-7.htm

92

Reflections from Teachers on Philosophy and Teaching

Thoughts on P4C
By JoAnn Soong
JoAnn Soong (jo_ann_soong/alawai/hidoe@notes.k12.hi.us) is a 2nd
grade teacher at Ala Wai Elementary School and has been teachingfor 20 years. She holds an M.A in education from UH/Manoa. She has
been involved with P4C since 1997.

W

hy would I continue to do P for C with so manyother things put upon teachers to do in theclassroom? Why would I continue to do P for
C when in recent years other teachers have not continued?
Is it because “the philosopher” and funny Dr. J comes andjoins us? Is it because a graduate assistant comes to help inthe dialogue? Is it because that’s a period I can fill in mylesson plan book?
Here are my thoughts. . .
I have engaged in Philosophy for Children for a numberof years and I have seen and experienced how P for C has
engaged the students and me in discussions that don’t takeplace any other time during the day.
We can talk about our thinking andquestion our ideas and others within
this safe environment where there isrespect, trust, and learning.
We sit in a circle, a symbol that
ALL is important and not just one.
There is a community ball, made ofpieces of yarn rolled together by eachchild. There are extra yarn put in torepresent all others who join us. So
each individual IS important in thecircle and the individuals together
make the community. The ball ispassed around in our P for C discussions, so children are heard one at atime. Interestingly, one would thinkthat I as the teacher would naturally
get the ball whenever my hand israised, but at times, students willpass me to engage whomever theywant to. That is good because they are really engaging
themselves in dialogue and they are learning from eachother.
That brings me to an important thing P for C has mademe do. LISTEN. There is a topic of discussion. There is aformat for discussion. But I am not there to push a point or
to teach a lesson. There is learning, but the learning comesfrom the engagement of discussion. Emphasis is not onright or wrong, but rather on the right for any individual toshare their thoughts and to question other people’s thoughts
in responsible ways. So we need to listen and respect what
each individual has to say.
I am a participant. I also take the role of facilitator, so
with P for C I take both a front and back seat approach (andnot a back seat driver approach). I could ask a question, set
a way to decide on a topic, interject an idea, remind thecommunity on the agreements of discussion, and then take aback seat to let the exchange go or let the community decide. When I think about this, maybe the students need me
as a facilitator in the beginning of the year, but I can see
how by the latter part of the year, students could be the facilitator themselves. What a unique opportunity for themand for me too.
We have had many different people come and join us in
our P for C discussions. One thing that is interesting to me
are the comments people make of the students. Not awareof the backgrounds of the students, they can just be amazedat some of the ideas and thoughts brought out by various
students, even from special education students or students
with a second language. For me, one of the highlights iswhen a shy, quiet child will, for the first time, raise his /herhand and say, “I think. . . .”With all the concern of standards and the quality of education, to me this is where students are learning to“communicate effectively in groups
and demonstrate tolerance for individual and cultural differences.”
The students get “involved in complex thinking and problem solving.” (Quotes taken from the General Learner Outcomes of the Hawaii Content and PerformanceStandards.) In discussions, one
would hear “What do you
mean. . .?” “I disagree with . . . because. . .” “Can you give an example?” “That’s an example.”“That’s a counter example.” “If . . .
then. . .” “You’re assuming. . . isthat true?” Students learn to engage
in discussions in such responsible
ways as the above. How much
more important for them to learn
these tools for thinking while they
are engaged in discussions fromtopics like what’s in a name, war
and peace, good and bad, and comparisons of things. Topics that are brought out in literature, math, social studies,and science can be brought to discussion. The students
learn how to respond to the multitude of information andopinions they receive from their environment.
P for C goes even further in having students evaluate
their own performance. Another general learner outcome
calls for “the ability to recognize and produce quality performance.” At the end of the session each person in the circle responds with thumbs up, thumbs down, thumbs sideways. “Was it safe?” (Did we have a safe place where
each person could share their thoughts?) “How was our listening? “Did we maintain a focus?” “How was our partic ipation?” “Did I learn something new?” “Did we challenge

Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, Volume 17, Numbers 1 & 2

our thinking?” “Did we scratch beneath the surface?” Examples are given in our response to these questions. And if
there is thumbs down, then what do we need to remember
the next time?
The next time for P for C is not just the next time wemeet in a circle as I see how we engage in these ways of
discussion in other parts of the day. We read literature andwe see examples of how the author engages the reader. We
give reasons why the character said or acted that way. We
do math and we wonder if this is so, then what happens
here. Can we assume there is only one strategy to solve thismathematical problem? We learn about the histories ofpeople and we wonder what does that mean for us today?
There is a conflict in the playground and one asks, “Did you
assume that? Is that true. . .?” So the “tools of thinking”
the students learn and engage in P for C can be usedthroughout the day.
The power of Philosophy for Children is in providing
the opportunity for the children and all those involved inthat circle to engage in thinking and the sharing of thatthinking in responsible ways. That comes with respecting
each person and creating that safe environment where each
person can feel comfortable to engage or not to engage indiscussion. That engagement comes with listening to what
others have to say. Then the response can include an agreement, a disagreement with reason, a verifying with example, or even silence. Then at the end of that time, the children and the other participants can take a step back and ask,
“How did we do?”. That reflection is important for us tolearn from each other how to think and communicate better.

P4C: A Librarian’s Perspective
By Frances T.Y. Higashi
Francis T. Y. Higashi (dakine736@yahoo.com) has been a librarian
at Waikiki school for 13 years. She holds an M.A. in Library and Information Studies from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She has
been involved with P4C for 1 year.

A

couple of years ago when I returned to school aftermaternity leave, I discovered that the library had
been invaded! Strangers lead by a tall gentleman
whom they referred to as “Dr J” invaded the library every
Thursday at approximately 2:30p.m. They did not speak
much, but went busily about their work arranging chairs ina circular formation. Then as if called by some unknown
source many of the teachers from our school would slowly
stroll in and take a seat in this strange formation.
The strangers, teachers and the one known as “Dr. J”
had a strange ritual of passing around one of the stuffed animals that I used to decorate the library (they selected a different “chosen one” each time). I noticed that only the person who was holding was holding the “chosen one” was93

allowed to speak, which was sometimes in a foreign language. As far as I could understand they said things like,“IDUS”, “POPAAT”, “SPLAT”, and “LMO”. Everyone
seemed to understand this strange language and the conversation seemed to revolve around a central theme or topic,
but sometimes after saying the word “LMO” the topic ofconversation would often change. “Dr. J” would sometimes
throw cards, with a single letter on them, on the floor andthe conversation would seem to be redirected in some mysterious way.
The most amazing thing that I observed about thisstrange gathering was the vast array of feelings and emotions shared by the group. They sometimes cried, but manytimes I noticed them laughing and enjoying themselves
thoroughly. They didn’t always agree about things andmany people shared opposing views about certain issues,
but in the end they always left the room with a look of contentment. This strange behavior intrigued me and I inquiredof my best friend what this whole thing was about. She told
me that it was “P4C”, or “Philosophy For Children.” My
friend Staci told me that she was using “P4C” with the students in her classroom, and that “Dr. J” and a graduate student named “Chip” were helping her. She told me that theThursday gathering was a time for them to share their successes, “AHA’s”, and of course, challenges.
Now, everything started to make sense and I was excitedabout what the teachers, and the strangers were doing in theclassroom! When it came time again to sign up to partic ipate in “P4C”, I quickly jumped at the opportunity. I don’t
have a regular class to conduct “P4C”, but I was sure that I
would be able to participate in the process in someway. I
eventually adopted Staci’s class, or they adopted me. We
would meet every Friday in the library during our regularlibrary time to discuss various philosophical issues. I wasamazed at the insightful responses that the students often
gave about different topics. Often the same students spoke,but sometimes the students who usually don’t say a word,
spoke up and gave responses that startled me.
My participation in “P4C” has helped me professionallyand personally. I now see students in a different “light” because of what I observed in Staci’s class. I discovered thatchildren are able to think philosophically and are able to“scratc h beneath the surface” to discover meaning in theirthinking. Of course, in order for all these wonderful things
to happen, the students must feel “safe” in their environment without fear of embarrassment, retaliation, prejudice,or misconceived judgment by their peers or the facilitators.
I think the hardest part of “P4C” for the teachers, is balancing classroom management with creating this “safe” environment.
I have tried to integrate facets of “P4C” into the libraryenvironment. I have found that children’s literature can bea great starting place for philosophical discussions. I feelthat we are able to delve a little deeper into ideas or themespresent in literature by asking philosophical questions.
Also, by integrating the “P4C” lingo with our mindful

94

Reflections from Teachers on Philosophy and Teaching

school vocabulary we are able to create a “safe” environment where students feel comfortable in sharing theirthoughts and ideas.
I am still a novice with the “P4C” process, but I see
great potential in the program. “P4C” has helped me learn
more about the “what,” “how,” and “why” of my thinking.
I discovered that thinking about thinking can be difficult attimes, but if I don’t think about my thinking how can I
make better decisions in the future? “P4C” has helped me
uncover assumptions, inferences, and implications in mythinking that were not always “correct.” “P4C” is not about
being “right” or “wrong,” but about sharing and “seeing”
various points of view about something. “P4C” helped create a “safe” environment where I stretched beyond my“comfort” zone. I am truly grateful that I was given the opportunity to participate in the program this past year because I have learned so much about myself, my colleagues,
and the students of Waikiki School.

P4C and the Standards Based Curriculum
Nathaniel T. Gibbs
Nathaniel T. Gibbs (Nategibbs@juno.com) has been a P4C practitioner for five years. He currently teaches fourth grade at Glennallen
elementary in North Port, Florida, but before his cruel exile from theIslands happily taught fifth grade at Waikiki School. Since life in
Florida precludes rock climbing, he supposes he must get around tofinishing his first novel, Van Dieman’s Land.

M

any people think philosophy is a waste of timeand have little desire to support or implement aphilosophy program for children. Although I believe philosophy for children can and should be practiced
for its own reasons, a powerful argument can also be madethat P4C supports a standards based curriculum such as theone we are obliged to teach in Hawaii.
Teaching standards is mostly about prodding children to
produce certain types of work. In Hawaii, whether or not achild “meets the standard” is determined by their performance on annual standardized tests. Test questions require
certain responses: some ask children to fill in one of four
bubbles, others provide a small rectangular box in which a
student must write the answer to a question, and usually
there is one chance for a student to write an essay. The tests
are long; in the fifth grade students take the tests over eightschool days. Results ar e not available until the following
school year.
There is enormous pressure for teachers to produce students who pass the tests. Under the federal No Child Left
Behind law, schools whose students do not meet certain
standards are subject to sanctions, including, ultimately,
closure.

How does P4C help teachers and students in this situation? It is my assertion that P4C teaches students and teachers precision of language that can later be used in the standards based curriculum. For instance, every year I spend
time with my class discussing criteria. This year we discussed what makes a watch. Does a sundial, if strapped to
one’s wrist, constitute a watch? Does a device strappedaround one’s toe, or one’s belly, constitute a watch? Howabout a giant wristwatch shaped clock hung on a wall? Ultimately, my students this year decided that there were twobasic criteria for a watch: it must be portable, and it must be
designed to tell time (though not necessarily working).
These discussions carried out over three weeks, allowed
us to get at the root of what the word watch means. The discussions also familiarized students with the idea of criteria,
and I was able to leverage this knowledge into their regularcurriculum. For instance, criteria were especially helpfulwhen we were studying fractions. Like most fifth graders,
my class this year was puzzled by mixed numbers, which
seem to be both whole numbers and parts of whole numbers
at once. We clarified this issue by working through all theexamples and counter-examples until we were able to set
criteria for fractions. Whenever students were in doubt,
then, they could check the example against the criteria andmove on. The precision of our criteria enhanced my students’ thinking about fractions.
Precision of language is integral to good writing, but it
is rarely found in a grade school essay. This is partly because students and teachers lack a common language to talkabout non-fiction writing. A teacher may be able to say,‘Johnny, this sentence is a run-on,’ and the student will understand the problem, but grammatical errors are easily
fixed. Far more difficult is to take a student essay that isvague, and which contradicts itself, and to help the student
understand why it needs to be rewritten. Often the teacher
himself lacks the specificity of language to identify the
problem. The Toolkit solves these problems. At the beginning of the year I teach my students my standards for aparagraph: one reason and two examples are required per
paragraph. At the end of the essay I demand a paragraphthat considers and dismissed counter -examples and counterreasons. Once students begin P4C, it is easy to correct errors. I can tell them, ‘this counter-example is actually an
example, because it supports your thesis,’ or ‘you need areason in this paragraph.’ Both the teacher and student
know exactly what the other means.
Of course, I could use direct instruction to teach the ideaof criteria, but I doubt very much if I would succeed. The
genius of P4C is relevance—the examples and reasons thatmake up the criteria are relevant to the kids because they
themselves generate them, and so they are able to easily
generalize the ideas. In short, when I speak of P4C to askeptic, I speak of its ability to enhance my standards based
curriculum. Then I ask the skeptic to come watch a P4C
session, and its other benefits become obvious as well.