University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
College of Education
Educational Perspectives
1776 University Avenue
Wist Hall, Room 113
Honolulu, HI 96822

NONPROFITORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
HONOLULU, HI
PERMIT NO. 278

Educational Perspectives
Journal of the College of Education/University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

Website: www.hawaii.edu/edper

Philosophy for Children
Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Educational Perspectives
Journal of the College of Education/University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

CONTENTS
Dean Donald Young
Editor Hunter McEwan
Managing Editor Lori Ward
Guest Editor Benjamin Lukey
Graphic Designer Darrell Asato
College of Education Editorial Board
Linda Johnsrud, Professor
Kathryn Au, Professor Emeritus
Curtis Ho, Professor
Mary Jo Noonan, Professor
Robert Potter, Professor Emeritus
COEDSA President
The Journal and the College of Education assume no responsibility
for the opinion or facts in signed articles, except to theextent of expressing the view, by the fact of publication,that the subject matter is one which merits attention.
Published twice each year by the College of Education,
University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa
Individual copies $25.00
To purchase single copies of this issue contact
Marketing and Publication Services,
Curriculum & Research Development Group
Phone: 800-799-8111 (toll-free), 808-956-4969
Fax: 808-956-6730
Email: crdg@hawaii.edu
Address all communications regarding single copies,
subscriptions, manuscripts, and correspondence
about editorial material to Editor,
Educational Perspectives, College of Education,
University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa, Wist Hall
Room 113, 1776 University Avenue,
Honolulu, HI 96822

2
3
8
20
22
25
29
32
		
38
		
43
46
51

Copyright 2012 by the College of Education,
University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa

52

This publication is available in microform fromBell & Howell, 300 N. Zeeb Road,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
and in pdf format at www.hawaii.edu/edper/		58International Standard Serial Number(ISSN) 0013-1849

Volume 44

Contributors
Introduction to the Issue
Tom Jackson
The Philosopher’s Pedagogy
Amber Makaiau and Chad Miller
Practicing Philosophy for Children in the Search
for a Better Society		Mitsuyo Toyoda
The Top 10 Things I LOVE about p4c Hawai‘i
Jolyn Ikeda
Philosophy for Children
Angela Kim
Critical Communities: Intellectual Safety and thePower of Disagreement
Ashby Butnor
Philosophy for Children in Hawai‘i:
A Community Circle Discussion
Benjamin Lukey
The High School Philosopher in Residence: What Philosophy
and Philosophers Can Offer Schools
Benjamin Lukey
Thinking Processes in Middle School Students
Caryn Matsuoka
Philosophy for Children Kenyan Style
Rebecca Odierna“What Do You Want to Talk About?” – p4c Lessons
in the Family
Tamara Albertini
Raising the Bar: Love, the Community of Inquiry, and theFlourishing Life
Thomas Yos
Community in the Classroom: An Approach to Curriculum
and Instruction as a Means for the Development of Student
Personal Engagement in a High School Classroom
Tammy Jones

Numbers 1 and 2

Cover layout by Darrell Asato
Cover photo by Hunter McEwan

2

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Contributors
Caryn Matsuoka, Waikīkī Elementary School, 6th Grade
Teacher
Jolyn Ikeda-Ejercito, Waikīkī Elementary School, 2nd Grade
Teacher
M. Katie Berger, Kailua High School, Special Education
Inclusion Teacher/Program Coordinator
Catherine Caine, Waikīkī Elementary School, (2nd Grade)
Teacher
Valerie G. Butts, Waikīkī Elementary School, Teacher
Nannette Pawlak Ganotisi, National Board Certified
Teacher, Early Childhood Generalist
Thomas B. Yos, Ala Wai Elementary School and Chaminade
University of Honolulu, Counseling staff and adjunctprofessor of philosophy
Jenine Hutsell, Eastlake High School, WA, English and Social
Studies Teacher
Angela M. Kim, Waikīkī Elementary School, 5th Grade
TeacherJulie Park, Waikīkī Elementary School, Teacher
Dana Finnegan, Hōkūlani Elementary School, Teacher
Matt Lawrence, Waikīkī Elementary School, 6th Grademath/science teacher
Kelley Espinda, Kailua High School, Japanese Teacher
Bonnie Tabor, Waikīkī Elementary School, Principal
Whitney A. Mahoney, Waikīkī Elementary School, Special
Education Teacher
Tamara Albertini, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Associate
Professor, Department of Philosophy
Thomas E. Jackson, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Department of Philosophy and Uehiro Academy for
Philosophy and Ethics in Education, College of Arts andHumanities, Specialist (Phil Dept.), Executive Director (UHUehiro Academy…, College of A&H)

Benjamin Lukey, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa , p4c
Hawai‘i Research Associate, Kailua High School
Philosopher in Residence
Chad Miller, Kailua High School and University of Hawai‘iat Mānoa, 2012 Hawai’i Teacher of the Year and PhD
Candidate
Lydia Shigekane, Waikīkī Elementary School, Kindergarten
teacherAmber Stong Makaiau, Kailua High School, HI DOE,
Social Studies Teacher and KHS Ethnic Studies Program
Developer
Tammy Jones, James Campbell High School, English
Teacher/Literacy Coach
Mitsuyo Toyoda, University of Hyogo, School of Human
Science and Environment, Lecturer
Makanaokeakua Ramos, Kapiolani Community College,
Student/Philosopher
David Falgout, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Lecturer
Ana Laura Funes Maderey, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa,PhD Candidate
Lisa Widdison, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Graduate
Student
Rebecca Odierna, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, M.A.
Political Science
Ashby Butnor, Metropolitan State University of Denver,
Lecturer & Faculty Coordinator, Learning Communities &First Year Success and Department of Philosophy

Philosophy for Children

3Home Grown
Thomas E. Jackson
Director, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Uehiro Academy for Philosophy and Ethics in Education
Every living thing on these islands of Hawai`i camefrom somewhere else. The seeds were transported here in
one way or another across vast stretches of ocean. Once here,
the seeds grew and developed, adapting to the unfamiliar
challenges of their new home. People also came. Pride ofplace in arrival and thriving in the unique setting of theseislands goes to the Native Hawaiians whose way of life
continues to nourish the thinking and ways of being of theother, more recent arrivals from elsewhere.
So it is with p4c Hawai`i. It began elsewhere, but it
has grown in new and exciting ways—influenced by allthat is best about our island home. This volume presents
the richness of the living forms that P4C has taken since its
arrival in 1978. In this opening essay, I will relate some ofthe story of those beginnings and what has contributed to theprogram’s specialness.
P4C began in the late 1960s when Matthew Lipman,
while teaching philosophy to undergraduates at Columbia
University, made a connection that had not really everreceived much thought—the idea that philosophy could betaught, and indeed should be taught, to children. Lipman
saw that his students had a lot of passion to change theworld but were lacking in their ability to reason soundly andexercise good judgment in how to go about their lives. He
also recognized that college was rather late in life to begin
efforts to systematically develop reason and good judgment.
He wondered if the discipline of philosophy, with its
emphasis on clear thinking and sound judgment, if properly
reconfigured, might be presented at an earlier age. He
realized that philosophy in its current academic form would
be unsuitable for children but wondered what would happen
if philosophy were presented in a more accessible way, in theform of a novel, perhaps. In the story that he would tell, thereaders would discover, in a playful way, the rules of good
thinking, while at the same time learning to think together
about some of the deep, philosophical questions that have
perplexed humans for over two thousand years. He set towork on his manual typewriter and soon had his first novel
tapped out. He titled it, Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery,a play on the name of the philosopher, Aristotle. First, he
tried it out on his son’s sixth-grade class, where he wasdelighted and astounded by how quickly the children wereable to see the logical rule presented in the first chapter andhow they were able to raise their own questions about otherphilosophical issues that were skillfully woven into the story.
Following that informal test, experimental trials were
held that demonstrated significant gains in reading andmath among the students who had engaged in philosophicaldiscussions after reading Harry Stottlemeier over the control
groups who had not. In the early 1970s Lipman moved
to Montclair State College, as Montclair University wasthen known, where he joined with Ann Margaret Sharp increating the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy
for Children (IAPC). The IAPC soon attracted international
attention. Each year scholars, mainly those connected withacademic departments of philosophy, came for a three week
workshop conducted by Lipman and Sharp. This workshop
experience was an intense immersion in this new way of
doing philosophy.
By the early 1980s the IAPC had developed acurriculum (now referred to as the Philosophy for Children
or P4C curriculum) that consisted of seven novels withseven accompanying teacher’s manuals. At the same time,
there was a strong effort to promote critical thinking in thenation’s schools. In response, the Federal Department of
Education established a panel of experts to identify which of
the programs that claimed effectiveness in developing criticalthinking could actually present research-based evidence insupport of their claims. If the data they presented met DOE
standards, the program received “national validation”. Suchprograms then became part of an official list that schools
around the country could consult in their own search for
an effective approach. Philosophy for Children was one ofseveral programs that received this important validation.
National validation also meant that the program was eligible
for federal money to support costs associated with theprofessional development of school faculty who wanted to
implement the program.

4

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

In 1984 I had just completed a doctorate in comparative
philosophy at the University of Hawai‘i. I had also spent
three years as a cofounder of the Hawai‘i InternationalFilm Festival, and I was seeking work outside a traditional
academic career in philosophy. I had, by chance, the singulargood fortune to learn about Matthew Lipman and P4C and in
August of that year, together with a colleague, Karen Lee, I
attended one of those three week workshops at Montclair. It
was there that Karen and I experienced first-hand, with colleagues from around the world, the excitement of the Lipman
approach—of thinking together in philosophical ways about
topics that we chose from passages we had read in one of his
novels and, in the process, experiencing the sense of being
part of a community of inquiry. The decisive experience forme occurred in the last week when we went to a local school
to observe a group of sixth graders engaging in P4C–Lipman
style. I could hardly believe my eyes. Students, sitting in acircle, had been reading a passage from Harry Stottlemeier,and they were now coming up with their own questions
on aspects of the text. Next they selected the question theywanted to talk about and, with the help of a philosopher/facilitator, they began to inquire together into the question
they had selected. The students were animated, engaged,
and thoughtful. They shared their personal views with eachother and began to develop more penetrating insights into thequestion that they had selected. I had a deep sense of wanting
somehow to be able to do this for the rest of my life.
When we returned to Hawai‘i that summer Karen and I
found that the critical thinking movement was in full swing
in local schools. Hawai‘i educators were looking for ways
to implement this new mandate. Soon we found ourselves
conducting our first workshops. These workshops markthe beginning of p4c Hawai`i. Though we achieved somesuccess in our early workshops, we soon found it necessary
to modify the Lipman approach. Teachers and students wereable to read the texts together and come up with questions,but they were stymied by what to do to keep an inquiry
moving once a question had been selected. In an earlier experiment in P4C on the Big Island, Barry Curtis and Nobuko
Fukuda at UH Hilo, had revealed similar shortcomings. The
Lipman manuals, which had been designed to respond to thisdifficulty, were, in practice, unwieldy and difficult to use.
Our first innovation, one of many over the years that havecome to distinguish p4c Hawai`i from other P4C sites aroundthe world, was to recognize the need for in-class support

for the teacher. It was as a result of this collaboration, of
working together with teachers and students, that we cameto create what we now describe as an intellectually safe
community of inquiry—an innovative setting in which topics
that arise out of the interests of the community are pursued inphilosophically responsible ways.
In-class support was at first accomplished by the addition to the classroom of a philosopher/facilitator—a personwith extensive experience in doing p4c who would join theteacher as a weekly participant in p4c sessions. In the beginning this was either Karen or myself; later, it was provided
by UH Philosophy Department graduate students. This
innovation was almost magical in its impact. We had not,initially, anticipated the profound effects it would have on
the students and the consequences it would have in developing p4c Hawai‘i as a unique expression of Lipman’s P4C.
The regular classroom presence of these facilitators
quickly developed into ongoing, creative partnerships among
participating teachers, students, and philosopher/facilitators.
We realized that the pedagogical skills of the teacher in combination with the philosophical skills of the p4c facilitator
were essential in order to engage the children in philosophical inquiry. The partnerships that we formed in these earlyyears have continued to evolve.
Our model is not that of the expert who comes to workwith the novice. This would harm our aim of creating an
intellectually safe community. p4c Hawai‘i offers a different
model—one that acknowledges the pedagogical skills of theteacher. The teachers know their students, they know when
they are experiencing difficulty in understanding something,
and they know how to respond appropriately. Teachers who
participate in the p4c circle also help to match the philosophical inquiry approach with the content for which they
are responsible. Both teacher and facilitator learn from eachother. The teacher internalizes the craft of the philosopher’spedagogy; the philosopher/facilitator learns the craft ofclassroom teaching.
Karen and I experienced great enthusiasm from teachers
in this partnership, and we experienced considerable externalpressure to expand p4c to other schools. In spite of thisenthusiasm, we discovered that when in-class support at agiven school ceased, p4c quickly ceased as well. This is anunfortunate dynamic and part of a larger phenomenon that
befalls many reform endeavors in education, including thecritical thinking movement. A critical need is recognized;

Philosophy for Children

mandates are issued; quick fixes are sought; programs aredeveloped; schools rush to embrace the reform, or are pressured to comply; experts are brought in; special training sessions are conducted; and in the end the reform is passed overto be replaced by the next one. Sometimes, programs thatare narrowly targeted at a specific problem are legitimate“quick fixes”. p4c, however, is not a “quick fix”. p4c aims
to create intellectually safe communities that nurture theability to think for oneself in responsible, respectful ways.
This work is transformative and requires sustained, ongoingsupport in order to bring about deep changes that cannot be
accomplished in weekend trainings or through one to threeyear initiatives.
We worried that we did not yet have the resources tobe able to effect lasting change if we cast our net too wide,
and we feared p4c could fall victim to the appeal of the next
big thing and disappear. So, instead of trying to expand to
new schools, we sought schools where the right conditions
obtained: a supportive principal with a faculty who would
make a long-term commitment to p4c. We would focus on
depth, not breadth; on sustained reform, not quick fixes.
Fourteen years ago we had the good fortune to be invited toa school with the requisite conditions of a supportive principal (Bonnie Tabor) and equally supportive faculty—Waikïkï
Elementary School. For several years prior to our joining
them, the faculty and staff at Waikïkï Elementary School had
made Art Costa’s Habits of Mind (HOM) an integral part oftheir school culture. HOM provides a natural, fertile environment for p4c Hawai`i. Like HOM, p4c seeks to create good
thinkers, and we soon found that p4c and HOM mutually
reinforce each other. Our work together there has created a
dynamic synergy among students, faculty, and staff and wehave come to understand the impact on children who experience the cumulative effects of HOM and p4c over the longterm. The results continue to be extraordinary.
Waikïkï Elementary School is now one of our model
schools. We regularly bring visitors—local, national, andinternational—to these schools to witness in person what
schooling can and should be. Our university students visit
them to observe, do research, and work with their remarkable staff and students. Our model schools are beehives ofcreative, caring, innovative energy—vibrant examples ofwhat is possible in public education.
Thirteen years ago p4c made its first appearance at
Kailua High School (KHS), which has become our second

5model school. KHS is another school where the right conditions have obtained: a supportive principal (Francine Honda)
with a faculty who are committed to support p4c for the longterm. From the beginning, two teachers in particular at KHS,
Amber Makaiau and Chad Miller, have made it possible toovercome what had, to that point, been a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to P4C worldwide—difficulty in gaining
traction in teaching P4C beyond the elementary school level.
One of these obstacles is a function of Lipman’s curriculum which requires, in effect, a separate class time for theuse of his texts in P4C sessions. So, in spite of the existenceof Lipman-authored novels for middle and high school, there
is simply no room in the school schedule for implementing
his program of study. Related to this is the widespread notion that philosophy is a discipline onto itself with its own
content and activities. Understood in this way, philosophy isa subject that is suitable only for adults and an activity bestpracticed by professors in university departments of philosophy. I refer to this as “Big-P philosophy.” Lipman’s novels
represent an effort to break away from Big-P philosophy
but our experience with his program, even at the elementarylevel, revealed that his curriculum did not accomplish thisend. In addition, for students in Hawai`i, his curriculum was
too limiting with its focus on Western philosophical traditions and culture. These discoveries spurred our efforts todevelop p4c Hawai`i.
In tackling this problem at the elementary school level, I
developed an approach that I refer to as “little-p philosophy.”
The content of little-p philosophy is the set of beliefs that weall possess to make sense of the world; the activity of little-p
philosophizing is the process of reflecting on these beliefs aspart of our larger interactions with the world. In importantways the content of little-p philosophy is unique to each ofus. It is the result of the particularities of what some philosophers refer to as our “situatedness” in the world and our
responses to them. We also differ in the extent to which weare willing to engage in little-p philosophical activity, which
is an on-going philosophical reflection on our life. Socrates
referred to this as living an examined life. As a result of ourefforts in pursuing little-p philosophy in intellectually safe
communities, and with the creative input of teachers andstudents, we have learned more about how to develop discussions that deepen into philosophical inquiries.
The p4c conception of inquiry captures the philosophicalpart of what happens in our intellectually safe communities.

6

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

The little-p / Big-P distinction has made it possible to view
philosophy not primarily in terms of some specific content,
but as a way of responding to content. Rather than immediately responding to content questions with an answer, little-p
philosophical activity invites us first to pause, inquire into,and pose questions of the content itself. This notion of littlep activity has freed philosophy from an over-reliance on
Big-P content for its sense of legitimacy by focusing insteadon activities that begin with any content or topic, whether
personal or public, academic or practical.
An important addition to the concept of little-p philosophy is my development of the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit(GTTK). The GTTK is an important response to the concernthat teachers express about what makes a question, session,or response philosophical. The Tool Kit captures what I
see as essentially Big-P philosophical types of questions.
The Tool Kit is composed of seven tools. I use the acronym
WRAITEC to describe each of them. Each tool represents atype of philosophical question that can be used individuallyor in concert with others to take thinking about the initialstarting point to a deeper level: What do you mean? What
are your reasons? What assumptions are you making? Whatinferences? Do we know it’s true? Can you give examples
or counter-examples? Such questions can be posed in any
situation or content area.
What teachers like Amber Makaiau and Chad Miller
have been able to do at the high school level is to take thepossibilities of little-p philosophy, along with the rich notionof the “intellectually safe community”, and nurture their
growth. They began by doing this in their own classrooms,
and they have extended the practice to other classrooms intheir departments. Amber and her colleague, Kehau Glassco,
developed a nationally recognized ethnic studies curriculumthat integrated philosophical content and activity. Theircourse rests on the four key pillars of p4c Hawai`i: community, inquiry, philosophy, and reflection. The course inethnic studies/philosophy is now required for all students
who graduate from KHS. Amber and Chad have extended
the p4c Hawai`i approach in ways that have made it not only
the heart of their own teaching at KHS, but also in waysthat have been embraced by their colleagues in the social
studies and English departments, and among the wider KHS
community.
The p4c work at KHS has also been greatly enhancedby the addition, five years ago, of another p4c Hawai`i in-novation, the Philosopher-in-Residence program. Benjamin
Lukey is the current holder of that position. Ben participatesin faculty meetings, assists new teachers in implementing
what Amber has insightfully named the philosopher’s pedagogy, and works with experienced p4c faculty in developing
new ideas such as expanding the philosophers’ pedagogy to
new content areas. The impact and success of their efforts
was acknowledged in a dramatic way by the visit to KHS in
April 2012 of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lamacame specifically to meet with the students and respond to
the questions they had for him.
The Philosopher-in-Residence position has been apowerful addition to p4c Hawai`i in creating a sustainableinfrastructure for meaningful educational transformation.
Any long term change, if it is to be transformative, requires
the kinds of support that keeps the classroom experiencesof the individual teacher in sharp focus. It is then possible
to expand out from that base to include other players,
individuals as well as institutions, who can give shape tolasting reform.
Over the years, p4c Hawai`i has blossomed and theseeds of these developments have been spread by former
students who have carried what they have learned to otherelementary, middle, and high school settings. They havealso been carried further afield to schools and universities on
the US mainland, Europe, China, Mexico, and Japan. Twoformer students in particular Jinmei Yuan, now at Creighton
University in Omaha, Nebraska, and Mitsuyo Toyoda, now
at University of Hyogo, in Himeji, Japan, played decisiveroles in the spread of p4c Hawai`i to China and Japan. Andso, in recent years, far from disappearing, we have felt
ourselves stretched almost to a breaking point, wondering
how we can respond to the many requests for help that wehave received.
Fortunately, new assistance has arrived for p4c Hawai‘iin the person of Noboru Maruyama, a remarkable individual
who is Secretary General of the Uehiro Foundation in
Japan. I first met Maruyama-san in what I now recognize
as a singularly important encounter in the UH Philosophy
Department lounge in 2004. In that brief initial conversation,
we both realized that we shared a vision of the possibilities
of schooling, rightly done, for lasting human change througheducation. As a result of that meeting, he visited Waikïkï
School with me and participated in classroom p4c sessions.
He talked with teachers and the school principal, Bonnie

Philosophy for Children

Tabor, and he became convinced that something very important was happening at Waikïkï Elementary School. Generous
financial support soon came from the Uehiro Foundation,
and we began to arrange annual exchanges where Hawai`iteachers visit classrooms in Japan, and Japanese teachersvisit classrooms in Hawai`i.
In May 2012 our relationship was further strengthened
with a ceremony that featured the signing of a formal
agreement between the Uehiro Foundation of Japan andthe University of Hawai`i at Mänoa whereby the Uehiro
Foundation of Japan pledged $1,250,000 over the next
five years to support the establishment of the Universityof Hawai’i at Mänoa Uehiro Academy for Philosophy andEthics in Education. The Academy is part of the College

7

of Arts and Humanities and is located in its own space in
Sakamaki Hall. Through this generous gift from the Uehiro
Foundation and their commitment to our shared vision for
educational change, we recognize that a whole new era has
begun for our goal of preparing, supporting, and sustaining
educators, researchers and students who engage or areinterested in engaging in p4c worldwide.
In this volume you will meet some of the remarkablepeople who are part of the p4c Hawai`i story. They represent
the people who have played and are continuing to play animportant role in the story that I have been relating about the
coming of P4C to these islands and its transformation into
p4c Hawai`i.

8

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

The Philosopher’s Pedagogy
Amber Strong Makaiau and Chad Miller“How come your students are so engaged?” “What are
the reasons your students perform so well on the Hawai‘iState Assessments and Advanced Placement Exams?”“What makes the student experience in your classrooms so
different?” “How do you use philosophy to teach language
arts and social studies?” “The students are always talking
about your class. What is it that you do in your classrooms?”“What is philosophy for children?” This short article is ourbest attempt to answer these questions by describing thecomplex relationship we see between philosophy, education,
theory, and practice. We are calling this relationship thephilosopher’s pedagogy, and it is an approach to teachingthat builds on the Philosophy for Children (P4C) movement
started by Matthew Lipman in the 1960s.
Philosophy for children is at the heart of our teachingpractice. This may be due to our shared educational experiences in teacher preparation in the Masters of Educationin Teaching Program (MEdT) at the University of Hawai‘iat Mänoa—a program that placed a high value on inquiry.
It is also where we were first introduced to philosophy forchildren. The theories, ideas, and concepts presented inphilosophy for children were attractive to Amber because ofher philosophically rich childhood experiences; her father
possessed a background in philosophy and would often
engage her in meaningful “dinner table” inquiries, while
her Deweyan elementary school instilled values of problem
solving and creative thinking. Chad was initially drawn
to philosophy for children because of the importance of
his undergraduate philosophy degree in shapingz his own
education.
These experiences, coupled with a strong desire to create
an engaging and meaningful schooling experience for ourstudents, provided the perfect context to bring together ourinterests in philosophy and teaching. However, after seeing
Thomas Jackson model his p4c Hawai‘i approach to education, we both realized that philosophy had a much greater
reach than simply connecting to our own life narratives. We
saw (and experienced) firsthand how p4c Hawai‘i could
transform traditional classrooms into intellectually safe

communities. We soon became committed to creating ways
to incorporate p4c Hawai‘i into our practice as pre-service
public high school teachers. Now, ten years after Amber’s
initial experiences, she continues to use p4c Hawai‘i methods to design and implement curriculum in her social studies
classes, while Chad has done the same in his language arts
courses. Unlike many educational reform movements, p4c
Hawai‘i is not an off-the-shelf program that can be implemented directly into the curriculum; it is a transformative
approach to teaching that affects the way one teaches.
To sustain commitment to improving our philosopher’spedagogy, we have developed a professional relationshipwhere we continually dialogue, philosophize, test new
activities, and critically reflect on the role that p4c Hawai‘i
has in each of our classrooms. Some of this inquiry has beenin response to questions posed by others, but most of thisongoing dialogue has been driven by our interests in finding
ways to rethink and adapt p4c Hawai‘i to more effectively
meet the needs of our students, and our goals as teachers.
The philosopher’s pedagogy presented in this article, whilestill evolving, represents the most current state of our thinking and understanding of this approach to teaching. It is ourcontribution to the ongoing dialogue concerning philosophy
for children and its relationship with philosophy, education,
theory, and practice.
The ongoing P4C dialogue
Our professional dialogue fits into a much larger
discussion that begins with the work of Matthew Lipman(1980 with Sharp and Oscanyan, 1988, 1992, 1993, 2008),
the creator of the Philosophy for Children program.1 Whatbegan in 1969 with a single philosophical novel called Harry
Stottlemeier’s Discovery and an accompanying teacher
manual, both designed “to help children learn how to think
for themselves” (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980, p. 53)
evolved into a K–12 program composed of seven novels andcompanion teacher manuals. In 1970, Lipman created theInstitute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children(IAPC)2 to advance his call for overall school redesign andPhilosophy for Children

educational improvement. By adopting an innovative approach to philosophy and education, Lipman became known
as the pioneer of the movement to assist classroom teachers
in engaging their students in the activity of philosophical inquiry. However, Lipman has not been alone in this endeavor.
For example, Gareth Matthews’ approach to philosophy forchildren (1980, 1984, 1994) has aimed at modeling a distinct
pedagogy, while Thomas Wartenberg (2009) has createdlessons and a five-step plan to help teachers use children’sbooks to bring philosophy into their classrooms. Thomas
Jackson, a professor in the philosophy department at the
University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa, is another major contributor
to the philosophy for children endeavor. Dubbed p4c Hawai‘ito distinguish it from Lipman’s P4C approach, Jackson has
devoted his efforts to experimenting with fresh approaches
to teaching philosophy to children and teachers in the publicschools in Hawai‘i (2001, 2011).
From the beginning, Jackson has identified several limitations in Lipman’s approach,3 and awareness of these issues
has pushed Jackson and the teachers he works with to create
a set of innovative instructional strategies that can be usedeffectively to bring the philosophy into school classrooms.
After thirty years of work, p4c Hawai‘i is a refined set ofclassroom conditions that promote values of community,
intellectual safety, thinking, reflection, and inquiry. These
values are realized in classroom practices that build a sense
intellectual safety and promote reflection and respectful sharing of ideas.4
The conditions and practices detailed in Jackson’s p4c
Hawai‘i provide a more flexible approach than Lipman’s
original philosophy for children curriculum. Jackson’s
approach moves the focus of classroom activity fromphilosophical content, as represented in Lipman’s novels
and teacher manuals, to the thoughts, ideas, and questions of
the students. This shift in focus from text to student allows
teachers to use p4c Hawai‘i to teach across all grade levels
and within different content areas. It also provides adaptive
structures so that teachers can modify p4c Hawai‘i practices
in order to respond to the cultural, emotional, and intellectual
needs of the students. This freedom from Lipman’s more
traditional and inflexible philosophy for children curriculum
appealed to both of us because we teach in a multicultural
high school. In addition, the courses that we teach containspecific content and accompanying standards to measure student performance. Thus, we need a pedagogy that provides

9

the intellectual and academic content for our students tomeet state standards as well as an approach that encourages
them to think philosophically about what they are studying.
As a result, the last ten years have been spent on modifying
Jackson’s p4c Hawai‘i approach to construct a method of ourown. This was the birth of what we refer to as “the philosopher’s pedagogy.” We view it as our personal contribution
to the ongoing dialogue about how to engage school-age
students in philosophical reflection.

A Reconceptualized Understandingof Philosophy
The philosopher’s pedagogy has been built upon a reconceptualization of philosophy that fits more appropriately
into the task of doing philosophy with children. We begin
with Jackson’s distinction between “Big P” philosophy and“little p” philosophy (Jackson, 2010). Each approach to philosophy represents a particular orientation to philosophicalcontent and the kind of activity associated with that content.
“Big P” philosophy“Big P” philosophy refers to the traditional
understanding of philosophy as an academic specialization.
In this view, philosophy is represented in the thought andwritings of the great philosophers. They include, among
other illustrious names, the works and ideas of Plato,
Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Nietzsche. “Big-P” philosophy
also deals with the “big” questions—questions of being,
truth, and justice, which are most notably represented in
the philosophical sub-domains of metaphysics, ontology,
epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Thus, teaching of Big
P philosophy is directed to the mastery of an establishedcanon and initiation into a domain of knowledge that isthe preserve of the specialist.The activities associated withthis conception of philosophy concern the maintenance,
examination, critique, and presentation of ideas within the
canon. “Big P” philosophers engage in philosophy throughthe study of these canonical texts. Professional philosophersmust show a certain command over these ideas and beable to converse in the language of “Big P” philosophy
by engaging in critical discussions of ideas and offeringinterpretations of recognized texts. They conduct their workat academic conferences and publish literature in scholarly
journals (Jackson, 2011; Lipman, 1988, p. 11). This activity
is typically engaged as a dialectical contest between

10

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

individuals and competing schools of thought (Jackson,2011). Philosophy in of the Big P sort is familiar enoughto anyone who has taken a philosophy course at theuniversity level.
Philosophy is an elite academic discipline, in which entrance into the field is reserved for those who have obtained a
PhD in the subject and who labor to add to the philosophicalliterature. However, the sheer number and difficulty ofphilosophical texts, and the “hermetic terminology” (Lipman,
1988, p. 5) of academic philosophy, acts as a barrier to thenon-specialist. Like Plato’s philosopher kings, “Big P”
philosophers are members of an exclusive club, accessible
only to those rare souls who have endured a long period of
academic preparation.
“little p”philosophy
In Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates tells us that it is the“sense of wonder that is the mark of the philosopher.
Philosophy indeed has no other origin” (1961, 155d).
Understood in this Socratic light, each one of us enters
the world with the basic capacity to engage in philosophy(Jackson, 2011). Thanks to our natural ability for curiosity
and wonder, we are born “little p” philosophers. This naturaldisposition to wonder is the first step in a process of making
sense of our world. Dewey writes that “the curious mind isconstantly alert and exploring, seeking material for thought,
as a vigorous body is on the qui vive for nutriment. Eagerness
for experience, for new and varied contacts, is found where
wonder is found” (Dewey, 1910/1997, p. 31). New experiences and reflections help us shape our understanding ofhighly complex abstract ideas—ideas such as love, compassion, and equality; and even ordinary, routine matters, suchas lunch time, the weather, and fashion often provoke deeper
questioning that arises from our sense of wonder about theworld. Confused thoughts and feelings of perplexity are often
the first step towards reflective resolution. Regardless of theweight or depth of the belief, such ideas and experiences
create the motive force for engaging in “little p” philosophy.
Dewey believes that philosophical questions arise out ofsome confusion or perplexity when we are compelled toquestion our habits and beliefs. Something new, something
unexpected in our world requires us to sit up and think, and itis this thinking that is the beginning of philosophy (Dewey,
1910/1997; p. 12, 13). The aim of “little p” philosophy is tonourish this incipient thinking and direct its development.

Society, culture, and, in many cases, “Big P” philosophy, shape these beliefs, but our ability to wonder, to ask
questions, and to seek out answers that modify our beliefs
lies at the heart of philosophical thinking. “Little p” philosophy is about our involvement in inquiries that develop out ofthese moments when our experiences become problematicfor us, and the realization that we need to rethink our position. It is this active process of trying to figure out the worldthat constitutes the beginning of philosophy. We humans
are philosophically active from the very beginning (Jackson,2011). Ownership of belief, the ability to wonder, and ourwillingness to reflect upon those beliefs are the prerequisites
for engagement in “little p” philosophy.5“Little p” philosophy is primarily a way of approachingand dealing with content in order to come to a deeper understanding of it. This shift in perspective moves philosophy
from canonical texts and the problems of philosophy to theactivity of inquiry. Thus, as Jackson (2011) explains, the“center of gravity” of philosophy moves from the publishedand/or established ideas of others, to our own thoughts,
questions, experiences, and reflections. The focal pointof the activity resides in us and in our dealings with theworld and the problems that life throws our way. “Little p”
philosophy encourages individuals to examine their lives
and experiences in order to come to a deeper understandingof the world and their place in it, instead of exclusively
focusing on the established ideas and questions of others.
Accordingly, the dominant mode of practice in “little p” philosophy is engagement in actual inquiries (Jackson, 2011).
This conception of philosophy as an activity is not tied to a
specific predetermined content. And this means that it can be
included across the disciplines, and that it can be integrated
in different school subjects. The principal task of the teacher
is “to keep the sacred spark of wonder alive and to fan the
flame that already glows…to protect the spirit of inquiry, tokeep it from becoming blasé from overexcitement, wooden
from routine, fossilized through dogmatic instruction, or
dissipated by random exercise on trivial things (Dewey,
1910/1997, p. 34). Our philosopher’s pedagogy is built uponthis understanding of philosophy as something that you do,which makes it possible for us to link philosophy with different subjects in K–12 classrooms. Thus, the philosopher’spedagogy is an approach to teaching that helps teachers thinkin concrete ways about how to bring this kind of reflection
into the school curriculum.

Philosophy for Children

The Educational Commitments of thePhilosopher’s Pedagogy
In adopting the philosopher’s pedagogy in our classrooms, we have found that it requires a set of six interconnected educational commitments. The first is that the teacher
must live an examined life. Secondly, the teacher must see
education as a shared activity between teacher and student.
Thirdly, the teacher and students must re-conceptualize the“content” of the discipline as a reflection of the interaction
between the classroom participant’s beliefs and experiences
and the subject matter being taught. This connects with thefourth commitment: that the teacher must hold, with Dewey(1916), the view that philosophy is “the general theoryof education.” Fifth, teachers, and students, must makephilosophy a living classroom practice. And finally, teachers
must be willing to challenge contemporary measures forclassroom assessment. The next six sections provide a moredetailed exposition of each of these commitments.
The examined life of the teacher
The first characteristic of the philosopher’s pedagogy
is the commitment to an examined life. In the Apology,
Socrates’ famously remarked that life is not worth living if it
is void of investigation and inquiry.
Let no day pass without discussing goodness and all
the other subjects about which you hear me talking andexamining both myself and others is really the very bestthing that a man can do, and that life without this sortof examination is not worth living (Plato, 1961, 38a)

According to Socrates, the examination of one’s beliefs
and conceptions of the world gives life purpose. Teachers
who are committed to the philosopher’s pedagogy share thisbelief as a fundamental value. For such teachers, the examined life pervades the work they do in the classroom, and inturn lends teaching and learning a philosophical purpose.
To bring this sense of purpose into schools, the philosopher’s pedagogy requires teachers to incorporate their senseof wonder, curiosity, and critical analysis of life’s meaning
into the curriculum they design and into the relationships
they develop with their students. The content of the classroom, in addition to the methods of instruction, are an extension of the teacher’s examined life outside the classroom.
The philosopher’s pedagogy does not begin when we walk
into the classroom; nor end when we leave at the last bell.

11

Instead, the art of philosophical teaching is an extension of
the teacher’s (and students’) growth and development bothwithin their job and beyond.
We have found that when teachers live and model an
examined life both inside and outside of their classrooms theirstudents sit up and take notice. When our students observe
us engaging in genuine inquiry about life’s experiences,situations, products, and people, they are more willing toengage in this process of inquiry along with us. As a result,students begin to internalize the skills and dispositions needed
to thoughtfully engage in the examination of their lives; theirschoolwork becomes not only a place to engage in meaningfulinquiry, but a space to sharpen and hone philosophical toolsof inquiry. Dewey says of teaching that the teacher’s claim
to rank as an artist is measured by (their) ability to foster theattitude of the artist in those who study with (them), whether
they be youth or little children” (1910/1997, p.220). We claimthat what is true of the teacher as artist is true of the teacher as
philosopher. Leading an examined life is a contagious condition and once one experiences the engagement in the activityof “little p” philosophy, it becomes by degrees ingrained in
the practice of the students.
Education as a shared activity between teacher
and student
In addition to living an examined life, teachers whopractice the philosopher’s pedagogy conceptualize education
as a shared activity between teacher and student. This is a
departure from the traditional role of the teacher—the knowit-all who is the “sage on the stage.” Based on the theories
of social constructivism, this conceptualization of education“rejects the notion of objective knowledge and argues insteadthat knowledge develops as one engages in dialogue withothers” (Palinscar, 1998, p. 347). The dialogue is characterized by mutual thinking and shared communication between
teachers and students. Collectively they work to create what
Lipman (1991) calls a classroom community of inquiry wherestudents and teachers “listen to one another with respect,build on one another’s ideas, challenge one another to supply
reasons for otherwise unsupported opinions, assist each otherin drawing inferences from what has been said, and seek to
identify one another’s assumptions” (p. 15).
The idea of the classroom as a community of inquiry
is an essential part of the philosopher’s pedagogy. It is theprerequisite to all other learning (Vygotsky, 1978) that takes

12

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

place in school; it is not just a feel-good “ice breaker”
activity at the beginning of a semester, but an ongoing andpurposeful activity where teachers facilitate relationships,
practice equity pedagogy, and design curricular opportunities for students to learn alongside their peers and theirteacher. In this socially constructed learning environment
we recognize that “people cannot separate how thinking
takes place from what knowledge is available in the place
where learning happens” (Oakes & Lipton, 1999, p. 77).
According to Dewey (1916), teachers need to “engage
students in activities, because it is through the process ofengaging in activities that he learns” (p. 168). We argue thatteachers must be equally engaged in these learning activities
because “learning occurs during situated joint activity”(Vygotsky summarized in Samaras, 2002, p. xxii). In thissetting, both teachers and students become “self-activatedmakers of meaning,” (Schiro, 2008, p. 103) because they
are working together in order to construct knowledge. The
philosopher’s pedagogy challenges teachers to remove
themselves from the center of classroom activities, andto take a seat beside their students where they can learn
together as co-inquirers.In this “reflective paradigm,
students and teachers query each other” (Lipman, 1991,
p.14). As Freire (1970/1987) writes,
through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and thestudents-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term
emerges: teacher-student with student-teachers. The
teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches,but one who is himself taught in dialogue with thestudents, who in turn while being taught also teach.
They become jointly responsible for a process inwhich all grow (p. 80).

Teachers and students recognize they are in the processof becoming educated together. In such a classroom, teachers and students are constantly working (and in some instances, struggling) to communicate their complex thoughts,
ideas, and questions, because it is necessary for both to be“in charge of their own lives and learning,” (Schiro, 2008,
p. 105). Because the philosopher’s pedagogy is not simply
a recipe or model to be followed (Dewey, 1916, p. 170),
teachers and students must find their way together as they
engage in an intricate dance between building relationships
and applying good thinking to the construction of new
knowledge concerning the content they study.

Content is the interaction between the participants’ beliefs and experiences and subject matter
The focus on engaging students in classroom inquiry
distinguishes the philosopher’s pedagogy from typicalapproaches to teaching content in schools. Traditionally,classroom instruction concerned the transmission of content
knowledge to students. Under this approach, “effective”
teachers develop or employ strategies to help their students
understand and retain a certain set of skills and knowledge
specific to their content area. The teacher and the texts possess the knowledge the students must attain in order tobe “successful.”
For example, in the traditional approach, students
are taught F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby using ateacher-centered approach. Prior to reading each passage, theteacher supplies students with a corresponding vocabulary
list and after the students have defined all of the terms, she
checks to make sure the students defined them in the “correct” manner. Then as the students read each chapter, theteacher identifies the important passages that describe thekey character traits, plot lines, and use of literary devices.
The students take notes on specific details and perceived
meanings such as Gatsby’s car, the Valley of the Ashes andWilson’s representation of the lower class, and the symbolism of hope that was laden within the green light at the endof Daisy’s dock. There is virtually no opportunity to question
the teacher’s “expert” interpretation, offer connections, orbring up ideas the students (or teacher for that matter) may
have found personally interesting. Rather, the students are
to “bank” (Freire, 1970/1989) all of the teacher’s knowledge
before they can properly enjoy the novel and understand its
meaning. Students who are successful on the quizzes andtest are the ones who correctly supply the meanings andinformation that have been fed to them by the teacher. This iscounter to the manner in which the philosopher’s pedagogy
views the teaching of literature and other content matter (scientific research findings, primary documents from history,
mathematical concepts, great works of art, etc.).
So what does it mean to teach a subject using the philosopher’s pedagogy. The primary content, which is the same
regardless of the school subject or grade level, is composedof the beliefs and conceptions of the world that shape our“little p” philosophy. This shift in content, like the shift that
occurs from the content of “Big P” Philosophy to that of “littlep” philosophy, moves the “center or gravity” from the texts

Philosophy for Childrenof the specific subject areas (i.e., English, social studies, science, math), to the thoughts, ideas, and beliefs of the students
in the classroom community. However, it is important tonote this shift is not simply concerned with discussing thefeelings and ideas of students, devoid of subject matter. The
texts are still very much relevant and are used as a catalyst
to initiate meaningful philosophical inquiry. The sensitivityof the teacher towards the beliefs of the students provides
the incentive to engage the texts and to begin a conversation
about their meaning.
This alternative relationship to content requires thatteachers must be thoughtful when choosing the subject-specific content and materials to use in their classes (i.e., books
titles, primary documents, topics for labs, art assignments,
videos, mathematical problems, etc.). In fact, the content andmaterials of the course should be selected with the intention of engaging students in meaningful inquiry and in theexamination of beliefs, experiences, assumptions, and ideas.
“The curriculum should bring out aspects of the subject
matter that are unsettled and problematic in order to capture
the laggard attention of the students and to stimulate them toform a community of inquiry” (Lipman, 1991, p. 16). Eachdiscipline, whether it is the performing arts or mathematics,
has content that is complex, provides multiple perspectives,and is relevant to the diverse backgrounds and experiencesof our students. Therefore, it is necessary for the teacher who
employs the philosopher’s pedagogy to know her students
and wisely choose classroom materials to stimulate students’prior knowledge and wonder.
The central focus of the pedagogy is to engage students
and the teacher in the activity of philosophy born out of t
he questions and curiosities that emerge from their engagement with the respective content of each course. The ideasof the students are to be considered, heard, and tested by all
members of the classroom community through an ongoing
dialogue.
At the heart of philosophy is…dialogue; at the heart ofthis discipline is therefore what is essential to education. The craft of philosophy contains itself a pedagogy—the need for dialogue, the need for questioning
and a method of inquiry—which are essential characteristics of education in general.This is why education
cannot be divorced from philosophy and philosophy
cannot be divorced from education (Lipman & Sharp,
1978, pg. 259)

13This active (and sometimes laborious) process of understanding the beliefs that emerge from our upbringing, experience, and spirit of curiosity is an ongoing inquiry to modify,
correct, enhance, and deepen our views of the world. It is theprocess of self-correction, in which we re-conceptualize ourbeliefs and adapt and develop new tools of understandingthat is “small-p” philosophy.
Education should be the art of orientation. Educators
should devise the simplest and most effective methodsof turning minds around. It shouldn’t be the art of implanting sight in the organ, but should proceed on theunderstanding that the organ already has the capacity,
but is improperly aligned and isn’t facing the right way(Plato, 1961, Republic, 518d).

As Socrates indicated, we are philosophically activefrom the beginning. First, we wonder, then our wonder leads
to questions, and our questions lead to possible answers, andthese lead to more questions, and so on (Jackson & Makaiau,
2011). Dewey also understood philosophy to be “a form of
thinking, which, like all thinking, finds its origin in what is
uncertain in the subject matter of experience, and then aims
to locate the nature of the perplexity and to frame hypotheses
for it clearing up to be tested in action” (1916, p. 331). It
is the sense of wonder that helps students remember thecontent they study. The object is to create learning that is
personally meaningful and that engages students at a deeper
level of thinking.
Philosophy as “the general theory of education”
To ensure philosophical wonder is at the heart of classroom activities, teachers who use the philosopher’s pedagogy
commit to seeing philosophy as their general theory ofeducation. Good teachers develop a theory or philosophyof education that centers their work and clarifies their actions and judgments in the classroom. A teacher’s theory ofeducation provides a foundation for their practice that rests
upon and directs the myriad of decisions related to teaching.
One’s teaching philosophy, therefore, directly influences curriculum design and implementation, the physical structure of
the classroom, and how to artfully respond to an unexpected
comment made by a student. Teachers who adopt a philosopher’s pedagogy have constructed a teaching philosophy thatis grounded in “little p” philosophy. In short, these teachers
fundamentally believe the activity of philosophical inquiry is
an inherent and necessary aspect of learning.

14

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2This commitment places teaching in a unique context.
Education, in this sense, is not about test scores, performanceindicators, mechanical teaching, standardization, centralization, and scientific policy rationales. We denounce teachingthat reduces students to just another commodity in the market
place. Instead, the philosopher’s pedagogy concerns the shaping and developing of character as a means to improve theoverall well-being of society.
Dewey (1916) noted that such a pedagogical commitment makes a fundamental connection between educationand philosophy.
If we are willing to conceive education as the process
of forming fundamental dispositions, intellectual andemotional, toward nature and fellow men, philosophy
may even be defined as the general theory of education (p. 328).

Philosophy as the general theory of education conceptualizes schools as a place where human beings, who havethoughts, feelings, cultures, and experiences, come to engage
in personally meaningful learning. The person, not the content, forms the core of the philosopher’s pedagogy.
The purpose of education, according to the philosopher’spedagogy, is to tackle the same philosophical task that
Socrates’ addressed—to lead an examined life. For him,“little p” philosophy is part of the answer to this timelesschallenge, and for teachers who employ the philosopher’spedagogy, the activity of “little p” philosophy must lie atthe conceptual foundation of their practice. In this light, ourtheory of education is identical to or, at the very minimum,
resonates with our theory of life. Why else would we seek
education if not to improve our life through a process ofquestioning it?
Philosophy as a living classroom practice
The philosopher’s pedagogy does not simply requireteachers to think of philosophy as an important part of teaching; teachers must also make philosophy a living classroom
practice. This is a challenging task. “Due to a variety ofpressures, both internal and external, the typical classroom
teacher does not appear to have time for children’s genuine
wondering and questioning from which structured inquiries
can grow” (Jackson, 2001, p. 459). We know that manyteachers believe in the importance of students’ wonderment
and questions. However, when it comes to structuringclassroom activities and assessments their practice often

does not match their beliefs about children and learning. In
this current era of high stakes testing, many teachers findthemselves teaching to “get through the material” becauseof the pressure to help their students pass “the test.” As aresult, the students’ time for genuine wondering, questioning,
and thinking are ignored, and the teacher is led to abandon
their convictions about what constitutes a good education.
For many reasons, theory is frequently not translated intoclassroom practice.
The philosopher’s pedagogy represents a commitment
to bringing theory into classroom practice. Not only must ateacher believe education and philosophy are inextricably
linked, they must also create opportunities for their students
to engage in the activity of philosophizing in their classrooms and via their assignments. We realize this is no simple
task. As we suggested earlier in this paper in regard to
Dewey’s ideas, teaching is an art, and so is the practiceof “doing philosophy” in our contemporary public school
K–12 curriculum.
In many of our loosely structured “Big P” graduate-levelseminar courses, it is common for the teacher to ask theclass to “discuss” a reading without any guidance, structured
activity, and assessment. In order to bring philosophicalactivity into the context of the classroom, teachers must
thoughtfully design and implement organized philosophically rich classroom activities and assessments. These do
not emerge organically by simply arranging students in acircle or around a table. It takes creativity, knowledge ofsubject matter, an understanding of human development,
and the willingness to experiment, reflect, and try again. We
have engaged in this process for the past decade and in oureffort to translate theory into practice, p4c Hawai‘i has been
especially helpful.
p4c Hawai‘i offers teachers a set of classroom structuresand provides students with a clearly articulated set of tools
for bringing philosophy to life in the classroom. From theperspective of p4c Hawaii, these structures, procedures,and tools are works in progress. How these tools can be
modified and expanded to better meet the needs of theirunique student populations is left to the teacher’s discretion.
We don’t intend to limit the philosopher’s pedagogy to theactivities suggested by p4c Hawai‘i. In fact, we constantly
invent new activities and assessments to bring philosophy
into our specific content and grade level. However, we havefound that within the p4c Hawai‘i curriculum there reside a

Philosophy for Children

number of proven classroom practices and procedures thathave helped us (and many of our peers) bring our general
theories of education to life. Among the most important andfrequently used are the concept of intellectual safety, andstrategies such as the community ball, Plain Vanilla, and theGood Thinker’s Tool Kit (Jackson, 1984; 2001).
Intellectual safety and the community ballIn order for philosophy to become part of the students’experience, it is imperative that the classroom be “intellectually safe.” Although the idea of safety is not unique to thephilosopher’s pedagogy, the added emphasis on explicitly
creating safe and caring communities of inquiry is primaryand essential to our practice.
Classrooms must be physically safe places. For dialogue
and inquiry to occur they must be emotionally and intellectually safe as well. In an intellectually safe place
there are no put-downs and no comments intended
to belittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule.
Within this place, the group accepts virtually any question or comment, so long as it is respectful of the othermembers of the circle. What develops is a growing
trust among the participants and with it the courage topresent one’s own thoughts, however tentative initially,
on complex and difficult issues (Jackson, 2001, p. 460).

The importance placed on intellectual safety, as wellas the strategies implemented to cultivate a respectfulclassroom environment, provide the context where students
are encouraged to gain greater self-understanding by viewing
themselves from various perspectives (Banks, 2002). In theintellectually safe classroom students learn from one another,appreciate multiple perspectives, and ultimately learn about
one another. This important sense of community establishesa learning environment where knowledge is socially constructed in meaningful and responsible ways.
In order to cultivate intellectual safety, students are
explicitly introduced to the concept and terminology at the
beginning of the school year and are encouraged to selfcorrect using this vocabulary throughout the duration of theclass. Quite often you will hear students in our classrooms,
at all grade levels, reflect upon and identify safe and unsafe
behaviors. This positive and corrective environment allows all relationships in the classroom to develop, which
increases the impact the students’ classroom experience hason their learning.6
One of the signature techniques incorporated into p4c

15

Hawai’i classrooms is the creation of a “community ball”(Jackson, 2001, p. 461). The community ball gives each
student a sense of place and purpose that supports further
classroom inquiry where the learning and discovery expands
far beyond the content of the text. On our first day together
we create a “community ball” to begin the process of building our intellectually safe classroom community (Jackson,1984). However, as the year progresses, the community
ball becomes a tool of instruction that is used to facilitate
philosophical inquiry.7 By passing the community ball fromperson to person during class discussions, students learn
how to take turns in a well-regulated group discussion. Theball gradually empowers the students to feel comfortable incalling on each other and to take ownership of their inquiry.
The community ball does this by establishing and making
concrete certain rules and agreements necessary for a fruitful
discussion to take place: 1) only the person with the community ball can speak, 2) students and teachers always havethe right to pass, and 3) the person with the community ballchooses who speaks next. These rules for engagement help
teachers and students keep philosophical discussion at theheart of most major classroom activities.
The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit
Equally important has been the development of specifictools and evaluative criteria to assist the students in thedevelopment of rigorous inquiry within the intellectually safe
community. In order to learn, identify, and evaluate the typeof thinking needed to move an inquiry to an intellectually
deep level or to “scratch beneath the surface,” the students
are explicitly taught and given multiple opportunities to practice the seven cognitive components of the “Good Thinker’s
Toolkit” (Jackson, 2001, p. 463). The good thinker’s tool kit
consists of seven indicators for critical thinking which are:W what do you mean by that?
R what are the reasons?
A what is being assumed? Or what can I assume?
I can I infer ____ from _____? Or where are there inferences being made?

T is what is being said true and what does it imply if
it is true?

E are there any examples to prove what is being said?
andC are there any counter-examples to disprove what isbeing said?

16

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Students are encouraged to back up any claim or insight,
such as an inference, with relevant evidence or reasons to
identify hidden assumptions and so on. In short, the Good
Thinkers Toolkit is a heuristic device that is designed to promote and evaluate the student’s development as responsible
and critical thinkers.
Plain Vanilla
In order to engage a classroom in philosophical discussion, students and teachers need a structure for classroom
inquiry that supports the practice of “little p” philosophy.
Jackson (1984; 2001) suggests a “Plain Vanilla” format
where students generate questions, vote on the question theywant to talk about, and use a set of assessment criteria tojudge the progress of their community (intellectual safety,
listening, participation) and inquiry (learning something new,scratching beneath the surface of a topic, remaining focused,etc.). “Whenever possible, students and teacher sit in a circle
during inquiry time. Students call on each other, no longer
relying on the teacher to carry out this responsibility. Eachhas the opportunity to speak or to pass and remain silent. In
this environment inquiry will grow” (Jackson, 2001, p. 460).
Plain Vanilla discussions rely on the “questions and interestsof the children and move[s] in the direction that the children
indicate” (Jackson, 2001, p. 462). We have found by providing this type of structure in the classroom, along with theother activities and assessments mentioned in this section,
the students’ sense of wonder is valued and incorporated into
each inquiry.
Challenging contemporary measures forclassroom assessment
Finally, the philosopher’s pedagogy requires teachers torethink contemporary measures for classroom assessment.
Over the past two decades, the American education system
has created a school culture where instruction and learning
objectives are driven by state and national standards andhigh stakes testing. Standards explicitly state what students
should know and be able to do at the end of a school year orcourse of study, and high stakes exams measure the degree
to which students have reached the goals implemented bythose standards. As a result, today’s schools stress the outcomes of summative assessments such as the Hawai‘i State
Assessment test.
The concentration on standards and high stakes testing
has had a tremendous and negative impact on classroom

pedagogy. Teachers, who are under pressure to prepare
students to successfully pass state examinations, have alteredand developed their instruction to focus on “end products” orwhat their students should be able to know or do on the state
assessment. In this school culture of testing, learning has become synonymous with passing “the test” and the professionof teaching has been changed. Pedagogically, educators have
moved from teaching critical thinking as an integral aspectof the learning process, to efficiently providing their students
with the knowledge to pass a series of exams.
For example, in Hawai‘i, one of the eighth grade US
history standards asks students to provide multiple factors forthe outcome of the American Civil War.8 This standard will
likely be covered on the upcoming statewide social studies
assessment. Therefore, in order to prepare their students topass the test, many teachers provide their students with aready-made list of factors that they are required to memorize,
rather than the engaging in a thoughtful discussion about thereasons for the Civil War.
This pedagogical trend is troubling to many educators
who see teaching to the test as the “dumbing down” of theAmerican school system. The solution has been to modify
standards and assessments from an over emphasis on themastery of content knowledge to a larger concentration on
the students abilities to think. For example, many states (44at last count) are moving towards adopting and implementing
national standards like the Common Core State Standards
that have a “greater emphasis on higher order cognitive
demand” (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). The
hope of the Common Core initiative is the establishment of
new critical thinking standards that will create a new school
culture that focuses on teaching students how to think. While
we applaud this effort, changing standards is not enough.
From the perspective of the philosopher’s pedagogy, thecontemporary American school system must also change
the overemphasis that it places on the end product. The
philosopher’s pedagogy asserts that contemporary measuresfor classroom assessment must also account for the intellectual growth or philosophical progression that students
experience while engaged in the process of learning. “Littlep” philosophy, by definition is an activity. It is a learning
process that places importance on students’ abilities to think
for themselves9 across contexts, and in the face of new
problems. The presentation of an answer to a question is partof the activity of “little p” philosophy, but not the only part.

Philosophy for Children

This is the reason that the philosopher’s pedagogy requires
teachers to challenge contemporary measures of classroom
assessment by making the thinking process the primary focusof their assessments.
So how do we assess thinking? We start by making bothteachers and students accountable for the development, progression, and methods they use to arrive at their conclusions.
We recognize that when students thoughtfully engage ininquiry it often reveals how complicated a question or topic
really is (Jackson, 2001, p. 463). Uncertainty; confusion;
the emergence of new ideas; willingness to challenge one’s
thinking; increased depth of understanding; and cognitive,
emotional, and intellectual connections all become indicatorsof growth. The process of analyzing complex ideas is a signof progress. We ask our students at the end of an inquiry,
did we see complexity in a topic that we hadn’t realized wasthere?, did we make connections with other ideas, concepts,
or experiences?, did we challenge our thinking?, and, if a
possible answer did emerge from the discussion, did we use“good thinking” support our conclusions?
For example, the concept of friendship is a pervasive
theme in many of the novels encountered in a high school
language arts course. When these are approached using thephilosopher’s pedagogy, students are prompted to examine
their understanding of friendship and ask about the qualities
that they consider important in their own friendships. This
demands that they first attempt to clarify what friendshipmeans and identify what such relationships require. As evidence, examples, and counterexamples emerge, the conceptthat was so familiar to the students becomes more complex
and even somewhat confusing. A similar process arises withrespect to many other important concepts such as democracyin American history. Students begin with an exploration of
their assumptions regarding the extent to which democracy
has been realized in the United States history and then test
these assumptions by gathering historical examples andcounter-examples. At the end of the inquiry students begin
to recognize the difficulty of defining concepts and terms
without examining the historical context they are situated in.
In the process of exploring these inquiries into friendship and democracy, we provide students with the time andopportunity to reflect on their own understandingg. As teachers we give students feedback and credit for their thinking
process, and we evaluate the conclusions they draw (which
often appear in the form of an essay, project, or test). The

17

intention of the philosopher’s pedagogy is not to attain a unified understanding or answer; each person in the class may
be at a different place at the end of the inquiry because of
the specific evidence (based on personal experience or previously established information/data) they used to constructtheir response. The philosopher’s pedagogy encourages multiple perspectives and diverse conclusions backed by soundreasoning, rather than the pre-meditated response found in
most curriculum packages.
By the end of the year our students have learned thatthey should experience some sense of confusion over thecourse of an inquiry, that perplexity and confusion is an important stimulus to reflection and to “getting to the deep endof the pool.” They learn to celebrate and even find comfort inuncertainty, especially if it is productive of reflection. They
grow confident in the conclusions they draw because they
can be articulate about the thinking process that got them tothat deeper place. Our students feel prepared to face the unknown challenges ahead because they have developed some
self-assurance in their practice of thinking for themselves.
The reward is that our students, in spite of our not teaching
to the test, regularly meet or exceed proficiency in state
standards and do exceptionally well on high stakes exams.

The Philosopher’s Pedagogy;
So What Now?
The preceding account sets out what we understand to
be our philosopher’s pedagogy. We believe it is an eminently
practical pedagogy that incorporates a philosophical spirit
and that is directed to encouraging classroom practices
that engage students in reflection on important issues. It
was born as a solution to deficiencies that we experienced
as classroom teachers, and it has evolved in ways that are
sensitive to our students’ needs and abilities, in addition to
our different needs and abilities as teachers. Over time thephilosopher’s pedagogy has grown from a series of activities
into a belief system that concerns the practice of philosophy
in the school classroom.
The philosopher’s pedagogy is a commitment that wehave made to our own development as teachers. The pedagogy urges our students (as well as ourselves) to recognizethat our beliefs come to us from various sources, and that itis good to question these beliefs. In addition, the philosopher’s pedagogy is a commitment to collaboratively engage
students and teachers in directed, ongoing, rigorous inquiry

18

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

concerning values. The philosopher’s pedagogy, by carefully
considering the relationship between philosophy and education, aims to bring back the notion that schools are places inwhich we can pose questions regarding our human being andwork together to understand the purpose of our lives and ourcontribution to the world.
Quite often philosophy has been characterized andstereotyped as an activity of the mind. However, due to its
connection to our lived experiences and emotions, it is also
an activity of the heart. The philosopher’s pedagogy works
to correct some of the shortcomings of our contemporary
school system by providing students with the space and tools
to sharpen their cognitive abilities, as well as their growth
as individuals, which is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama
(1999) refers to as an “education of the heart” (p. 85–95).
…our current education system, rather than cultivating our sense of openness and engagement, insteadheightens our feelings of isolation and insulation.
Schooling, especially as inculturation, builds up preconceptions, expectations, and rigid notions of orderand behavior. It breaks down our experience of an alive
whole into an endless array of categories, taxonomies,
concepts, criteria, and evaluative judgments…Throughapproaching the world in this fashion, with each yearof schooling our spirit, and the sense of aliveness andrichness of the world deflate. This should not be thecase. Children and adults should continue to learn andgrow throughout their lives, eventually becoming whatsome traditions refer to as elders or keepers of wisdom,(Glazer, 1999, p. 81–82).

In order to aid in the positive transformation of today’s
schools the philosopher’s pedagogy is not a top-down modelof education reform. It is a grassroots movement that begins
with teachers and students working together to fundamentally change what happens in classrooms. This movement
directly addresses, and constantly keeps in mind the central
question that is often ignored or missing during today’s
educational policy discussions: What is best for students?
Teachers and students should not be the only ones
responsible for answering this question, of course. The
task of rebalancing schools to a place where the mind andheart get educated requires different voices to participate
in the dialogue about the relationship between philosophy
and education, theory and practice. This is a dialogue thatshould be shared between teachers, parents, grandparents,
students, community groups, colleges of education, teacher

education programs, state departments of education, andbeyond. Philosophy has an important place in schools, andonly by working together in thoughtful and meaningfulactivity will we discover or rediscover the potential thatphilosophical reflection has for making us individually andcollectively wiser.

REFERENCES
Banks, J. (2002). An introduction to multicultural education.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dalai Lama, (1999). “Education and the human heart.” In S. Glazer(Ed.). The heart of learning; spirituality in education(p. 85–95). USA: Penguin Group.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, Vol.
LIV, No. 3, 77 – 80.
Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How We Think. Mineola, NY: Dover
Publications, Inc.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to
the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: CollierMacmillan.
Freire, P. (1970/1989). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York:
Continuum.
Glazer, S. (1999). The heart of learning; Spirituality in education.
USA: Penguin Group.
Jackson, T. (1984). Philosophy for children; philosophy in theschools project. A guide for teachers.
Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of “Gently Socratic” inquiry.
In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book forteaching thinking (3rd Ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jackson, T. (2010, October 10). On p/Philosophy [Video File].
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylLnHzfwI0
Jackson, T. (2011). P4C Hawaiian Style: We are not in a Rush.
Paper presented at the American Philosophical Association’s
Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
Jackson, T., & Makaiau, A. (2011). Philosophy for Children
Hawaii. Invited presentation to The Rotary Club, Honolulu,
Hawaii.
Lipman, M. (1974). Harry Stottlemeier’s discovery. Upper
Montclair, NJ: IAPC.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. (1989). “The cultivation of reasoning throughphilosophy.” In R. Brandt (Ed.) Readings from educational
leadership; Teaching thinking. (p. 144–149). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Victoria, Australia:
Cambridge University Press.

Philosophy for Children

Lipman, M. (1992). “Some Remarks by Matthew Lipman on
Philosophy for Children.” In Sharp, A. & Reed, R. (Eds.).
Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s
Discovery. (p. xiii–12). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.

19

ENDNOTES
1

Traces of the idea of a philosopher’s pedagogy reach as far backas the work of Socrates.

2

Matthew Lipman created the IAPC at Montclair State University
in 1970 after he received financial support from the National
Endowment of the Humanities (Lipman, 2008, p. 120). The Taskof the IAPC was to systematically prepare teachers to deliver
the P4C curriculum to students worldwide. Lipman hoped thistraining of teachers would be spread through departments of philosophy, rather than colleges of education, in order to maintainthe integrity of the discipline of philosophy in the classroom

3

Among them were (1) the reliance of the curriculum on the presence of someone in the classroom with philosophical training;(2) the perception of K–12 classroom teachers that philosophy
should be reserved for education at the college level; and (3) the
cultural incongruence between Lipman’s novels and the experiences of many children in Hawai‘i.

Matthews, G. (1980). Philosophy and the Young Child. Cambridge,
MA: First Harvard University Press.

4

For a more detailed description of Jackson’s approach see Jackson, T. E. (2001).

Matthews, G. (1984). Dialogues with Children. United States ofAmerica: First Harvard University Press.

5

Similarly, Dewey also argued the philosophic disposition could
be found in any person who is “open-minded and sensitive to
new perceptions, and who has concentration and responsibility inconnecting them has, in so far, a philosophic” (Dewey, 1916, p.
325).

6

Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Jackson (2001) provides additional methods and strategies forestablishing and maintaining an intellectually safe and caring
community (p. 460–461).

7

Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

For a detailed description on how to build and use a “community
ball,” see Jackson, T. (2001).

8

Plato. (1961). E. Hamilton and H. Cairns (Eds.). The Collected Dialogues of Plato; Including the Letters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

In the state of Hawaii, social studies benchmark SS.8.13 is, “Explain the major factors that determined the outcome of the Civil
War (including leaders, resources, and key battles).

9“The phrase ‘thinking for oneself’ suggests thinking that isautonomous and independent (as opposed to controlled or dependent). A person who thinks for herself is, in an important sense,
free. She is able to reflect upon her own experience and upon her
situation in the world. She is prepared to reappraise her deepest values and commitments, and hence her own identity…theperson who thinks for herself understands that the subject matterof her inquiry can never be completely severed from herself as
inquirer” (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 16).

Lipman, M. (1993). Philosophy for children. In M. Lipman (Ed.),
Thinking children and education. (p. 373–384). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Lipman, M. (2008). A life of teaching thinking. Montclair, NJ: The
Institue for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children.
Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. (1978). In M. Lipman & A. Sharp (Eds.)
Growing Up With Philosophy. (p. 259–273). Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in theclassroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Matthews, G. (1994). The Philosophy of Childhood. United Statesof America: First Harvard University Press.
Matthews, G. (n.d.). Philosophy for Kids. Retrieved from www.
philosophyforkids.com

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common
core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational
Researcher, Vol. 40, No. 3, 103–116.
Samaras, A. P. (2002). Self-study for teacher educators; Crafting apedagogy for educational change. New York: Peter Lang.
Schiro, M. S. (2008). Curriculum theory; Conflicting visions andenduring concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Splitter, L., & Sharp, A. (1995). Teaching for Better Thinking: The
Classroom Community of Inquiry. Melbourne, Australia: The
Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Wartenberg, T. (2009). Big Ideas for Little Kids: Teaching Philosophy Through Children’s Literature. Lanham, MD: Roman &Littlefield Educaiton.
Wartenberg, T. (n.d.). Teaching Children Philosophy. Retrieved
from www.teachingkidsphilosophy.org

20

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Practicing Philosophy for Children in the Search
for a Better Society
Mitsuyo Toyoda
University of Hyogo

My Belief in p4c
My first impression of the philosophy for children
program in Hawai‘i (p4c) was a strong, intuitive feelingthat this approach to education can be a vehicle to change
the world. This feeling has not faded at all in the courseof my five-year commitment to p4c. Rather, it has been
growing into a deeper belief that p4c has an important role insociety, not only to improve education at schools but also todevelop a democratic, responsible community. Yet, as I haveexchanged my ideas about p4c with teachers and researchers,
I have come to realize that these beliefs are not necessarily
shared by others. Some of them have expressed a serious
concern that p4c might result in value relativism.
This concern might be articulated in the form of two
rhetorical questions: If the cultivation of thinking abilities
per se is the central concern of p4c, is there a danger inthis form of education of directing children to a relativistic
position that any idea is welcome as long as it is generated
as a result of a careful collaborative deliberation? If free
thinking is one of the values of p4c, should we let it go
when children reach a conclusion that might discriminate,scorn or hurt other people? These questions become critical,
especially when the focus of inquiry moves into sensitive
moral areas. Inquiry, for example, might end up with theidea that it is OK to destroy the earth because nothing in
nature stays the same and the earth might be destroyed by thecollision of a meteorite anyway. One might argue that in thisexample, at least, there is no need to worry about arriving at
such an extreme conclusion because, in actual dialogue, it is
not likely that all children support this sort of controversial
answer. Yet, it seems theoretically impossible to showthat an open-ended inquiry will never generate morally
problematic ideas.
As a p4c practitioner, I would answer NO to both of
the above questions. I believe that not all ideas can be given

equal standing even if they are produced through the processof inquiry. There is an important distinction between “alloutcomes have equal value” and “all views need to be given
a fair hearing.” What, then, are the reasons for my belief
that p4c does not promote value relativism? If this form ofeducation should not be identified with moral relativism,
what else do we need to emphasize in practicing inquiry
other than the value of children-oriented, open-ended
thinking? In this essay, I will consider a role of philosophy
for children in conducting moral education at public schools,
particularly on the basis of my experiences with the p4c
Hawai‘i-Japan exchange program, in which I have explored
the application of p4c to moral education.

A Gap Between p4c and a Standardized
Moral Education
The p4c Hawai‘i-Japan exchange program, funded by
the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education, has been
providing important opportunities for teachers and researchers to consider the possible contributions of p4c toward theimprovement of moral education. I have been participating inthis program as a coordinator since it began in 2006. Everysummer, Hawai‘i teachers demonstrate p4c inquiries withelementary students in Japan and observe moral lessons
conducted as a part of a standard curriculum. Teachers fromJapan then attempt moral lessons with students at Waikïkï
Elementary School and participate in the p4c workshop coordinated by the p4c practitioners at the University of Hawai‘i(UH). One of the greatest benefits of this program is the advancement of a cross-cultural inquiry concerning schoolingand education. Although the educational systems are not thesame, it is stimulating to exchange ideas from both countries
about current worries and hopes for better schooling and topromote dialogue on what they can do in order to improve
the quality of education.

Philosophy for Children

It has been pointed out that p4c does not necessarily
fit into the framework of a standardized moral education in
Japan because the latter is designed to teach a predetermined
set of moral values. The guidelines on moral education developed by the government of Japan set the framework for thelessons by designating approximately twenty moral values
that need to be covered within one school year. Most teachersbuild their lesson-plans in accordance with the governmental
guidelines. Thus, even if the teacher respects students’thoughts and encourages them to think for themselves about
moral issues by attempting student-centered moral dialogues,
it seems difficult to conduct fully open-ended inquiry: students are encouraged to think only within a provided framework. This content-driven aspect of moral education in Japanis somewhat incompatible with a key requirement of p4c
Hawai‘i that we should follow the argument where it leads
in inquiry. Because of this difference, some people think that
p4c is not fully applicable to moral education in Japan.
I witnessed a critical gap between p4c and Japanese
moral education when I observed a first-grade classroom
lesson at a Japanese elementary school. In the class, students
read a story about a girl massaging her grandmother’s shoulders that had become stiff from her everyday domestic duties.
The grandmother, being happy with this girl’s kindness,promises her a small tip. But the girl says that she does notwant a tip and keeps massaging her grandmother’s shoulders
even after her arms start to hurt. Students exchanged ideas
about the grandmother’s feelings—why she wanted to givea tip to the girl, and the girl’s feelings—why she said she
wanted no tip and why she did not stop massaging her grandmother’s shoulders after her arms started to hurt. Students
considered these points from various angles and broadened
their interpretations of this story. Since I observed children
actively participating in the exchange of ideas, I was surprised to hear the teacher say, “The class was not successful.
It was supposed to be about filial piety. But most children’s
ideas had different foci such as familial love, kindness, andself-renunciation.”
From a prevailing view of moral education in Japan, theevaluation of the class often depends upon whether students
could obtain a shared understanding about a particular moral
value. If the teachers have to teach twenty or more values
in a limited timeframe, it is inevitable for them to prepare
each lesson with a particular focus. The major difference
from p4c lies in this point. One of the important aspects

21

of p4c is to provide an appropriate environment in which
students are able to explore their own interests and to seek adeeper understanding of things. According to the educational
perspective of p4c, the lesson I observed seemed quite successful because it provided the students with the opportunity
to identify various moral meanings in a daily context withwhich they are familiar.
Moreover, the difference in the expectations about
educational outcomes leads to different notions and methodologies in preparing lessons. The content and the directionof p4c inquiry cannot be fully prepared in advance: they
develop through dynamic interaction in dialogues among
students and teacher. In a p4c-style lesson, it is, therefore,
not appropriate to determine the end point of an inquiry
before the lesson. People who are not used to this style ofteaching might ask, “Can we really teach morality in such an
unprepared framework?” The misidentification of p4c withvalue relativism is partly rooted in this worry. In contrast to
Japan where moral education has been included in a standard
curriculum, the state of Hawai‘i does not provide a statewide
proposal for this area of education. However, moral growthis still regarded as an important issue in schooling, and someschools are developing unique approaches to teaching it.
Waikïkï Elementary School regards moral education as theirhighest priority and works on cultivating a morally sensitive,
intellectual community through everyday school activities.
Mindfulness is the main value that guides the philosophyof this school. Based on the work of Art Costa’s “Habits of
the Mind,” the school identifies mindful behaviors, such as
cooperation and caring, flexibility in thinking, listening with
empathy, and managing impulsivity. These habits are sharedwith teachers and students through the use of signs that are
posted around the school facility. Students are encouraged toreflect on the educational values in these signs and express
their understanding of them through essays, pictures, and soon. Furthermore, p4c inquiry has been providing important
opportunities for children to share ideas about moral issues,and it has helped provide ways to practice mindfulness.
The sessions of p4c allow for actual moral dialogues in theclassroom, which serve to integrate both critical and caring
aspects of thinking.
The p4c Hawai‘i-Japan exchange program has not only
provided educators with an opportunity to explore the gap
articulated above, it has also provided evidence that p4c does
not entail moral relativism.

22

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

The Top 10 Things I LOVE about p4c Hawai‘i
Jolyn Ikeda
In 2001, Dr. Thomas Jackson, or Dr. J as we affectionately call him, spoke to the faculty at Waikïkï Elementary.
He described p4c Hawai‘i and encouraged us to try P4C if
something about it “resonated” with us. “Resonate” is a great
description—I felt like something deep inside began to hum
as he described the program. In the beginning, Dr. J held ap4t (philosophy for teachers) after-school seminar and he,along with some graduate students, did p4c in our classes.
That is how my p4c Hawai‘i experience began.
Here we are several years later. I have been asked toshare my perceptions of p4c. In speaking with my colleagues, I realize that p4c is many things to many people. At
the very heart of p4c is safety. A safe community, a place
where people feel safe to share ideas without judgment orridicule, is the foundation of the p4c circle. That said, I want
to share the top ten things I LOVE about p4c.

#1 “We’re not in a rush.”That’s what Dr. J always reminds us. We know you
can’t hurry a child’s development, but sometimes we forget.
In our hurried society, with immediate gratification as thegoal, many people are focused on quick results. These quick
results are not always good in the long run. p4c does notalways have immediate results, but it can be profound in thelong run.
My start was very slow. I felt p4c was wonderful and
I was excited to see it implemented in my class. We had ap4c session with Mr. Chip (a graduate student) each week
for forty-five minutes. For more than half a year nothing
happened! Students were not showing evidence of deeper
thinking. It was getting close to the end of the year and I
decided not to do it the following year. Then we had a breakthrough, a “blossoming”! A child asked if thinking everstops. They discussed whether dreams were thinking during
sleep. They wondered if and what babies thought. They
wondered if animals thought because they wondered if theanimals that attacked had a conscience. What about insects?
Plants? Do they think? Yes and no, and all backed up withlogical reasons for their point of view. That conversation

was so deep I almost wept! After that, our p4c sessions werevery rich. I think I was incredibly patient to wait as long as I
did. If not for Mr. Chip, I would’ve quit much earlier, but heknew “we’re not in a rush.”#2–8 The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit uses aseven-letter acronym to help us examine ourthinking, ideas, and beliefs.
I love the Tool Kit because the tools are a way of
examining thinking. If I say “The moon is made of cheese,”what are my reasons? what is my evidence? can I give any
examples? are there counter examples? Students make statements, then they are asked for their reasoning using the Tool
Kit. Others agree or disagree and justify their comments
using the Tool Kit. Students learn how to think, rather thanwhat to think. Here are the seven tools as I understand themand love them:
W–What do you mean by that? When a person makes astatement that we don’t understand right away we use the W.
We also use it to define what we are asking. We use the W tomake sure we are talking about the same thing, for example,“What do you mean by magic?” When a person explains hisor her own ideas it helps the speaker define and clarify hisor her ideas. It helps the speaker focus and discard irrelevant
information. The “W” also helps the listeners. Sometimes theinitial statement led us to a very different assumption and the“W” helps us to get closer to what the speaker means.
R–What are your reasons? The R is my favorite letter. It is easy for a second grader to understand the request“give me a reason”, but it takes thinking to a deeper level”.
A simple concept like what is your favorite toy, food, etc.
is usually easy to answer. When giving a reason is attachedto the question, there is a deeper understanding of what aperson values or believes. It is the tool in the thinkers’ Tool
Kit that most people use even before they have heard of p4c.
A–What are you assuming? Assumption is a difficult
concept for second graders. I usually tells them that an assumption is something we believe to be true. It may or may
not be true, but it is treated as the truth. Sometimes we use

Philosophy for Children

assume to assist the dialogue. “Let’s assume Santa is real.
If Santa is real can he die?” We don’t need to discuss theidea of Santa being real (although that is one of my favorite
topics with second graders), to discuss his immortality. The
word assume has a bad rap and that is because assumptions
can be dangerous. Learning what assume means helps us tounderstand how assumptions can be dangerous.
I–What can we infer from a belief? Inferences ask us
to think about consequences. They involve us in if…,then…
thinking. I sometimes struggle to differentiate infer and assume. I use our reading response definition (as I understandit) for infer. “When we infer, we use clues, things we alreadyknow and make predictions (or guesses) about what might
be true.” It is different (in my mind) from an assumption
because an assumption is believed to be true, while an inference, we realize, may or may not be true. I like to use to thisactivity to teach inference: When a guest joins us, we lookat the person and make some inferences about that person:
Who is he or she? What does that person do? Are they married? Do they have children? What hobbies do they have? It’sa fun and easy way to talk about infer. Then the guest gets tovalidate or invalidate our inferences.
I used an example of if…,then… thinking in the Santa
topic: “if Santa is real, can he die?” However, I rarely use
the if…,then… strategy. But if I use it, then it is probably
attached to an inquiry.
T–Is it true? Always? Sometimes? “Is it true?” is aninteresting question for second graders because to them,almost everything is true and real. Ask a second grader if
magic is real, the Tooth Fairy, dragons. It generates a reallyinteresting conversation. Sometimes they will also talk about
things that scare them: monsters, ghosts, etc. If you ask,
“Is it true always?” you get them closer to discriminating
between what is true and real and what is not. Also, someone
may make a statement such as “Boys don’t like ballet.” If you
ask if that is true they will probably say yes. Then ask if it isalways true. They will start to realize that if it is not always
true, it might not be true at all.
E–Can you provide an example or offer evidence? Insecond grade asking students for evidence is a useful task.
I ask the students what evidence they have to say that the
Tooth Fairy is real? The E may not change a child’s pointof view, but they become quite discriminating about whichevidence they will believe. The E is a most valuable tool forteaching reading comprehension. The students find evidence

23

in the story to support their responses. Prior to using the evidence in teaching reading, students would give me responses
that were not supported in the story. Since I started using
E in p4c I have noticed an improvement in their reading
responses.
E also stands for example. We may ask for examples
when we don’t know what someone means by… We also ask
students to give examples of things that are real. Generating
examples also helps us compare and understand concepts
and even develop criteria. If we ask children for examplesof their favorite toys, we can compare what they like about
these toys. We can then develop criteria for a good toy.
Example can also help disprove something. Do you have an
example of a talking dog? If there are no examples, perhaps
it doesn’t exist.
C–Is there a counter example? Counter examples areanother way of disproving or expanding ideas. For instance,a student may make a statement like “strangers are scary
looking.” Asking the students if there is a counter example:“Are there strangers that aren’t scary looking?” enables
students to delve deeper into understanding a concept (in thiscase the concept of stranger).
The tools from the Tool Kit transfer to other content
areas. One of my former students once stated, “In a paragraph we need to have examples and evidence for our topic
sentence.” In our reading response, we look for evidence tosupport our answers. We use the Tool Kit in science, social
studies, writing, and I’m sure you can find other uses. The
Good Thinkers Tool Kit helps students become discriminating thinkers. They are learning to think for themselves andnot just taking someone’s word on faith or without reason.
It is a way to examine inquiry. For me, it is the heart of theinquiry process.

#9 p4c teaches students to effectively
communicate.
In the p4c circle, students learn to take turns during
a discussion. They need to listen to each other. They ask
for clarification (What do you mean by that?). They also
learn to disagree without arguing. Prior to using p4c in myclassroom, second grade disagreements were usually of the“yes it is; no it’s not” variety, often ending with “I’m not yourfriend, any more.” With p4c students realize that there are arange of different perspectives. Differing points of view arevalued and make the discussion more interesting. Students

24

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

can be heard saying “I disagree because…” or “I agree
because…” or “Do you mean…” They also change theirminds based on the discussion. I’ve had second graders say“At first I thought…, but now I think…” or “I don’t knowwhat to think—my head is spinning (from all the different
perspectives)” Wow! Perhaps our world leaders need to sit ina p4c circle.

#10 p4c Hawai‘i is student centered.
In Plain Vanilla, the students formulate inquiries basedon their interests. The class then votes on the inquiry
topic for discussion. The students call on each other. Manytimes people from the university will sit in our circle. The
students do not automatically call on them, calling upon theirpeers instead.
p4c doesn’t preach. A former student would keep things
he “found.” He told me: “Finders keepers, losers weepers.”
In a p4c circle students shared how they felt when they lost
something. They talked about returning things they foundand how happy and grateful the person was. In the end, I
noticed him returning things he found on the floor. I believethat what his classmates had shared made an impression
on him. I don’t think he would have paid attention if it hadcome from me.

Finally, p4c “reshuffles the deck,” as Dr. J so eloquently
puts it. Students use the Tool Kit and share their insights.
Oftentimes we find that it is the most “philosophical” students are also the ones who have poor academic skills. How
well someone adds and subtracts has little correlation withhow logical or insightful they are. I have been impressedwith comments from my lowest readers, autistic students,
English language learners (ELL students), and every otherkind of learner. p4c also gives the rest of us an insight into
how these children think.
These are the things I love about p4c. I recommend
you try it. It helps to have support. If it weren’t for Dr. J
and Chip, I would’ve given up before I really started. It isalso great to have other teachers to talk to, and share with.
I always learn from watching Dr. J, Dr. Benjamin Lukey,
or my colleagues who join me to facilitate a p4c session.
Also, it is great to have a pair of fresh eyes. Sometimes I
don’t appreciate that my students are thinking like the great
philosophers until Dr. J, Dr. Ben, or a philosophy graduate
student visitor points it out to me. So if any of this resonateswith you, contact Dr. J or Waikïkï School.

Philosophy for Children

25

Philosophy for Children
Angela Kim
When I was first introduced to p4c Hawai‘i, it made me
cringe. I wasn’t sure what it was all about, but it reminded
me of a miserable past experience of sitting in a circle.
Sitting in circles is the sort of activity that I try to avoid inlife. During my junior year at high school, I attended a leadership camp at the recommendation of a teacher. My parents
signed me up. Leadership camp involved activities wheregroups spread out across the library all sitting in circles. The
group I was in involved sharing what kind of person we wereand how we might change once we went to college. My turncame, and I said I didn’t think I would change that much. It
was clear that my response wasn’t creative enough. The senior facilitator, who was a popular girl in our school of morethan two thousand students, dismissed my contribution. She
explained that going to college was like starting with a cleanslate and that we could be a new person—anyone we wanted
to be. I wasn’t about to speak up again, but I wanted to yell,“I like who I am. Why should I change?” I felt irritated at not
being acknowledged. I wanted to shout out: “This is stupid!
Who cares! If we change, we change. Why talk about it?”I have always felt that conversations like these were awaste of time, and this incident validated it for me. I didn’t
see the point. We sat and talked about issues until the cows
came home, but when it was over, nothing had changed. The
world was exactly the same, after this supposedly “worldchanging” conversation. Besides being a waste of time, I felt
it was a waste of emotions. On the last night of the leadership camp, everyone sat in one big circle. It was an open
discussion in which everyone was free to share. Emotions
began to pour out as sensitive topics were touched upon. I sat
dry-eyed, glancing at the clock, while others wept. It was apainful experience for me to endure.
Now that I am a fifth-grade teacher, I have the sameview about group sharing events. When I heard p4c Hawai‘i
was about sitting in a circle and sharing thoughts, ideas, andfeelings, the excitement it produced in me was about thesame as the prospect of doing yard duty. It was not something I wanted to do. However, I am in the minority as mostof the teachers at my school are cheerleaders for p4c.

When a p4c Hawai‘i course was first offered to ourteachers, I was adamant about not signing up. In the lunchroom, faculty conversation turned to the topic of the course.
One teacher told me it was great, and it had changed hislife. I told him I liked my life and didn’t want it to change.
Leadership camp all over again. I suppose I’m not a huge
fan of change. But gradually, the sign-up sheet was getting
filled—even by teachers who claimed not to be interested in
p4c. But the course did offer three very tempting credits, andit would be taught afterschool, on our campus, which made itvery convenient. I was desperately in need of credits and theprice was considerably less than other classes I had taken. I
began to view the course as an attractive option. I wavereda bit, and then I tried to convince a fellow teacher to sign up
with me. She would be just as uncomfortable in the course,
and I’d have an empathetic partner while getting my credits.
I figured if I could convince her, I could convince myself inthe process. We both reluctantly signed up.
I was told that Dr. Thomas Jackson, aka Dr. J, would
guide the p4c discussions in my class. If I was going to givethis p4c thing a try, I wanted to be sure that when I rejected
it, it wasn’t because I didn’t work with the best and most expert teacher of philosophy for children. Dr. J is the best, andhe is widely adored by the students at our school. When hewalks through the halls, children flock to his side just to hear
his Donald Duck impression and to ask when he’d be coming to their class next. He always smiles, and the children
see him more as a peer than an adult. He was very genuine
and was always excited about something, even if it was justchocolate. I love chocolate; so I could, at least, relate to him
on that level. But that didn’t mean I approved of p4c.
A group of “newbies” gathered together in the p4c
course. We were newbies, not because we were new to theschool, but because we were the p4c holdouts and had neverconducted p4c alone in our class. We were the skeptics—theones who would roll our eyes whenever we heard the words,“Let’s make a big circle.” The p4c sceptics would “pass”
when the community ball ended up in our hands. If any oneof us shared something, the others felt betrayed. There was

26

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

never really any pressure to share, unless, of course, it was
the pressure we put on ourselves. Dr. J was always pleased
with the outcome of each discussion despite the level ofparticipation.
At the beginning of the course, our newbie group allreceived articles about p4c printed on lovely purple paper.
We all agreed to read them by the time we were to meetagain. I started to read one of the articles, but then something
distracted me. I don’t remember what it was. It might havebeen the dishes or fatigue or boredom, but I never did finish
it. And apparently none of the other newbies finished theirreadings, either. Philosophy for children was a world wewere unfamiliar with. I still wasn’t on board when it wastime for my fifth graders first p4c session, but then I wasonly there to observe Dr. J at work.
My fifth grade class that year was an interesting group,
to say the least. They were a class of extremes— academic aswell as athletic. The personalities of the students werealso quite different. Some liked to speak up in class; others
did not. We even had extremes when it came to physicalheight. I was curious to see how p4c would work for thisdiverse class.
At our first p4c session, Dr. J and his college student“groupies” introduced themselves to the students. Dr. J
always travels with two or three students from the university
who are just as excited about p4c as he is. The students seemvery typical college students—young, wide-eyed, inquisitive,
and perhaps a little nervous. My students loved having thesecool visitors. If they couldn’t sit beside Dr. J, they wanted tosit next to one of these young philosophers. After the introductions, Dr. J started the process of making a community
ball. It started with a ball of yarn and the end was slowly
wrapped around a paper towel core as each child shared alittle about themselves. The yarn wrapping, I realized, kept
the children from being nervous and by the time everyone
had shared, the ball had been made with every student in
the class contributing. The end result was a community ball,which was to be used for future sessions. The rule is that if
you have the community ball, you have the floor. Sharing
always starts out with something simple. Students could
share their name and maybe their favorite thing to do. As
I observed the students, they didn’t seem too nervous withthis task. If a student was nervous or had nothing to say they
simply said “pass” and that was acceptable. No big deal
was made and, towards the end of the session, the students

who had passed were given another chance to share if theywanted to.
It all seemed harmless enough, but there was somethingthat I found very frustrating about p4c. I love talking withfriends and sharing my life and thoughts when I feel comfortable. But, when I feel put on the spot and all eyes are onme, I can’t think clearly. At times like these I don’t want
to share, but, at the same time, I don’t not want to share. I
want to be able to say something that makes everyone nod
and agree or laugh or even say, “Wow! What a profoundthought!” But, when I get nervous, all that’s in my headis, “Crap! It’s my turn.” Heck! It was hard enough raising
my hand in a group. I had to raise it at just the right time
so I could get the community ball passed to me before mythought became irrelevant to the discussion but not so early
that I was interrupting the speaker’s thoughts. And here I
was putting my students in this same frustrating situation,and instead of being sympathetic, I was irritated that they
weren’t all participating. It’s twisted, I know. I’m the sort ofteacher who wants my students to raise their hands to answer
a question. But, I’m the type of student who would rather sit
back and let others do the answering. I suppose I’m afraid
I’ll say something stupid. And yet, as a teacher, I encourage
my students to speak up and try to give an answer or express
an opinion. Maybe those high school circles left me more
scarred than I realized. In p4c, I had to learn to put aside
my own fears about participation and give the students thepatience and acceptance that I would have wanted.
As we progressed with p4c in our class, we moved on
to discuss more specific topics. The students volunteered
ideas and voted on them. Eventually, after some debate, a
topic would be chosen. Choosing the topic gave the students
ownership over the conversation. The students became theadvocates and the experts. I began to notice that the students’communication skills were improving and that I didn’t haveto referee as often. Students were becoming better at waiting
patiently for the community ball instead of interrupting, andsome of the reluctant speakers began raising their hands toshare. I appreciated this positive growth in the students. The
same behaviors were also occurring beyond p4c, at othertimes of the day. But I still harbored some doubts about thevalue of what was being discussed. Yet, after each session,
Dr. J was always so positive. He would say, “Wow! You
have an amazing group of children!” Or he would be in aweof the topic the students had chosen, and I would be think-

Philosophy for Children

ing to myself, “Why did we just spend forty-five minutes
discussing whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit?”
As we continued with p4c, in spite of my doubts, I
observed a shift in the discussions. I could see the students
beginning to feel more safe and free to share their ideas. I
had held myself back from taking over and controlling theconversation, unless a student was making others feel unsafe
by interrupting or verbally attacking them. But as the students became aware of what was acceptable and not acceptable, they began to feel secure in sharing and commenting,even the quiet ones. I enjoyed seeing this transformation,
because I identified with the quiet students. I knew if they
were sharing, it was because they wanted to and not because
they were being forced. They were genuinely comfortable,
as if they were talking to a friend or a family member. They
weren’t being put on the spot. And as they grew more confident, the topics gradually became deeper and more searching. We went from “What if ants ruled the world?” to “Whydo people get drunk?” Some people might say both topics
aren’t very philosophical. But, the real change wasn’t justin the topic; it was how the students talked about the topic.
They began to share personal life experiences. They becameless inhibited and showed respect for what each person said.
They realized they could learn from each other even if they
had different thoughts, ideas, and experiences. The students
were well aware of the fact that anything shared in p4c wasnever to be used as ammunition against each other. I was
pleasantly surprised to see this rule respected. Perhaps thefirst few sessions were learning experiences in which the students could observe how their teacher and peers would react
to what was being shared. When the p4c circle proved to bea safe place to talk about difficult themes, they began to open
up. Soon the sessions became more about life. And I learned
more and more about who the students really were and about
their personal issues and interests. I began to empathize withthem. It helped to guide me in my teaching so that I could
target my instruction more individually.
I also noticed they were becoming good critical thinkers
by using the thinkers toolkit, and I found myself learningfrom my students. One student might ask, “Why can’t
people think for themselves?” and another student might
respond with “Would you explain your question?” or “Canyou give us an example of when someone didn’t think forthemselves?” They wanted to know exactly what the otherwas asking, not what they thought she was asking. I assumed

27

I knew what the student was asking based on my perceptions
and soon found I was wrong. The students would not only
ask for clarification of questions, but of comments and evenwords. One discussion topic was about whether or not testing
was a good idea. The word “smart” came up and someone
asked, “What do we mean by ‘smart’?” I began to see why
so many teachers had incorporated p4c into their weekly
routine. As the students gained more opportunities to use
and practice critical thinking in p4c, they began to apply it
outside the p4c sessions in other lessons.
I can see now why these college students were an asset
to have around. They were still very inquisitive and creativein their thinking. I remember college being the time of life
when I asked the most questions, when I wondered the most,and when I was the most creative and daring in my thinking.
And here were my fifth graders practicing college level
thinking. Dr. J and the college students were in the same intellectual place and so they could relate to the students. I was
still trying to find a balance between being a disciplinarian, afacilitator, and a participant open to sharing my thoughts andquestions with my students. I found myself a little nervous
even in our own little p4c circle. It was like I was in college
all over again, except that I was the biggest students. With
each p4c session, the discussions, questions, and comments
resembled more and more a college classroom rather than anelementary one.
I can no longer call p4c Hawai‘i a waste of time. I could
see that there was a huge difference between the discussion
circles of my past and p4c circles. There was safety in p4c
and there was continuity. It wasn’t meant for one warm andfuzzy experience. It was there to assist in building a community of inquiry. With each conversation, genuine bonds werebeing developed, not at a rapid pace, but at a slow enoughpace so the bonds were strong.
It soon became clear that the students weren’t the only
ones benefiting from p4c. I was beginning to think about
things in a deeper way and ask questions about what was
really being said. The other day I was reading a book andthe author was trying to help me understand that there wasno clear and universally accepted definition of “good.” I
was with him on that, but as I continued to read I thought,“He’s making a lot of assumptions.” I was aware of this only
because p4c asks students not to take questions at their facevalue, but to ask what they assume. So, being a participant in
p4c has also helped me become a better thinker.

28

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Philosophy for children doesn’t change the world, but
it has the potential to change individual worlds and assist in
creating world changers. I’m learning all of this slowly but
surely. I have come to a new place where I feel that I’ll soon
be able to facilitate sessions without the help of Dr. J or oneof his college groupies. I may even remove the “newbie”
label I’ve enjoyed for so long. But, like Dr. J always says,“We’re not in a rush.” I’m just settling into the idea that thisp4c thing has its perks, and that’s something I’d like to shareat our next staff p4c session.

Philosophy for Children

29

Critical Communities: Intellectual Safety and the Powerof Disagreement
Ashby Butnor
Metropolitan State College of Denver

I was involved in p4c Hawai‘i for many years during
my graduate studies. It was my first introduction to “teaching,” or, more accurately, the facilitation of philosophicalinquiry. I cannot imagine a better way to prepare for a
lifetime of such work, though admittedly, the wisdom,
imagination, and openness to the world expressed by myyoung students then has set the bar very high for the men
and women I now see on a daily basis. For this reason, I begin each semester anew with the promise of philosophy forchildren; the promise of a term filled with fruitful dialogue
and hard thinking as well as laughter and camaraderie.
What I would call the “p4c pedagogy” has become infused into my undergraduate teaching. The Good Thinker’s
Toolkit, the model of reflective community inquiry, and thedesire to “scratch beneath the surface” are woven into thefoundation of my courses, even when p4c is never explicitly
discussed. At the beginning of each semester though, there
is one concept that stands out as a recurring challenge:
intellectual safety.
Intellectual safety is often conflated with the feeling of
being comfortable. Susan Herbst (2010), in her book Rude
Democracy, writes that, “72 percent of students agreed that
it was very important for them always to feel comfortable inclass.” I imagine this feeling of comfort as similar to feelings of relaxation and belonging, free of stress and doubt,
while being entertained, amused, or satisfied in some way.
Herbst adds to this sense by including the students’ desire
to remain “unthreatened intellectually.” While we may all
strive to maintain classrooms absent of physical or emotional threats, a college classroom without intellectual challenges is likely one of complacency and mental laziness.
It is my claim that intellectual growth, for both anindividual and a community, must involve some kind of
discomfort. I see this discomfort as a natural by-productof an initiation to interactive, dialogue-driven learning. A

dialogic pedagogy is one in which new ideas, arguments, andpositions emerge through serious, intellectual conversation.
In this approach, all participants are responsible for their own
contributions and accountable to the community of inquirers.
If a student is accustomed to, and thus comfortable with,learning directly from a teacher, a textbook, or a PowerPoint
slide, being asked to think and talk about what one thinks
may be a truly threatening experience. Thinking may be
painful. Being asked to defend a point of view may feel
intimidating. Having to create or change a position can be
taxing. For some, even speaking seriously in front of others
may be foreign and disconcerting. Fear, insecurity, and embarrassment may be completely normal reactions to a change
in teaching strategy and, hence, a shift in what is expected ofeach student.
Even for those experienced in community inquiry,
moments of discomfort may be common when engaged indialogue. What is so exciting about interactive and dialoguedriven learning is its open-ended structure. In some sense,one must be ready for anything—for changing one’s mind,
becoming aware of one’s own implicit assumptions, being
attracted to or disturbed by new perspectives, struggling
through a difficult idea, or impressing even oneself withan articulate expression of insight. Along with moments of
discomfort are also these moments of excitement, discovery,
affirmation, and achievement. It is these “aha moments,” andtheir persistence and reappearance, that make the struggle
and pain worthwhile. It is precisely this sense of accomplishment that comes from the thinking process itself that I want
my students to experience.
I recommend that we reconceive intellectual safety toembrace something more than simply feeling comfortable.
An intellectually safe place ought to be established with therecognition that vulnerability is a central component of theepistemic mission. We are vulnerable whenever we willingly

30

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

put our ideas and positions at risk—risk of being challenged,
revised, defeated, or elevated in the course of conversation.
In some sense, we are putting our very selves at risk. We truly give of ourselves in this collective, dialectical process. Not
only do we openly share our own partial interpretations of
the truth, but we must also relinquish our stake in those ideas
in order to fully hear and be present to the positions of others. And all participants must then be invested in a quest fortruth and meaning and willing to follow the inquiry where
it leads. In our search for an understanding greater than ourown, we seek, in the words of Hans-Georg Gadamer, a fusion of horizons. For a genuine fusion, a genuine—i.e., risky,
vulnerable, and challenging—dialogue must take place. Thisfusion involves more than a mere merger of ideas. There’s asense of an internal debate taking place; a sense of striving tounderstand different positions in the process of presenting abetter account of one’s own and, further, supporting the best
position overall.
There is, I imagine, nothing more tedious than a classroom of students who constantly agree with one another.
This kind of agreement is not the expression of shared ideas,but, rather, an unwillingness to put anything at risk. In myclassrooms, I want students to become fully invested in thevalue and power of disagreement. Thus, I engage in theformation of what I call “critical communities.” The mission of a critical community is the pursuit of truth throughintellectual engagement with texts, ideas, and one another.
At the heart of such engagement is disagreement. With mystudents, I work to foster and develop the skills necessary tochallenge, critique, and disagree in a constructive manner. It
is the moments of disagreement that push us forward in the
dialogue and allow us to get somewhere, however indeterminate that place may be. However, I dissuade them fromseeing disagreement as a facile, two-sided debate. Given
the prevalence of over-simplified and factionalized politicaldebate, this model of disagreement is one that students either
emulate or seek to avoid in their complacent agreement with
one another. Thus, part of establishing a critical communitythat seeks truth and common wisdom is to show themanother way to disagree. Disagreement reveals complexity,
nuance, and subtlety, rather than simplification and overgeneralization. Disagreement raises questions and draws
people together in a search for answers, rather than drawing
the lines of insurmountable difference. A critical community
wants answers, but not easy answers.

The question then remains as to how we can create
intellectually safe places while simultaneously elevating
the value of disagreement and criticism. How can one feel
intellectually safe while explicitly making oneself vulnerable
to challenges? I believe a crucial first step is empowerment.
Students need to come to value themselves, their community,
their ability to think, and their capacity to cultivate thinking
skills. I see students who are often intimidated, and evenincapacitated, at the possibility of getting something wrong.
This incapacitating level of self-consciousness needs to be
dismantled. I begin this process in the simplest of ways;
I begin each term by simply getting them talking. I will
spend the first few weeks of each course with as muchdialogue-driven talking as possible. My expectations for thelevel of discourse at this point are fairly minimal, though I
try to raise the bar gradually. So much rides on a student’s
perceptions of her own abilities and her belief in the kind oflearner she is (typically, a quiet one who prefers lectures!).
If I can persuade each student to articulate her thoughts toothers and to validate those thoughts and ideas with as muchencouragement as possible, students may begin to gain more
confidence. For students who are already accustomed to suchmethods, I may begin to prod them for better responses or
encourage others to disagree or raise an objection to theirpoints. I try to do this in as light-hearted a way as possible,
pointing out that laughter and good fun can be part andparcel of intellectual challenge and learning. In addition to
instilling useful habits in each student and modeling a formof critical engagement, this process also builds community.
In a way, we are “in it together.” Students begin to realize
they are embarking on a journey and everyone plays a role inthis expedition. The better we work together, the better thisjourney will become.
The analogy of a journey helps to remind all of us that
we are engaging in a process. As educators, we need to instillin students the idea of learning as a process, and, even better,a communal process by which communities of inquirers
can progress together. Wisdom does not come via instantgratification. It is a slow, arduous process of maturation andskill building of which we are all capable. Establishing intellectual safety requires instilling a necessary amount of confidence to recognize vulnerability as a legitimate and vital
aspect of learning. Understanding that errors, misjudgments,
and revisions are part of the learning process, students may
be more likely to value constructive criticism, disagreement,

Philosophy for Children

and challenges to their current ideas. Furthermore, withgrowing confidence in their abilities and progress, students
will come to be even more motivated to learn, explore, andfind joy in the process itself.
Intellectual safety, then, should not be understood as
feeling comfortable. Rather, it should be conceived as afeeling of trust in oneself and one’s community to honestly
and genuinely engage in thinking together. Gadamer (1980,
p. 121–122) describes shared inquiry as the activity in which
we “willingly put all individual opinions to the test while
abjuring all contentiousness and yielding to the play ofquestion and answer.” Here, we see the beauty of dialogue; itis both a testing and challenging of our perspectives as well
as a playful and joyful pursuit for truth through dialogue.
However, it is precisely intellectual safety, the “abjuring [of]all contentiousness,” that allows for this dual identity as bothcritique and play. While we should reject belligerent quarrels
and unproductive squabbling amongst our students, we need
not eliminate intellectual “threats” or challenges. These, wehave seen, are the engines of this enterprise. And lest we
not forget the point of this process, Gadamer concludes thispassage by stating, “shared inquiry should make possible not
only insight into this or that specific thing, but, insofar as
is humanly possible, insight into all virtue and vice and thewhole of reality.” While this may be a bit too lofty an aspiration for our own critical communities, the role of our sharedinquiries is no less important.

REFERENCES
Herbst, S. (2010). Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in
American Politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Gadamer, H-G. (1980). Dialogue and Dialectic: Eight
Hermeneutical Studies on Plato.. P. Christopher Smith. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

31

32

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Philosophy for Children in Hawai‘i: A Community Circle Discussion
Benjamin Lukey
In spite of the many different “flavors” of p4c Hawai‘i, one undeviating element involves the creationof a community for intellectually safe philosophical inquiry. The first step in this process is usually an
activity in which the participants work together to fashion a “community ball”. It’s a process that Thomas
Jackson teaches in his PHIL 492 course.
The Community Ball
Lisa Widdison (UH Mänoa philosophy graduate student
and p4c facilitator at Hokulani Elementary)
When I took Dr. Thomas Jackson’s Philosophy forChildren course, he taught us, right at the beginning, how
to make a “community ball.” I have to admit, I did not get
the purpose at ﬁrst. I thought it was a sort of an intentional
distraction to make us less self-conscious as we answered thethree questions that Dr. Jackson asked us. I could not havebeen more wrong. What I got from the class is that I havebecome less fearful of being wrong and more concerned
about ﬁnding out when I might not have it right. The questions we were asked that day could have been any number ofdifferent questions. By combining group interaction with thephysical creation of a very likable ball of yarn, the class became a community. The yarn changed from a mere thing toa symbolic representation of the community as it was passedalong. One student fed it with yarn, another student answereda question, then they passed the growing ball to someone
else who fed in more yarn and so on to the next person. The
result was that we had collaborated in making the ball. Whyis that so special? The community ball has several functions.
As it is formed, the community is formed. The community
ball activity demonstrates that cooperation among individuals is necessary for the creation of a community. The ballalso becomes a means of assigning the power to speak.
Whoever has the ball is the one permitted to speak. This does
not mean that one has to speak; it means that they can speak
if they wish or choose to pass, and in passing choose who isto speak next.
When people visit an upper-elementary or high school p4c
Hawai‘i classroom, they come away deeply impressed with thelevel of thought and discourse among the students. The question
arises “How are you able to get your students to do this?” Often,
the first step, as David Falgout notes, is simply changing thestructure of the classroom into a circle, which shifts the focus
toward dialogue and inquiry.

The Community Circle
David Falgout (UH Mänoa philosophy graduate student,
HPU lecturer)
I feel it’s important to point out that the goals of theteacher are reflected in the structure of the classroom. Put
differently, classroom structures reveal much about the
implicit aims of educators. Children, as they are habituatedinto these structures, become implicitly (and sometimes
explicitly) aware of these expectations and react accordingly.
The typical modern classroom reflects such educational
aims as “following directions,” and our students frequently
respond to this by assuming that their present life situations
have no bearing on the content of education. In other words,
the education they receive tells them that their individualinterests are to be set aside for the sake of receiving a “onesize-fits-all” education, especially considering contemporary
standardized testing approaches. A revision of the classroom
structure, however, could remedy this situation significantly
because it would simultaneously communicate to students
that the teacher is adjusting routines for the students. It isrevealing, therefore, to notice the reaction that new students
have upon entering a p4c Hawai‘i community circle for the
first time. At first, many are simply giddy that the classroom
offers a break from the traditional models they are familiarwith. They are brought into an environment that encourages
dialogue and inquiry.

Once in a circle, cultivating an intellectually safe communityof inquiry requires time, patience, and a commitment tofundamental practices of talking, listening, and thinking with
one another in class. From kindergarten, the groundwork is laidso that by the time children are in 2nd grade, they are alreadymodeling the behavior we would like to see as adults.

Philosophy for Children

Lydia Shigekane (Waikïkï Elementary teacher)
In kindergarten, I view p4c principally as a communitybuilding activity. My primary aims in kindergarten p4c arefor everyone to feel safe enough to speak, to want to speak,to speak with kindness, and to listen with empathy to others.
From the first day of school, our first group activity is tosit in a circle on the floor and introduce ourselves to eachother, sharing some simple bits of information. We use a soft
stuffed animal (monkey) as the-right-to-speak device, andtake turns speaking. There are always a few children who are
too shy to talk, and they do, of course, have the right to pass.
But even shy children want to be heard, and it doesn’t takelong before everyone is at least saying, “Hi friends, my nameis….” I rejoice when this happens. The first step toward
speaking to the group has been taken by all. This is how westart p4c in kindergarten—one simple question, monkey goesaround the circle, and everyone has the chance to speak.
Once the habit of sitting in a circle, passing George,
and listening attentively (more or less) has been established,
I break the class into two groups (random groupings) andbegin introducing inquiry into our p4c circle. With only
half the class (ten or so students) sitting together in a circle,
children get the chance to speak more often and to listen for
shorter time durations. Sometimes we start our conversation
by reading a story and talking about questions that arise fromthe story, sometimes we just wonder about things, and sometimes I pose questions related to class or home experiences.
There is never a guarantee that something great will happen during a p4c session, especially in kindergarten, whensitting still and waiting for a turn to speak can be agonizing.
Sometimes I find myself acting and feeling like a bad policeman, brutish and cranky, because my only contribution to thecommunity seems to be repeated, stern warnings to restless,inattentive souls. On these occasions I can barely keep
track of the muted, interrupted ramblings of a few devoted
students who have done their best to keep the conversation
moving. Do we, as kindergarten p4c participants consistently“scratch beneath the surface?” No. But we are trying tospend a little more time than usual on ideas. And we arepracticing being a community that can think together andlearn from each other.
Jolyn Ikeda (Waikïkï Elementary teacher)In the p4c circle, students learn to take turns during
a discussion. They need to listen to each other. They ask

33

for clarification (What do you mean by that?). They also
learn to disagree without arguing. Before p4c, second
grade disagreements were usually a “yes it is”/ “no its
not” argument, usually ending with “I’m not your friend
any more.” With p4c, students realize that there are manydifferent perspectives. Differing points of view are valued
and make the discussion more interesting. Students can beheard saying “I disagree because…” or “I agree because…”or “Do you mean…?” They also change their minds
based on the discussion. I’ve had second graders say, “At
first I thought…, but now I think…” or “I don’t knowwhat to think, my head is spinning (from all the different
perspectives)” Wow! Perhaps our world leaders need to sit ina p4c circle.
Val Gee and Whitney Mahoney (Waikïkï
Elementary teachers)
When we have p4c sessions in our fifth-grade inclusionclass, Dr. Jackson joins us and brings along several UH
students, which adds even more variety to our truly diverse
classroom. For both of us, p4c has become a valuable toolthat we have been able to use not only as an avenue for ourstudents to freely express themselves, but also as a meansof promoting healthy and positive relationships among eachother. It’s an opportunity for students and adults to apply realworld skills such as listening, sharing ideas, and learning tolive together in a diverse society. It is wonderful to witness
students of varying needs and abilities listen to others andspeak their minds on various student generated topics, suchas “Should kids be able to drive?” and “Are ghosts real?”
When teachers see the benefits of cultivating communities ofinquiry in their classrooms, they also seek such communities
in their professional development. The principal of Waikïkï
Elementary School, one of p4c Hawai‘i’s model schools, sees theefficacy of the Community Circle not just among the students,
but among the teachers as well.

Bonnie Tabor (Waikïkï Elementary principal)
As principal, I have found p4c to be of tremendous
benefit to our teachers in their professional development.
Our faculty meetings often become p4c circles. Within theseforums, teachers challenge themselves to bump up their own
thinking skills and delve deeper into the topic of concern.
Through the intense process of discussion, a camaraderie
develops as all strive together to become increasingly
adept and effective critical thinkers whose decisions will

34

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

impact the school community positively. This process isenlightening. As teachers develop their own thinking, it has
a positive and synergistic impact on everything that happens
within the school. Better thinkers yield better teachers who inturn produce more inspired classrooms for our students.

Intellectual Safety
One of the defining features of a p4c Hawai‘i community ofinquiry is intellectual safety. Commitment to an intellectuallysafe classroom is a commitment to inclusivity in which allparticipants are valued. The importance of intellectual safety
is highlighted further in classes where students with special
needs are included in the classroom community. Students
with disabilities often lack confidence in their value asparticipants and, as a high school special education teacher
relates, an intellectually safe p4c classroom can help themrealize their value.

Katie Berger (Kailua High School
special-education teacher)
The environment of a p4c community is by nature lessthreatening for students, especially those with disabilities
who may be more timid in a general education setting. The
classroom is set up so that all students and teachers are
together as one community. Teachers take on more of a
facilitator role, which in my opinion gives students a sensethat whatever they have to offer to the community is just as
important as what the teacher may have to offer. I think thismoves some of the pressure of being “right” away from thestudent and gives them an opportunity to say how they feelor add their thoughts on the matter without the possibilityof being ridiculed for being “wrong.” The p4c classroom isbuilt upon community, inquiry, and philosophical dialogue.
In order for these three things to take place all students must
agree on making the class intellectually safe. This means that
all community members have the right to their own opinionand everyone has to be heard without judgment.
Students in our English class took this very seriously,
and this was important in building a strong community ofinquiry. Because students felt safe about participating, thediscussions would quickly develop as philosophical conversations and students would “dig deeper” into the topics. All
student in the class, disability or not, felt comfortable weighing in. And the more the special education students added
to the class discussion, the easier it became for them to raise
their hand and take risks answering questions they weren’t
sure about. The feedback they got from other community

members was positive; the classroom, intellectually safe.
The intellectual safety of a classroom develops gradually. There
are many degrees of intellectual safety. As a classroom becomes
more intellectually safe, participants are more honest because
both the speaker and the listeners know that honest participation requires respect and that there is far less anxiety that one’s
words may be misunderstood.

Dana Finnegan (Hökülani Elementary teacher)“You can tell Ms. Finnegan that you hate her!” Thatstatement out of the mouth of a six-year-old babe was acelebration of the freedom of p4c in our classroom. How
could that be a celebration? What p4c has brought toour classroom and our lives is the freedom of real truth,
genuine honesty (around adults no less) and the joy that
freedom has triggered.
When in a child’s life, or anyone’s for that matter, canyou look directly at someone and know that it is okay tobe that honest without dire consequences? All their lives
children are taught by adults not to lie, but then we admonish
them if their truth is not what we expect it to be. How confusing is that?
Intellectual safety is important for its role in developing a
sense of community, but it is also valued for its role in helping
students to make progess in their thinking and understanding.
A philosophy graduate student explains how intellectual safety
came to improve her own thinking.

Ana Laura Funes Mandelstam (UH Mänoa philosophy
graduate student)
One of the things that has struck me the most about thephilosophy for children program is precisely its capacity tomake us think anew about any topic within a safe environment, without having to worry about being wrong or rightor original. When I am at a p4c session, I feel my thoughts

flowing spontaneously again. They articulate themselves inan original and unique way that happens just because I am allowed to be “me.” The amazing thing is that this uniquenesssprings out of the community of inquiry and because of it.
This is something that I became aware of as I was working on
an essay about Wittgenstein. He says that it is only after having learned language in social interactions that we can start toarticulate our “inner language” of thought and not viceversa.
I think my visits to Waikïkï Elementary School have helped
me to better understand this idea. Having visited p4c sessions
mostly with first graders over one semester made me realize

Philosophy for Children

how much our thought is embedded within this social context, and how important it is for the development of our own
thoughts to be part of a safe community.

Progress in p4c Hawai‘i inquiries
A p4c Hawai‘i inquiry is a complex process of social and intellectual interactions. Veteran p4c teachers are attuned to themany ways that students and a class may exhibit progress in andthrough the inquiry process. Simply being part of an intellectually safe diverse community exposes participants to different
ideas and prompts explorations of one’s beliefs and those ofothers. The initial confusion that results from the introductionof new ideas is a sign of progress in our own thinking

Catherine Caine (Waikïkï Elementary teacher)Social learning is at the core of my philosophy as ateacher. I can’t emphasis enough that we learn best when weare supported within a safe community that values not only
thinking but also social thinking. As a teacher it is imperativethat I find systems that enhances my students opportunities
to learn in social ways.
In her book Active Literacy Across the Curriculum,
Heidi Hayes Jacob makes a distinction between true discussions and question-answer sessions. When teachers ask
questions it is usually the same students who raise theirhands, ready with the answer that the teacher is seeking. No
discussion. Jacobs, however, points to the Latin root of theword discussion as “discutere” which means to shake apart.
p4c doesn’t encourage students to find the one right answer,
it creates instead “discutere,” a shaking up of thinking, if
you will. By engaging in social learning processes students
are provided with an opportunity to explore, investigate,
respond, and listen to others’ thoughts.
When presented with a variety of beliefs and viewpoints, it isimportant that participants are also equipped with the means
to critically examine these beliefs and form further questions
that will push the inquiry deeper. The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit(GTTK), created by Thomas Jackson, provides participants witha vocabulary and strategies that develop critical thinking skills.
Also referred to as WRAITEC1, the GTTK consists of seven letters that help identify and facilitate processes characteristicof good thinking. These “tools” are often utilized throughout
the process of inquiry, the most basic of which is called “Plain
Vanilla.” Plain Vanilla consists of five stages: 1) Participantsread, watch, or listen to a stimulus together as a community;2) each participant poses a question; 3) the participants thenvote on which question they will use to begin the discussion;4) the discussion/inquiry begins (this stage usually accounts for35

the bulk of the time in Plain Vanilla); and 5) they reflect on and/or evaluate the discussion. A Kailua High School teacher who
is also a Waikïkï Elementary School parent relates a story thatreveals how comfortable and competent her children were with
the GTTK and how they were able to help her as she began to
use these strategies as a teacher. Another Kailua High School
teacher relates how comfortable her sophomore students werewith the GTTK and how they used WRAITEC to form questions
for the classes’ first Plain Vanilla.

Kelley Espinda (Kailua High School Japanese Language
and Culture teacher)I am privileged that both of my children have attendedWaikïkï Elementary School and have participated for several
years in the p4c experience with Dr. Jackson. It has helped
both my son and daughter develop confidence, and it has
improved their problem solving skills and compassion forothers. An “aha” moment for me came about when I wasbrainstorming a lesson plan that included some practicequestions for my students. My ten-year-old daughter
surprised me, when I asked about the WRAITEC acronymthat is one of the strategies that they learn in p4c. She began
immediately reciting key words and example questions froma book report she was currently working on in class. I followed up by asking her what she thought about the practicequestions I had written down previously. Without a bat of aneye, she exclaimed, “Really, Mom!” I almost caught her rolling her eyes at me. She was unimpressed with my questions
and immediately started offering feedback on how I could
make my WRAITEC questions better. The WRAITEC tool
kit is extremely useful in guiding and creating questions that
promote discussion and inquiry.
Jenine Hutsell (Kailua High School English teacher)On the first day of school I sat in a circle of twentyseven sophomores, nervously rehearsing how I would
explain the community ball to the new students. My sweaty
hands fidgeted with the brightly colored yarn. “What is thecommunity ball?” I asked the class, as if I really knew what
I was talking about. Instantly, hands shot up and students
rang out in reply. I was relieved. Not only did students know
how the community ball worked, but they also knew why
it was important to the community. I was impressed withthe students’ confidence in their responses. They had taken
the teacher’s role, collaboratively explaining the concept ofthe ball, and I had taken the student’s role as an active andsupportive listener.

36

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

As much as I had learned on the first day, I was stillworking from bits and pieces, and struggling to pick up theconcepts as we rapidly moved through the first semester.
Thankfully the students were already familiar with using theGood Thinker’s Toolkit and WRAITEC inquiry strategies,
which guided the class discussions. Our first Plain Vanilla
started about mid-way through the semester. I had put up
reading response questions for the students to completein order to review their reading from the previous day. I
thought this would help students prepare for the discussion.
As the students completed their responses in their notebooks,
I looked over their own WRAITEC. questions to make surethey were ready to share. As I read I was impressed with thedepth and insightfulness that the students’ communicatedthrough their questioning. I looked back at my questions on
the board and found them completely unnecessary. I realizedthat I did not need to give them questions to answer; I justneeded to listen to the questions they already wanted toask. My little reading response questions were killing theauthentic curiosity that the students had already developed
and were itching to share. That was the last time I gave thequestions.
Progress in an inquiry can also be deeply personal. Two teachersat Waikïkï Elementary describe the social and academic progressof one of their students as an illustration of the impact of p4c.

number of times he raised his hand during p4c, and eachtime his answers grew in depth and complexity. By the endof the year, he was drawing from his extensive knowledgeof historical facts and current events to explain, support, anddefine his ideas. He gradually gained in confidence as his
peers listened attentively to his opinions and began to lookto him as a source of historical and factual information. We
also saw gains in his writing and personal communication.
Many students find themselves drawn to topics and questions
that are familiar from academic philosophy.

Makana Ramos (Kailua High School alumnus)
I enrolled in Honors English trying to make my folks happy,

and I didn’t know what to expect. I hadn’t taken a class fromthe teacher, Chad Miller, before, but I am very grateful I had
the chance because the guy changed my life. I was allowed

to speak up in class and share my ideas. This class was likenothing I had experienced before. I thought I had enrolled inan honors English class but luckily I got philosophy instead.
The approach Mr. Miller took in his classroom brought

everyone out of their shells and right into the action. I took

an interest in the topics we discussed. Now, I actually wanted
to go to school. I couldn’t wait to ponder and question

the different ideas that I had walked past so many times

in the hallways of life. What is love? What is hate? Whatis enlightenment? We read book after book, and I found

Val Gee and Whitney Mahoney (Waikïkï
Elementary teachers)

myself really wanting to read. Philosophical discussions

We recall one particular student. He was shy andsomewhat reserved. He was fond of numbers, history, anddrawing, but he rarely raised his hand or talked much inclass. His contributions to discussions were usually short,
one-word responses like “yes,” or “no,” or simply “because.”
As teachers, we wanted to help him to come out of his shelland achieve more of the potential that was in him. After acouple months of school, he revealed in his journal that hehas aspirations to be a politician when he grows up. With
his dream of one day running for office in an election, we
knew that developing communication skills would be vitalto pursuing his goals, but we weren’t sure how to help him.
To our pleasant surprise, he began slowly to emerge fromhis shell during p4c sessions. The open nature of p4c andthe feeling it encourages that it is safe to talk, provided
the perfect context for him to improve his communication
skills without feeling pressure. Each week he increased thestop until I was satisfied. We would read short stories andfueled my appetite for understanding, and I wouldn’t

discuss them vigorously. Our small class of twelve becamea scholarly community like the one in the movies, like

Dangerous Minds. p4c changed the way I looked at and cameto value education. Now I want to spread the word and way
to everyone. I believe introducing philosophy into schools

nation wide would drastically change the lives of students

for the better. Our p4c circle changed me forever and I will be
forever grateful.

Ultimately, what teachers often see is all these aspects ofprogress come together in one classroom. In her reflection on
p4c Hawai‘i, a Waikïkï Elementary School teacher sees personal,social, and philosophical growth interwoven together.

Nannette Ganotisi (Waikïkï Elementary teacher)
Sometimes, many times, the topics start off light and fun
before going deeper. The holidays always spark an interest

Philosophy for Children

in topics like ghosts, or Halloween, or “Is Santa real?” These
topics have a way of going deeper and students wonder if it
is or is not fun to be scared. The class usually separates into
those who say it is fun to be scared and those who saying it
isn’t. These are times with no right or wrong answers.
p4c has really helped some of our students feel
comfortable in sharing their emotions. Some have spoken
about their parents’ divorce and feel safe enough to share
how they feel.
I often start a p4c session with a story, song, or artifact.
On one occasion we started with the song “True Colors.”
A first grade girl shared that her dad “hides his true colors
and that is why mommy and daddy are getting divorced.”
Then another first grader shared a story about her dad texting
another woman and her mom found it. Details like thesemake p4c so powerful and even heartbreaking at times. Fourgirls decided to form a sort of club at recess after learningthat each of them came from divorced families. They asked
if they could stay inside at recess for their club. It was a
short-lived club, but it formed a long-lived friendship. After
sharing their stories they wanted to play. Their friendshipendured for the rest of the year. When students share stories
like this it makes all of the students think more deeply—
about their own families, about relationships, and about eachother. They learn to empathize, to care about friends andrelations, and to cooperate with each other.

What Kids Have to Say
As rewarding as it may be for teachers to be involved with
p4c Hawai‘i, the real reason they remain committed to p4c is
because of their students. The students themselves love p4c,
and they understand why it is important that they have theopportunity to take time out of a busy school-day to nurture
their community of inquiry.

Matt Lawrence (Waikïkï Elementary teacher)
I asked students in my sixth-grade class to answer thequestion, “If you believe p4c is good for kids, what are yourreasons?” Here’s what some of them had to say.
p4c allows us to use our minds and think in different ways. You
have to back up your reasons with evidence and examples. Thatcan really help improve your writing skills. While doing a report
I think of p4c, and then I use descriptive words on it.
Usually when kids talk they get disrupted, but p4c is a fun way toshare questions and ideas about a subject without getting laughedat or criticized. If the topic involves something that you have held

37

inside yourself, p4c is something that allows you to say it.
In p4c we can express ourselves. We also can talk about things thatyou have problems with; or you can talk about things to get otherthings off you mind. When someone is scared about something, in
p4c you get to know that other people are feeling the same way
as you and then you know that you aren’t alone. There are otherpeople in your class who are may be scared too. Without p4c
kids wouldn’t be able to escape what’s going on in their heads.
p4c is a way to communicate with your classmates and get toknow them better. You hear other students’ opinions and maybe
change yours. When you hear others...it might have a positiveeffect on you such as understanding more about the topic or
getting new ideas.
p4c teaches us how to respect each other’s ideas and everyone’s
different perspectives. It also helps me learn how to discipline
myself and listen intently to other people’s thoughts instead of justthinking about my own opinions and thinking that MY thinking
is the only right way.

ENDNOTES
1

W- What do you mean by?; R – Reasons; A- Assume/Assumptions; I – Infer/Inferences, Implications, If…Then; T – True; E– Examples, Evidence; C – Counterexample

38

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

The High School Philosopher in Residence:
What Philosophy and Philosophers Can Offer Schools
Benjamin Lukey

The Call for a High School Philosopher in
ResidenceEver since Thomas Jackson introduced philosophy
for children to Hawai‘i in the mid-1980s, one of the defining characteristics of his p4c Hawai‘i program has been
its commitment to working with classroom teachers in
Hawai‘i’s public schools. Part of the program’s mission has
been to find every way possible to support these teachers,
both in their classrooms and as faculty in a school setting.
This has aided the teachers to develop their own intellectually safe communities of philosophical inquiry and to growas colleagues engaged in philosophically fruitful reflections
on issues that matter to them. All this has helped to create
a deep-seated commitment among the teachers to p4c as abasic approach to teaching, rather than just another passing
programmatic fad. Until relatively recently, much of the
focus had been on working with teachers in elementary
school classrooms, where they had the freedom to set aside
time for p4c each week.
At Kailua High School (KHS)1, two teachers—Amber
Makaiau and Chad Miller—began incorporating p4c into
their curricula (in social studies and English, respectively).
Both have achieved impressive results in their respectiveclassrooms. Their students have also performed wellin their classes and on the high stakes tests such as the
Hawai‘i State Assessments, and Advanced Placement
exams. More importantly, their students were engaged participants and spoke positively to other students and teachers
about their English and social studies classes. Through the
University of Hawai‘i, Makaiau and Miller taught a course
to introduce p4c to several colleagues who had become
interested. Although the class was successful in introducing
the theory behind philosophy for children and many aspectsof the p4c pedagogy developed by Jackson, Makaiau, andMiller, it became clear that if p4c Hawai‘i was going tobecome part of the Kailua High School culture, teachers

who wanted to implement p4c in their classrooms would
need additional support.
Thus the p4c Hawai‘i Executive Council decided, withthe support of the Uehiro Foundation and private donors, that
we would provide the support of a high school philosopher
in residence as a pilot scheme. I agreed to take on this roleand endeavor to translate my experience and competencewith p4c in elementary school settings into the high school
context. The project would enable me to learn about exactly
what was required in the role of a high school philosopher inresidence (PIR).

What is a High School Philosopher in
Residence?
When I first began working at Kailua High School in
2007, there was no job description for a philosopher in residence. Furthermore, in creating my own job description forthis position, I realized that I was working against a systemthat predominantly views educators as subject-matter specialists. A quite natural expectation of teachers and students
is that the role of a philosopher in residence is to dispense
expertise on the subject of philosophy in keeping with theirstanding as an authority on the historical figures, movements, schools, and arguments that are studied in philosophy
departments in colleges and universities across the U.S. But I
saw my role quite differently and wanted to avoid the trap of
becoming just another subject specialist.
I do recognize, however, that the idea of the subject
matter specialist is very deeply embedded in current
educational thought and practice. The idea derives from a
conception of education that sees education as the processof pouring information into learners minds, from one
sophisticated, carefully crafted container (i.e., the teacher)into several less sophisticated, still unfinished containers(i.e., the students). This emphasis on the transmission of
information can be traced to the Taylor model of education

Philosophy for Childrenthat has dominated education reform since the early 20th
Century. In their book, Becoming Good American Schools:
The Struggle for Civic Virtue in Education Reform,
Jeannie Oakes et al. describe the Taylor efficiency modelof education, which views teachers as factory workers
and students as the widgets that they produce. The model
likens knowledge and learning to commodities. Teachers,
as subject-matter experts, not only ensure the continued
production of this commodity, they also lobby to ensurethat it is valued in proportion to how many widgets they can
produce.
The Taylor model and its accompanying hierarchy ofsubject-matter specializations creates difficulties for teachers
in engaging in interdisciplinary practices. It provides nospace for collegial dialogue and collaboration. Pedagogicalimprovement is often limited to “tricks” for passing on new
information, ideas, or concepts. In addition, teachers are too
ready to profess their non-expertise in subjects outside their
specialization. High school teachers will regularly proclaim,
I am not a science teacher,” or “I am not an English teacher.”This perpetuates the idea of distinct disciplines confined
only to those who are recognized specialists. For those
who are not recognized specialists, the discipline thus
becomes external and peripheral to their interests. While theunderstanding of certain concepts undoubtedly requires thekind of concentrated effort that only specialists in a field
can afford, the focus on content specialization creates thefalse impression that non-specialists or specialists in otherdisciplines can not meaningfully contribute to the pedagogy
or understanding in a particular discipline.
Thus, when I began work at Kailua High School I
understood that I had to overcome the entrenched view ofphilosophy as a content specialization and the view of thephilosopher as subject specialist if I were to make any impact
in my role as philosopher in residence. Over-emphasis on
subject matter specialization makes it difficult for teachers
to include philosophy as part of K–12 education. One of thereasons for the relative paucity of philosophy in K–12 education is the questionable assumption that children and adolescents are unable to comprehend the issues and questions
that make up the discipline of philosophy or to engage inphilosophical reasoning. A further reason is that philosophers
have no recognized discipline-specific role within the K–12
school system.2 I felt strongly that what was needed was toadopt a more collaborative and interdisciplinary approach.

39

Philosophy is generally regarded as a rather arcane
subject—the preserve of specialists who predominantly
teach in colleges and universities.3 Thus, in creating theposition of a philosopher in residence at Kailua HighSchool, I wanted to avoid the image of “philosopher” as a
subject-matter specialist. There were several reasons forthis. First, philosophy is not, and should not be, its own
content area, separate from other content areas. Secondly
because my role as PIR was to work with teachers in theirclassrooms, I did not want to act as the sage on the stage
dispensing philosophical wisdom. My role would instead
be to help teachers and students engage in philosophicalactivity in the classroom. The reinstatement of philosophy asa classroom activity serves as an antidote to the idea of thephilosopher as a subject-matter specialist. Philosophy as anactivity, specifically as a pedagogical activity, is something
for all content areas. Therefore, philosophical activity also
provides an opportunity for teachers to engage in a form ofinterdisciplinary inquiry.
I suggest that this reinstatement of philosophy as a
dialogical activity in the classroom can become a useful addition to pedagogic practice and that trained philosophers canbe helpful toward this end. However, this conception of philosophy is far removed from its current status and role in theacademy. The idea that philosophy is more than the study ofthe philosophical canon and that it can be better understoodas a dialogical activity is as old as philosophy itself. Indeed,
it is Socrates who was the model for me as philosopher inresidence. My role would be as a facilitator of philosophicaldialogue and inquiry, not as a subject-matter specialist.

Philosophical dialogue and inquiry
Socrates comes to us in three Platonic versions.4
However, his commitment to dialogue and inquiry is aconstant feature of his philosophy. Socrates often met with
his interlocutors in the stoa, or covered walkways, in ancient
Athens. His practice of meeting in a public space suggests
the need for a philosophical meeting space for discussing
ideas in schools. This idea of a meeting space is in direct
opposition to the Taylor model of education reform. The
Socratic alternative to Taylorist education reform begins
with a rejection of the factory model. Teachers are not traders of information, their worth determined by the amountof information they have accumulated and generated.
Rather, teachers and students meet in a community circle to40

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

participate in philosophical dialogue. At times the dialogue
may examine such well-defined territory as the workings of acell; at other times it may explore perennially murky territory
such as justice or love; or it may slide from the defined to themurky which occurs when we reach the limits of what we really understand about cell division and are faced with things
we do not yet understand.
The idea of philosophy taking place at a meeting
space where dialogue and collaboration are valued
places the focus on the processes of understanding andthe purpose of education. This focus on purpose is itself
philosophical, as Socrates notes in his inquiry into theteaching of the idea of courage when he says, “And in aword, when he considers anything for the sake of anotherthing, he thinks on the end and not of the means” (Laches,
185d). This focus is not incompatible with testing, but
in practice the discussion of the ends is often lost in theactivity of the means (i.e., testing).
Finally, it is important that the philosophical dialogue
about pedagogy not be coercively steered toward theright answer. The early Socratic dialogues often end withboth Socrates and his interlocutors confused, in a state ofaporia. Whether he is inquiring into piety, justice, virtue, or
beauty, the Socrates of the early dialogues does not pretend
to offer answers. At his defense he flatly states that he is
not a teacher and “has never promised or imparted any
teaching to anybody” (Apology, 33b). However, Socrates
certainly thinks that he is engaged in a worthwhile activity;“discussing goodness and all the other subjects about which
you hear me talking and examining both myself and others
is really the very best thing that a man can do” (Apology,
38b). A constant state of aporia is surely not beneficial
to students, and it is certainly not desirable for teachers.
However, examination of oneself and others with a mind
that is open to the possibility of aporia does help lead us to
examine our lives more deeply. Allowing ourselves to admitthat we do not have all the answers and, more importantly,
thinking with others as we examine possible answers, isthe philosophical activity that Socrates advocated andwhich garnered him so many admirers. This openness towonder that is characteristic of Socratic dialogue, which israrely practiced in public high schools, is what philosophy
can help reintroduce and cultivate. Thus, I saw my role at
PIT in a more Socratic sense as one who wears his or her
expertise lightly—as one who seeks to learn from others

through dialogue and who is willing to enter into productive
confusion with them.5

4. The High School Philosopher in Residence:
What Philosophy and Philosophers Can Offer
Given the overemphasis on the value of information andsubject-matter specialization, I have deliberately avoided
trying to teach the philosophical canon to high school
students and teachers. Instead, I have tried to make my value
to the high school community felt not as a professor but as aco-inquirer into the practical and conceptual problems thatteachers and students face. In addition, given the professional
insularity that content specialization encourages, I have
tried to foster an interdisciplinary community of inquiry
among the teachers, where the discussion can linger onquestions of the purposes and value of education rather
than moving directly to devising lesson plans for content
mastery. One benefit of the co-participant relationship of
the PIR and teacher is that philosophy has emerged fromthe arcane shadows of the academy to become an activity
and mindset appreciated by students and teachers. Whilesome teachers and students develop a concurrent interestin the philosophical texts of the discipline, most acquire
a confidence and appreciation of their ability to discussphilosophical subjects and examine themselves and others.
I see three main roles that a PIR can play in working
with teachers and students: 1) the PIR helps keep the focus
on philosophical questions of purpose and meaning; 2) the
PIR helps create a community where interdepartmental
discussion can flourish; and 3) the PIR collaborates withspecialist teachers to think about curriculum, classroom
issues, and lesson plans.6 The first role is to do whatever
facilitates the successful performance of the other two. By
discussing the question of the identification of knowledge
and understanding with information and the issue of thesubject matter as a specialization divorced from othersubjects as philosophical problems, teachers engage theirown teaching and curriculum from a more interdisciplinary
perspective. In order to facilitate such discussions, the PIR
must remain a philosopher, committed to the pursuit of
wisdom, meaning, and understanding through dialogue.
While a presentation of the full scope of these threeroles is not possible in this brief article, I can offer someillustrations of what each role looks like, based upon myexperiences as PIR.

Philosophy for Children

School is a place of planning and action, yet as a PIR
I advocate taking time to reflect and question. Recently, ahigh school’s educational consultant organized a whole-day
meeting of the English Department to come up with a listof goals that the department would work on throughout theyear. The overarching goal was to create a culture of writingat the school. The teachers successfully created a list ofgoals and were energized by the meeting. I was fortunate
to be part of that meeting because I was able to serve as
co-participant in the department’s activities, and I was able
to identify a philosophical question that was lurking beneaththe surface of the meeting. Two days later, when I met withthe department after school, I prompted a discussion with thequestion “Why should there be a culture of writing?”7 After I
presented several arguments against students and/or teachers
being motivated by the creation of a culture of writing, theteachers had a rich philosophical discussion on the assumed
intrinsic worth of writing, eventually settling on the idea thatwriting carries value because the individual person’s beliefs
and ideas carry value; to deny oneself competency in writing
is to deny oneself the full potential of one’s contributions
to society and public discourse, at least in contemporary
American society. However, the answer itself is lessimportant than the process of teacher’s grounding theircommitment to a plan of action in their deeply held beliefs
about individuals and education.
It is this activity of dialogue and examination that must
happen across school departments. That is why I organize
weekly meetings for teachers who are interested in p4c, whowant to reconnect with their profession philosophically,
and who want to engage in a different kind of dialogue with
their peers. In a recent reflection, one teacher wrote that for
her, the most valuable learning came from interaction withother teachers in the meetings, “listening to their ideas, theirstruggles, and their successes—that’s where I found myself
learning, growing, and longing to learn more.” This illustrates that it is not the PIR as instructor directly transmitting
the “learning,” but rather a group of peers in dialogue that ismost helpful in pursuing wisdom.
One of the troubling developments in philosophy
becoming a discipline for academic specialists in university
departments is the separation of philosopher from educator.
One of Socrates’ concerns was that the education of humanbeings had to consist of more than just training; philosophy
was central to education and to living a good life. In one of41

my roles as PIR, I endeavor to work with and learn fromthe many exemplary teachers in Hawai‘i’s public schools.
This has included the development of lessons and units thatrevolve around thinking, such as lessons about inferences orproblem-based learning. However, it also includes collaboration on lessons and topics with which I am far less familiar,
such as modern Hawaiian history and Japanese language,
where I approach the material with the fresh and inquisitiveeyes of a student. In this pedagogical collaboration I serve
less as a gadfly and more as a colleague. However, the focus
remains on philosophical dialogue, both in the classroom andin meeting with teachers outside the classroom.
In the classroom, I have often found that students areinterested in a very complex philosophical question, thedepth of which may not be immediately appreciated. In oneof the freshman ethnic studies classes, for example, the students were reading and discussing the novel, The Tattoo, by
Chris McKinney. In the novel, an “auntie” is described who
is fiercely protective and affectionate, but who swears at the
kids continuously and yet is described as eloquent and loving. The students all wrote their questions from the chapter
on the board and voted on the question they would most liketo talk about (a process referred to in p4c Hawai‘i as Plain
Vanilla): “Can you really use the phrase fu***** little sh**as a term of endearment?” The teacher suspected that thequestion had received the most votes because it was about
cursing and was amusing to the students (she was likely
correct about several of the votes). But as the inquiry started,the complexities of the question emerged and the discussion
developed into a discussion of the nature of language and theways that meanings shift depending on context and relationships of power.8
My interest in the inquiry was purposefully visible,
I wanted to communicate to the students and teacher thatthey were really digging beneath the surface. I repeatedly
expressed appreciation for the students’ examples andquestions and occasionally provided examples or thought
experiments that helped bring into focus the issues that wewere struggling with. The teacher and I continued the inquiry
after the class for another hour (thankfully, it had been thelast class of the day), both of us grateful that the “amusing”
question had gotten the most votes. On the surface, a teacher
without the support of the PIR may have brushed this question off as a joke or had trouble helping the students examine
their interests with intellectual rigor.

42

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

It is this type of interaction—the continuation of philosophical dialogue from inside the classroom to after schoolwith professionals, and back again into the classroom—thatcharacterizes the unique opportunity a PIR creates for aschool community. The PIR encourages students, teachers,
and administrators to move beyond content transmission andspecialization and to find a shared space for inquiring into
questions that are meaningful to them. While I have stepped
into this role with an extensive amount of subject-matter
training in academic philosophy, that training has been lessrelevant than the experience gained through years of experience in the classrooms of p4c veteran teachers. Looking
toward the future, as more schools adopt a philosopher inresidence, I do not think the position need be limited tothose with graduate degrees in philosophy. Rather, anyone
with an understanding of, and extensive experience with,
p4c Hawai‘i and the philosopher’s pedagogy (as Miller andMakaiau have described in their article) would be able tohelp make philosophical dialogue and inquiry a part of theschool’s culture.

REFERENCES

Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., &Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming
Good American Schools: the struggle for civic virtue ineducation reform. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, 263–307.
Plato (2005). The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Eds. E. Hamilton,
H. Cairns, and L. Cooper. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vlastos, G. (1991). Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. NY:
Cornel University Press.

ENDNOTES
1

Kailua High School is a small public high school (2011 total
enrollment = 852) located on the windward side of O‘ahu.
Ethnically, the school is multicultural, with Native Hawaiians
making up the largest portion of the student body (54%).
Students at Kailua High School are faced with many of the samesocial (domestic violence, discrimination, substance abuse),
economic (approximately half of the students receive free andreduced lunch), and political issues that face other students in thestate of Hawai‘i.

2That is, unless they also become subject-matter specialists in a
discipline such as English, science, history, etc.

3

Notable exceptions are Lipman’s P4C movement and thenumerous logic and introductory philosophy courses taught inhigh school.

4

In Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher (1991) Gregory
Vlastos distinguishes among three different Socratic figures in
Plato’s dialogues: the Socrates of the early, middle, and later
dialogues. The early Socrates represents the historical figure;the middle version is a more Platonized version who proposesa number of doctrines, such as the theory of forms, that areassociated with Plato. In the later dialogues the character of
Socrates retreats into the background.

5This is less of a philosopher as a gadfly than as a co-inquirer.

6

I think there is also a fourth role that be played by PIR who
are faculty in a university philosophy department: the PIR canwork with teachers who are interested in continuing their own
education, working with those who seek their MA or PhD,
offering resources for further reading and study.

7

This is a question that I think Socrates himself would have taken
great interest in.

8

Though the students were not aware of the philosophical labelsof their efforts, they struggled with issues in philosophy oflanguage, such as whether the meaning of the word is objective
or dependent upon the intention of the speaker and/or theperception of the interlocutor. The socio-political dimensionsof language were also explored as students tried to get a clearer
understanding of whether a word could be oppressive merely
because of its social history, even in cases where the intentionsof the speaker were benevolent.

Philosophy for Children

43

Thinking Processes in Middle School Students
Caryn Matsuoka
The current trend in American educational reform isdirected to standards-based curriculum and assessment. One
outcome of this effort is that a great deal of attention is paid
to the summative assessment of students toward the end ofeach school year. At many schools this had led to a focus on
the mastery of content and in teaching to the test. At Waikïkï
School, the focus is different. The school is committed to
two related programs—Habits of the Mind and Philosophy
for Children Hawai‘i (p4c Hawai‘i)—to teach thinking processes directly to their students. It’s not that Waikïkï School
students don’t learn the relevant content. Instead, the thinking processes are the vehicle through which the content isdelivered. The students learn the standards-based content byengaging in activities that provide them with opportunities tomake meaning of the content and to use it to draw their own
conclusions. The goal of the school is directed to processes
rather than content and to encouraging students to ask questions, explore problems, and make thoughtful decisions.
As part of my doctoral program at the University of
Hawai‘i at Mänoa, I conducted a study to determine whether
and how former sixth-grade students at Waikïkï School
were using the thinking processes and strategies they were
taught in elementary school when they were in middle school(Matsuoka, 2007). In order to find this out, I interviewed
eight former students who had graduated from Waikïkï
Elementary School in the 2002–2003 school year. The students participated in a total of seven focus-group interview
sessions with me towards the end of the 2003–2004 school
year. At the end of each session, I asked students to write
down additional thoughts and ideas in a reflection journal.
Of the eight focus-group participants, three were selected forfollow-up interviews to provide more in-depth data. I alsointerviewed parents and teachers of the three students to gettheir input.

Effectiveness of Habits of the Mind andPhilosophy for Children Hawai‘i
In analyzing the data from my interview transcripts, I
discovered that the students had retained some of the p4c

Hawai‘i vocabulary that they had learned in elementary
school. This vocabulary was an essential part of the problemsolving processes that we had taught in the Habits of theMind and the p4c Hawai‘i programs. These were the concepts that had helped set the groundwork for the students tobecome more skillful problem solvers and decision makers.
In addition, students were able to describe occasions
after they had left elementary school in which they had usedthe concepts they had been taught. Several related personal
stories in which they had used Habits of the Mind andPhilosophy for Children Hawai‘i concepts in order to think
through the consequences of their actions and make informed
choices. One of the participants, Adrian, described a situation when she had to make a decision regarding the issue ofsmoking, and she related, “we went camping and they wereasking me if I wanted to smoke and stuff and so I kind oflike used the STARs, I stop and I think and I acted by saying
no and I reviewed what my mom told me, like consequences
might happen if you do certain stuff. I was like, no, thankyou” (Matsuoka, 2007, pg. 223).
An important finding of the study was that although
there were times that the students used the thinking processes
to make decisions that led to positive consequences, there
were also times when they used Habits of Mind and p4c
Hawai‘i concepts to excuse or rationalize negative behavior.
Though the students did talk about using Habits of the Mindand p4c Hawai‘i to make informed decisions, not all ofthese stories demonstrated that the students were engaging
in problem solving or making the right decisions about
their actions. Some of the choices that participants madewere unethical, immoral, or illegal. One of the participants,
Conner, described a situation in which he stole a bus passfrom one of his peers because his peer would not leave
him alone after he told him to go away. Conner believedthat taking his peer’s bus pass was an appropriate behavior
because the other student had given him a reason to, and hesaid, “if these people left me alone, I wouldn’t be doing anyof those things.” Conner believed in fairness, and he feltthat he would accept the consequences if he were the one

44

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

who was causing the trouble to his peers, and he explained,“Aww, cause in that case, if I do something first, he can getback at me” (Matsuoka, 2007, pg. 225).
People often look for reasons when something
has happened to provide justification for taking action.
Sometimes this is an effort to rationalize the action—to makean excuse for doing something when we know it is wrong.
However, both Habits of the Mind and p4c Hawai‘i require
students to go deeper. They teach that simply providing
a reason is not enough. Students are encouraged to ask
themselves whether the reason is a good one or if it is simply
an excuse for poor behavior.
The opportunity to practice inquiry with others helps
individuals consider these situations more thoroughly andallows them to take their thinking to a deeper level. Habitsof the Mind and p4c Hawai‘i incorporate this kind of activity
into the curriculum. These discussions play an importantrole in helping students think more deeply about reasons foractions and about the consequences of their actions, theirbeliefs, and the decisions they make. When students sharesituations and perspectives in a community circle, they
get to compare their ideas with those of other students andthe discuss alternatives that they may not have considered.
Through this self-corrective process, students help each otherpush their thinking further, and even revise them, in the lightof better reasons.
I glimpsed this process during one of the focus-groupsessions. At one point in the inquiry, in which we were
examining what it meant to be bad, Conner made thestatement, “on the street, it’s not wrong if you don’t getcaught,” (Matsuoka, 2007, pg. 292) and several of theother participants were not content with his conclusion.
They replied that certain behaviors were wrong regardlessof whether the individual had been caught. They provided
reasons explaining why they felt that the conduct was wrong
and provided examples which took into consideration thelaw, knowledge of right and wrong, and what they had beentaught by their families.
Brooke described a situation in which her friends had
broken the law and had shoplifted from a store when she was
not with them. She explained to the other participants, “I
told them it was wrong, and they shouldn’t have done that”(Matsuoka, 2007, pg. 292). Adrian felt that people should
just know right from wrong, and she said, “I think that doing
something that you’re not supposed to be doing without

getting caught is wrong because . . . I don’t know! You
just know it’s wrong” (Matsuoka, 2007, pg. 292). Later in
the inquiry, Adrian made reference to learning what wasright from wrong from her own family, and she explained,“I’m thinking that if you’re raised good, you would know
the difference between right and wrong” (Matsuoka,
2007, pp. 293–4).
Students grow ethically by coming to see that theirreasons and actions are not narrowly confined to selfinterest, but that they must take into consideration the views
and interests of others. Thus, they learn to reexamine andreevaluate their own beliefs in terms of an increasingly
larger and broader social context—not just through theirown eyes or their peer group at school but from a widersocial perspective.

Internalization of Habits of the Mind andp4c Hawai‘i
An important goal of teaching and learning is theinternalization of thinking processes and skills and theirtransferability to novel situations. By practicing activities insocial situations, students come to internalize these processes
so that they become more natural to them and even habitual.
But what is more important is that these processes don’t
become automatic and invariable, but that they are adapted
for use in novel situations.
In my study, I wanted to learn if there was evidence
that these students had taken the thinking processes they
had learned in elementary school and had applied them intheir lives as middle-school students. In the interviews andreflection journals, the students shared several examples oftimes that they had used many of the thinking processes tothink through situations and make well-informed decisions.
During one focus-group interview session, for example,
a student recognized that she had been employing thethinking processes in her life without consciously thinking
about using them. She remarked, “When I do stuff, I do itjust cause I think it’s right, but when I come here and I see
the mindful behaviors, then I realize that I do use them, but
I don’t realize that I was using them before. So I never think
about using them, I just do it” (Matsuoka, 2007, pg. 229).
She commented that she might have been using Habits of
the Mind all of the time, but that she had only come to thisrealization after attending the focus-group sessions. Herreflections were one example of how students often used thePhilosophy for Children

thinking vocabulary to describe situations they encounteredand to explain some of their behaviors. But at another level,
they appeared to have internalized the vocabulary necessary
to reflect on their behavior and decisions and that theprocesses that the vocabulary described had become internal
to their thinking.
The business of approaching challenging situations,solving problems, and making informed decisions requiresthat students think through these issues before taking action.
Rationalizations are reasons that come after the problem, notbefore. Students grow ethically by learning to withhold preconceived judgments, work cooperatively with others, andask questions of themselves and others. Habits of the Mindand p4c Hawai‘i teach students to pose problems, listen with
empathy to other points of view, and show persistence inseeking a solution.
I found that the participants in my study used p4c
Hawai‘i by creating and maintaining an intellectually safe
community where they could practice inquiry on relevant
and interesting topics. The students employed the Good
Thinker’s Tool Kit to assist them in the inquiry process.
They encouraged each other to ask questions, provide
examples, give reasons, test truths, and look at assumptions
being made. As we discussed p4c Hawai‘i further, thestudents realized that they had not forgotten the lessons they
had learned in elementary school and that they had beenusing p4c Hawai‘i strategies to think all along about some of
their personal issues.

45

Throughout our seven weeks together, the participants
used thinking tools from the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit as
we dialogued together. The participants consistently gave
reasons, examples, and counterexamples. They asked eachother to clarify questions, such as “What do you mean by .
. . ?”, “What are they assuming?”, and “Is that true?” Their
intuitive use of the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit provided thestudents with a means of philosophically digging deeper into
the ideas they shared with each other. They did not simply
accept each other’s beliefs and ideas as truth, but questioned
each other in the systematic ways that they were familiar
with from their elementary school program. They took thetime and persisted with issues so that they could achieve a
deeper and more meaningful understanding.
In summary, my study concluded that both the Habits of
the Mind and Philosophy for Children Hawai‘i programs had
become an integral part of the students thinking processes—
so much so that the participants no longer appeared to beaware of using them. Their Philosophy for Children Hawai‘ithinking processes had become habits of their minds.

REFERENCE
Matsuoka, C. (2007). Thinking processes in middle-school
students: Looking at habits of the mind and philosophy forchildren Hawai‘i (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT
3302153).

46

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Philosophy for Children Kenyan Style
By Rebecca Odierna“For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges
only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry
human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (Paulo Freire, 2000, p. 72).

It was the last day of Philosophy 492, my college
course dedicated to teaching the principles and strategiesof p4c Hawai‘i. I stood up in front of the class andpresented part one of my final project—a philosophy forchildren travel kit. The green, suitcase-looking container
was packed tight with yarn, popsicle sticks, paper, glue,
fabric tubes, Good Thinkers’ Tool Kit, and other pertinent
p4c materials. At the time of my presentation, I had no
idea what lay ahead in my future, nor was I even remotely
aware of the great significance my final project would
have in the course of the next three months of my life.
What I did know was that I was heading to Kenya for theentire summer as a volunteer for an organization dedicatedto educational projects throughout the rural areas of thecountry, and I was nothing but giddy at the prospect of
introducing philosophy for children to impoverished
African children.
Months before I joined the Philosophy 492 class,
I was asked to join Emerging Humanity—a non-profit
organization based in Honolulu, Hawai‘i—as a volunteer
in a project that focused on enhancing the classroom
environments at the organization’s partner schools
throughout the Nyanza Province of Kenya. My role during
my Kenyan adventure would be to work with teachers andstudents to strive to improve the quality of learning andthe internal relations within the classroom. Combining theknowledge I learned from scholarly texts and from myinitial classroom observations in Kenya, I soon realizedthat the majority of the Kenyan school systems are still
entrenched in the old, British-colonial style of learning:
The teacher stands up in front of the class and dictates thecontent that is presented. The desks are lined up in perfectrows facing the front of the classroom. Students are notencouraged to interact, participate in activities, or ask
questions. Their duty is to sit politely, listen, and strive
to keep up with the teacher while also attempting to takequality notes. Discussions are rare, and the learning styleis based on nothing even remotely resembling dialogical,
hands-on and/or experiential learning. The whole systempromotes rote memorization.

p4c Travels to Kenya
Upon learning about the Kenyan approach toeducation, it came as no surprise to me that there were
non-profit organizations dedicated to improving thequality of education for these Kenyan children. It was also
not shocking to hear that many of Kenya’s rural students
are failing school. To offer some insight into the problem,the class’s grade average when I arrived at the girls’ highschool that I spent most of my time at was 37 percent. I
was astonished. However, my initial dismay soon turned
to motivation. I was determined to help improve the testscores of the students and to make learning more fun andmeaningful for these children, who, as a result of theireducation experience, were bored and stressed in equalmeasure. Luckily for me, I had spent the entire springsemester before my trip learning a different approach that,
I felt, offered an antidote to the students boredom andstress: p4c Hawai‘i. Words cannot give full justice to theimpact that my p4c experience had on my life and on myeducational outlook. As an aspiring teacher I was intriguedby the educational philosophy of p4c that focused on
student dialogue in communities of inquiry. Throughout
the semester, I participated in p4c communities in college
level classes and joined in p4c discussions at a local highschool. The experience provided clear evidence to me that
this kind of instruction worked in practice.
As a result, I saw no better way to approach mysummer project in Kenya than to bring what I had learned
from my college philosophy class and apply it to myefforts with Kenyan students. After all, it seemed clear
to me that the problems disrupting their education could

Philosophy for Children

be overcome, as they were problems that arose fromthe reliance on outdated educational methodologies thatstressed memorization and the authority of the teacher. p4c
Hawai‘i, on the other hand, regards teachers and students
as co-investigators in inquiry. It promotes the idea that theyshould be mutually responsible for mindful exploration andindividual and collective growth. In this sense, education
can and should connect the kind of student-teacher
opposition that existed in the Kenyan schools.
An education that promotes memorization above all
else fails to challenge students to practice such worthy
activities as critical thinking and problem solving.
According to the ideals and aims of p4c, students shouldn’t
be docile listeners; they should be investigators who
consider and reconsider, question and re-question, assess
and reassess. Dialogue and inquiry are the means toachieving these goals. Paulo Freire has written that, “thefundamental goal of dialogical teaching is to create aprocess of learning and knowing that invariably involves
theorizing about the experiences shared in the dialogue
process” (2000, p. 17). This concept of dialogical learningis embedded in p4c. Another approach of p4c is thatreality isn’t a finished story with only one version—it
is open-ended and makes allowance for many avenuesof interpretation. In this sense, teachers shouldn’t be theknow-it-all, end-all authority figure. They shouldn’t be
imposing their opinions on students. Instead, they should
encourage the students to think through and discover theirown view based on all the information available.
Confident and determined to inspire change, I grabbed
my philosophy for children travel kit and began making
the rounds at Emerging Humanity’s partner schools—thevery schools where I had done my first observations. My
initial endeavors were exhausting, and I found myself
losing hope in my goals. I went from school to school andsat down with every principle, trying to convince him or
her of the promise in adopting the learning methodologies
that are embedded in p4c. I explained the concepts until I
was blue in the face, but no one was biting my bait. “Sit ina circle?!?” one headmaster gasped. “Have every student
participate?” another principal stuttered, with a shocked
look. “Encourage the teacher to consider herself anotherstudent?” a second principal said in disgust.
I begged them to give it a try, to let me facilitate
some classes, to invite the teachers to sit down with me to47

discuss alternative ways of educating their students. Mostof my clients gave me a flat out “no”: others’ expressed
skepticism. No matter what their immediate responses
were, I heard over and over again that “that type” ofeducation wasn’t possible: “that’s not the Kenyan way.”
I pleaded for them at least to try it out first, and if theteachers and students didn’t like it, then they could forget
about it, and I’d move along. Nothing I said convinced
them it was even worth considering. I soon realized that“the Kenyan way,” which seemed more to resemble theentrenched colonial-British way, was neither flexible nor
open to new ideas.
Two weeks passed, and I had accomplished nothing.
In spite of their students’ failing grades and their students’apparent indifference to their own education, I had yet tofind one school that was willing to try anything beyond
the prescribed traditional methods, far less than show
any openness to my “outsider,” p4c ideas. Frustrated andsad, I was on the brink of giving up. The following day,
I was asked to accompany some of my fellow volunteers
to one of Emerging Humanity’s two private schools,
which was located in the heart of the rural district ofUgenya. Emerging Humanity had established Lifunga
Girls’ Secondary School (LGSS) as a unique learning
institution for underprivileged girls. As a result of LGSS
being completely run by Emerge, the projects and ideas ofour volunteers were more likely to be welcomed and moreeasily implemented.
Upon my arrival, I was disappointed (but not surprised)to see that none of the girls spoke a word or cracked a smilein their classes. The energy in the classrooms was intense
and rigid—and for the most part deeply uncomfortable. I
found it extremely hard to stay engaged. I also failed tokeep up with what the teachers were regurgitating, andunlike the girls, I was not required to write down every
other word the teacher said and to compose legible study
notes. If I had tried to take notes, I know I would havefailed miserably. As I sat and listened, I was convincedthat LGSS needed to experience something different, even
if it refused to embrace p4c. Whatever the change wouldbe, it was clear to me that it was necessary for the sakeof the girls and the education provided to them. It was atthat point that I decided to do whatever I could to makethat happen—to promote change by introducing new andalternative methods of teaching and learning.

48

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Embracing p4c
The reason that I had attended LGSS on that first day
was to interview candidates for a new health and language
teacher position. After three disappointing prospects hadcome and gone, I felt a sense of nervous excitement whena woman named Gillian Wafula spoke in her interview.
She was a young, progressive teacher who talked of theneed to break the British education mold that was so widely
embraced by Kenyans, and to reach out to the students in
new ways. Her assured demeanor was uplifting and I began
to form the opinion that Gillian could very possibly be myproject gateway. It was clear from her responses to the interview questions that Gillian would bring a new and fresh
perspective, and positive energy to LGSS. We hired her on
the spot. Gillian, I hoped, would be a way to bring p4c to
Kenya. So, instead of resuming my old routine of trying topersuade an unyielding principal to allow me to talk to theteachers, I went directly to Gillian. I pulled up a chair at
her lunch table and made my pitch. “I have some ideas….
I think they could help the girls perform better, and theywould certainly make for a more enjoyable classroom experience. What do you say? Want to have some fun?” Gillian
looked at me with serious eyes for a short moment before alarge grin covered her face. Highly enthusiastic, she blurted
out, “Yes, I’m in! What do you have in mind?” It was atthat moment that “p4c Kenyan Style” truly began.
For several weeks, Gillian and I worked together toput our plan into effect. It took barely a month, and soon
I was proud to see that her language and health courses
had become fully functioning p4c communities. The
transformation was not easy. The students had never before
been encouraged to empower themselves and become active agents in their learning. Getting them to participate ininquiry-based discussions was like pulling teeth. Initially,
the girls were confused and timid; they slumped down intheir chairs and hid their faces, apparently too embarrassed
or bashful to talk or even write in their new journals. But
with time, things began to change and our community
began to form.
We started off with easy and comfortable discussions,like, “What did you do this weekend?” and “What’s yourfavorite hobby?” or, more searchingly, “As a girl in apatriarchal community, how does it feel to have been given
the rare opportunity to attend secondary school?” Slowly
each girl began to open up and contribute to the inquiries,

and within a month Gillian and I were able to steer theinquiries towards subjects that specifically related to theclass and its required course content. The intellectual depthof discussion that we were able to reach was inspiring. By
the end of my time in Kenya, the girls had explored topics
such as teen pregnancy, female empowerment, literature,colonization, and poverty. They talked about the benefitsof waiting until you are financially stable to have kids,
the correlation between poverty and teenage mothers withmultiple children, and the effects of European imperialism
and globalization on the survival of indigenous languages
and cultural practices.
By the end of the first month, the students were
smiling and eagerly waving their hands in the air, hoping
for their turn to speak out or give their opinion on amatter under discussion. During this initial phase thegirls were also introduced to the concepts of intellectual
safety, collaboration, inquiry, community, and respect. It
took hard work, but they soon gained the wisdom to beengaged listeners and respectful but assertive contributors.
Their daily evaluations and journal entries conveyed their
sentiments of excitement and privilege in acquiring a newsense of agency and responsibility in their learning. One
girl reflected, “It feels good to feel like I matter in theclassroom. I’ve never felt this way before, and it actually
makes me excited to learn.”
The change in the classroom dynamic and the shift in
the girls’ attitudes during my stay was enough to satisfy me
and leave me with the feeling that my time and efforts in
Kenya were all worthwhile. When I learned of the incredible improvement of the girls’ grades in Gillian’s classes,
I was overwhelmed with pride. Not only had I introduced
p4c to Kenya, but it was also proving to work—and work
very well—as an alternative educational method andphilosophy. By the time I left Kenya in the middle ofAugust, the girls had increased their scores by an averageof 10 percent in the courses in which p4c was implemented.
I later learned that after continual application of p4c inthree-quarters of the LGSS classrooms, the class’ average
grade went from a 37 percent in May to a 56 percent in lateNovember.

p4c Kenyan Style
I am sure my educational endeavors in Kenya would
not have been successful without Gillian. It was her open

Philosophy for Children

mind and desire to create positive change that enabled
p4c to function and grow, first at LGSS and later at otherschools. It was Gillian who called her teacher friends andconvinced them to invite me to their schools and share p4c
with their coworkers and students. Once Gillian embraced
the basic philosophies of p4c, she went above and beyond
her teaching responsibilities to encourage other schools
and teachers to do try p4c. As a result, during the month ofJuly, I successfully introduced p4c to eight classes in six
different schools, four of which were elementary schools
and two of which were high schools. Whether or not theseclasses are still operating as p4c communities to this day is
unknown, but I am confident in the fact that the mere actof introducing and practicing p4c changed the way several
teachers and schools think about education.
My p4c experience in Kenya was first and foremost alearning process. I quickly came to realize that p4c works
in different contexts, and that the same approaches I had
used in the U.S. were not always viable in Kenya. This is
why the term “p4c Kenyan Style” has so much meaning
to me. p4c literally had to be molded and adapted to workin the Kenyan context. The fact that p4c was able to adapt
to its unique setting conveys the beauty in its remarkableflexibility. It underscores the fact that there is no rightor best way to do p4c—its functions and approaches are
relevant to the particular community.
For example, in the area of Kenya that I was working,it is not always culturally acceptable to share your feelingsin open spaces. As a result, self-reflections and daily
evaluations were designated to journals; they were rarely
communicated within the group. The one reflection that
did stay in the interactive realm of the community was
the thumbs-up/thumbs-down evaluation at the end of each
discussion. Also, classroom activities such as Plain Vanilla
were executed differently. I found in Kenya that students
are not as willing to share their questions on the board, andmany have no desire to identify themselves with their ideas
for that day’s inquiry. To adapt to this value, Plain Vanilla
became an anonymous game. Questions and thoughts were
written on small pieces of paper, folded up, and put in abucket to keep the author’s identity confidential.
Other cultural issues such as the language barrier
forced me to think about and facilitate discussions in new
ways. While Kenyan teachers teach their classes in English,
English is, for many of the students, the second and weaker49

language. Thus, finding the right words to explain concepts
like intellectual safety and the Good Thinker’s Tool Kit
proved especially challenging. As a result, I was forced
to get creative and use pictures, models, and sometimes
songs to generate clarity and understanding. I found thebest way to provide an explanation, however, was to show
the students through praxis. Rather than try to define
intellectual safety, I pointed out the moments in which I
thought it was achieved or being implemented at various
points in our community development and discussions.
Overall, what I came to realize as an important truth about
p4c is that it has a different face in every classroom. But,
while the approaches and methods may be slightly different
in each setting, the fundamental principles and philosophies
are still the same.
Due to the incredible social and cultural experienceof my summer in Kenya, as well as the success of myeducational endeavors, I accepted an offer to return in2011 for an entire year. I had few expectations for myreturn, but I certainly hoped that I would be able to see p4c
communities in schools in the province where I worked.
My goal remained the same for 2011: I was going to
strive to increase the quality of education that is offered tounderprivileged children in rural villages, and I intended
to do so through the implementation of p4c philosophies
and ideologies. Upon my return to work in Kenya, I was
thrilled to see p4c was still active in several of the schools
I had introduced it to the summer before. Moreover,the students and teachers in these communities seemedgenuinely happy; not only in their classroom interactions,but also with their overall educational path, and the ways
in which that form of education was positively generatingknowledge, increasing productivity, and enhancing
community relations.
With the collaboration of my Emerging Humanity
co-workers, p4c program evaluations were conductedwithin my first few months back. These evaluations
were based on interviews with teachers, students, and thestudents’ families, as well as on student productivity andtest scores. As expected, the results of these evaluations
overwhelmingly showed a positive correlation between
p4c and educational outcomes. The program had shown aboost in attitude, enthusiasm, and overall morale among
both students and teachers. Students who participatedin p4c communities had improved their test scores and50

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2class attendance over the five months in which p4c wasbeing implemented in their classrooms. As a result of
these findings, I used these evaluations to make a casefor p4c in schools that had not already adopted or tried
the program. Again, my efforts were not always fruitful,
but by the time I left Kenya in November of 2011, p4c
was being employed in fourteen different schools in the
Nyanza province. I can only hope that p4c will continue
to have a positive impact on education and will gain
further momentum in Kenya. I have faith in p4c’s ability
to enhance education, and I am confident that the peopleof Kenya will highly benefit from its use, just as any
classroom in any part of the world surely would.

REFERENCE
Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed (Continuum
International Publishing Group, 2000.

Philosophy for Children

51“What Do You Want to Talk About?” – p4c Lessons in the Family
Tamara Albertini
Philosophy Department, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

I was attending a conference in Los Angeles a few years
ago, and, as is my habit, I called home as soon as I checkedin at the hotel. My son Peter picked up the phone. After asking me what kind of plane I was on and what the time difference was, Peter, quite out of the blue, said “Maman, what doyou want to talk about?” I remember being surprised by thequestion. My son had never asked me before whether there
was a subject that I might be interested in. Typically, hewould shower me with all the things that he had on his mind
and expect me to comment on them. After I had hung up thephone, I thought: “This is the first time my son is inquiring
about something that I would like to share with him.” Thena few months after our telephone conversation, my husband,
who was traveling in Europe, rang us up, and Peter asked
him the same question: “What do you want to talk about?”
From then on that question has become part of our familyroutine whether we travel or just sit around the kitchen tablein our Makïkï apartment. No matter how often I hear it, it
always makes me smile. It isn’t just the question. It’s also thevery earnest face that Peter wears when he puts the question
to us. He has a way of conveying to my husband and I that
he is genuinely interested in what we have to say. He fixes
his eyes on the person he is speaking to and won’t let themoff the hook until he has an answer. Frankly, there have beendays when Peter’s question has helped my husband and I
turn away from our day-to-day worries and think for a moment about subjects we really want to tackle.
It was only last year that we realized where Peter hadlearned to ask, “What do you want to talk about?” Peter was
telling us one day about an exciting P4C session he had at
his Waikïkï School. The subject was whether ghosts exist.
Peter told us what his classmates’ thoughts were: that ghosts
were invented to scare children and therefore were not real;that some were good, others weird; that one needed to makea distinction between ghosts (bad) and spirits (good), thatghosts were different from angels… We got a whole lecture
presented to us about all the things one should consider when

speaking of ghosts. Peter was just about to ask us whether wethought ghosts existed, when we interrupted him. We wanted
to know how he and the other children in his class foundtheir topics. Peter smiled at our silly question and just said,“We ask what we should talk about.” And as he went on totell us how he and his classmates collected subjects, took avote, and how it just never happened that one of his topics
was chosen (sigh!), my husband and I finally understood
where that “What do you want to talk about?” question camefrom. It came straight out of the P4C sessions at Waikïkï
School, and Peter had adapted it to our family conversations!
This year Peter is in a school in Sofia, Bulgaria where
he gets to perfect his Bulgarian and learn much about thehistory and geography of the Balkans. The school climate
is highly competitive. School children challenge each otherwith questions related to Bulgaria. The names of past tsars
and their accomplishments flow easily from their lips. They
know the location of the smallest towns and the courses ofall major rivers. Every child plays a musical instrument, andeven English grammar is a required subject. One day whenPeter arrived home from school, there was something about
his expression that made him look as if enveloped by a thick,grey cloud. Something was on his mind. It finally burst
out of him—“You know, I don’t think children talk here.”Children obviously do talk in Peter’s Bulgarian school, andthey are smart and knowledgeable beyond their ten to elevenyears. What Peter had meant to say was that there was notime allocated in school for sharing stories and hearing what
other children thought. Peter could never hear their stories:
how they spent their weekends and what they liked to do intheir free time. There was no way to find out what ideas andopinions they had. You could also say they are never asked‘What do you want to talk about?’

Tamara Albertini (Waikïkï parent and philosopher on sabbaticalwith her family in Sofia, Bulgaria)

52

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Raising the Bar: Love, the Community of Inquiry, and theFlourishing Life
Thomas B. Yos
I’ve been working at the same elementary school in
Hawai‘i for nearly twenty years. First I was the school’s
philosophy for children (p4c Hawai‘i) teacher, then I wasa reading and special education teacher, and for the past
decade I’ve been doing counseling. Throughout these years
much has stayed the same. Some things, however, havechanged dramatically.
A decade ago a lot was left to the individual judgment,
initiative, and creativity of each teacher. “We may smileand nod our heads at what you say,” I remember one teacher
explaining to me in my moment of frustration as I struggled
to convince a couple of her peers that philosophy for children
was a really good thing, “but sometimes we just take what
you give us and stick it in the bottom desk drawer.” Back inthose days each teacher had a fair amount of discretion about
what to embrace and what to politely file away (never again
to see the light of day).
The teacher’s freedom to do such things has, to aconsiderable extent, been curtailed. Many things, nowadays,cannot be stuck in the bottom desk drawer. A set of state
standards have been created and are not to be ignored. Nor
can one simply file away the calls for “accountability,”
the demands that our school must “raise the bar,” or theconsequences of the high-stakes tests which define our
success. The educational climate at our school, and I suspect
at many others, has indeed changed.
Nearly ten years ago, I argued in my doctoral dissertation that philosophy for children and its pedagogy of thecommunity of inquiry is good for kids. I spoke a lot about
Vygotsky, philosophical inquiry, and how empowering children to think well is vital to the essential task of cultivating
good judgment.1
In some ways I think I got it right. I still whole-heartedly
believe in the power of philosophical inquiry. But I’ve alsocome to realize that there is a very important something elsethat makes the “community of inquiry” approach so valuable.
What’s so important about the idea of community of inquiry,

especially in this day and age, isn’t just the inquiry part, it’s
the community part.
My thesis is this: In today’s American educational
climate, with its laser-sharp focus on “accountability” and“raising the bar,” the community aspect of “communityof inquiry” is more important than ever. It is so importantbecause it purposefully cultivates what many of today’s
schools are unwisely leaving too far on the fringe: the loving,caring, fun-filled human relationships which are at the coreof human flourishing.
In order to support this thesis I will endeavor toestablish four points. First, I will argue that loving humanrelationships are at the heart of a well-lived life. Second,
I will contend that schools properly ought to concern
themselves with the cultivation of such relationships. Third, I
will propose the controversial claim that schools aren’t doinga good enough job of addressing this concern. And finally, I
will assert that P4C’s “community of inquiry”approach is aneffective means for cultivating such relationships.

BELIEF #1: Loving human relationships are
essential to a flourishing life.
Oftentimes I begin my college ethics course with asingle quote: “It is remarkable how many people sacrifice
the really good stuff for that which is not as important.”2 Do
you think, I ask the students, that this is true? Most of thembelieve that it is. Then I raise another question: But what doyou mean by “the really good stuff”? What is at the heart ofa well-lived, flourishing human life?
I have, over the course of the past years, heard numerous
answers to this question. Many of them are very wise
responses, for nearly all of my college students are militaryfolks who not only have overcome substantial hardships inlife but have also gained the nearly unimaginable insightthat comes from facing death in war. There is, of course,
considerable variety in the answers that I hear from so many
voices. But there is a common thread; a single, pivotal

Philosophy for Children

answer which arises again and again and again. What is
the really good stuff? Quite simply, most of my students
respond, it is love.
By “love” the students do not simply mean a sort ofromantic or sexual love. Rather, more broadly, they mean the
caring sort of love that a parent shares with a child, a spouseshares with his or her partner, buddies share over a beer,or even the kindness that is exchanged by near strangers.
Sometimes they cite Morrie Schwartz: “Love,” he says, “isso supremely important... Without love, we are birds withbroken wings” (Albom, 1997, pp. 91, 92). Knowing how
to give love and, so too, knowing how to receive love, they
contend, is among the very best of stuff.
This view is certainly widely accepted. It is also an
idea that enjoys a long and varied history of philosophicalsupport. Buddha speaks much of the ideal of cultivating
loving-kindness (Mettä). The Christian Bible commands:“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”3 Kant speaksof treating others never as means but always as ends. Andeven Sartre tells us that others are subjects and never objects.
Many philosophers, like most other people, tell us thattreating others with love—be it a passionate love or at least aless intense good-willed respect—is essentially connected tothe business of living well.

BELIEF #2: Our schools ought to purposefully
cultivate loving human relationships.
“We parents,” a father once told a gathering ofcounselors, “want our children to be smart.” “But even morethan this,” he continued, “we want them to be good.” Thisdad, I think, has got it right. Our schools should help ourchildren to be good. They should also help our children tolive good lives. They should equip and empower our children
not just to live, but to live well.
Love, we argued, is inextricably bound up with living
well. This being the case, then, schools should—if they
are to follow this father’s advice—strive to purposefully
cultivate loving human relationships.
But not everyone would agree with this contention.
Many people believe that, while there are certainly somechildren who do not experience enough love, it shouldn’t be
the job of the school to address this emotional deficit. Let thefamily, the church, and the social services people deal with
that; the proper business of the schools ought to be simply toteach kids the facts and empower them with academic skills.

53

I agree, to a certain extent, with this counter-argument.
Giving love is a global responsibility. It ought not, by anymeans, be the responsibility of the school alone. But fromthis fact it does not follow that our schools should have no
responsibility in this area. Indeed, I see three compelling
reason why our schools ought to be seriously concerned withthe cultivation of loving relationships.
The first reason is because cultivating such relationships
will help schools to achieve their academic goals. Abraham
Maslow theorized that there exists a hierarchy of humanneeds. If an individual’s underlying physical, social, andemotional needs are not met, she will not be fully ready togrow, learn, and actualize herself.
Oftentimes these underlying needs of students are
not met. One such student who I’ve encountered in mycounseling work is Carolyn. “Carolyn,” as I’ll call her here,
was a curious, intelligent, and strong-willed kindergartener.
She had, it was readily apparent to anyone who met her,a world of talent. Unfortunately, however, she also had a
big problem. The adults in her life were a mess. Struggling
with the effects of violence, homelessness, addiction, andnot being loved themselves, Carolyn’s caregivers were in
no position to give Carolyn the full dose of love that she sodesperately needed. I’ll never forget Carolyn’s eyes gazing
into mine and her words, too full of significance to becoming from a five-year old, to me: “We need help.”
Carolyn felt stressed out, worried, scared, and unloved.
How, in such a condition, could she keep her mind on her
studies and be fully ready to learn? She couldn’t. Academic
success rests, in no small part, upon a firm social andemotional foundation. Wishing that schools didn’t haveto work on this foundation won’t change the facts; many
children are not loved enough and structures built on
shoddy foundations will eventually topple. The purposefulcultivation of loving relationships is a patch that should be
liberally used.
The second reason why our schools ought to beconcerned with the cultivation of loving relationships
is because it contributes to the creation of a safe andharmonious society. There’s a name for very intelligent, very
well-taught, but unloving people: clever criminals. Angry,
hurting, unloved, and unloving people who have been armed
with the power to act effectively are not good for society.
Such individuals, as Jackson puts it, are likely to employ
what they’ve learned not as useful tools but rather as harmful

54

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

weapons. Our schools have a societal obligation to try, as
best as they can, to ensure that this does not happen.
The third reason why our schools ought to be concernedwith cultivating loving relationships is because we owe it
to each individual child. I put a lot of time and energy into
helping Carolyn. After some months, one of my co-workers
said to me, not unkindly, that I was spending too much timeand energy trying to help her. You need to move on, he said.
She’s a lost cause. I certainly see the logic in his point; when
there are limited resources, you have to make hard choices.
But ultimately I’m more convinced by the counter-point.
What if Carolyn was your daughter? What if she was you?
Behind the No Child Left Behind policy, whatever its faults,
is the admirable notion that you should never give up on an
individual. Never mind the calls for accountability and hightest scores, the bottom line is this: Regardless of whether
the problem is a broken heart or an uninformed mind, our
responsibility is still to help children to live flourishing lives.
Our duty to cherish others demands that we meet each childwhere he or she is at.
For these reasons, then, I contend that one of the firstand most important aims of our schools ought to be todeliberately create environments which are splendidly repletein caring, loving interpersonal relationships. We ought topurposefully strive—especially for those children who sufferfrom a deficit of love—to fill each student’s school day withnumerous opportunities to receive and, so too, to give love.

Belief #3: Our schools are not focusing
enough on the cultivation of loving humanrelationships.
There is, at my elementary school, considerable
discussion about the high-stakes test scores. The scores,
broken down by grade, and even by teacher, are projected up
onto the screen. We take note of where the scores are high andwhere they are low. We wonder why one grade, or teacher,has higher scores and another has lower scores. We brainstorm
about what we can do to get the borderline students to pass.
This recurring exercise saddens me. I look around theroom and I see so many smart, caring individuals. Couldn’t
we be applying all this talent, I wonder, to other things? Yes,
I get it; it is important for students to develop the sorts ofliteracy and mathematical skills that these tests measure. But
isn’t there much more to living the flourishing life than justthis? Aren’t we focusing all of our energy on a very narrow

set of skills and, in the process of doing so, ignoring much of
the really good stuff?
Admittedly, my experience and knowledge is largely
limited to my school. But, based on what I’ve read and who
I’ve talked to, it seems to me that this narrowing that I’mobserving is a typical consequence of our nation’s emphasison high-stakes tests. It seems to me, to evoke Freud and torecall a peculiar condition which once plagued philosophy,that the American educational system has developed an acutecase of “physics envy.” Wanting to satisfy the increasingly
deafening cries for accountability and measurable progress,
educators have turned to high-stakes exams and the “hard,”
pseudo-scientific data which such tests provide. Validation,
then, becomes largely dependent on good test scores. Fueledby the oftentimes immense pressure to be “successful,”
the desire for this validation influences, often heavily so,
educators’ choices about what to teach and how to teach. It
is, as Jackson puts it, a classic case of the tail wagging thedog; the means of assessment determine the content andform of instruction.
The problem with all of this, of course, is that manyof the most important virtues—such as being able to giveand to receive love—cannot be measured by a standardized
test. And so the search for validation becomes an
exercise in narrowing. As I have observed at my school,
educators focus with laser-like precision on certain skills
and, precisely in so doing, leave much of what is really
important out on the fringe.
In saying this I am not claiming that educators teach
only to the test. Being good and caring people, mosteducators naturally take time to address the broader setof skills and dispositions which are essential to humanflourishing.
Nor am I claiming that educators have no awareness that
there is more to life than what shows up on a high-stakes test.
I remember attending a complex-wide training. The theme
for the day, we were told, was to consider the importanceof “rigor, relevance, and relationships.”4 Then a half dozen
high school students stood up to address the hundreds ofgathered teachers. Each spoke, in his or her own way, about
the importance of their relationships with caring teachers;
this, to them, was at the core of education. But there was
one problem: I’m not sure if anyone really heard them.
Throughout the rest of the day I heard a lot more about
rigor and relevance. I didn’t, however, hear another single

Philosophy for Children

word uttered about the importance of relationships. We makemention of the good stuff, but then, in our preoccupation, weforget about it.
What I am claiming, then, is that our preoccupation withaccountability, validation, and test scores distracts us frommany of the most important ingredients of the flourishing life.
It narrows the scope of our moral imagination and leads us toignore much of what matters most. Ironically enough, by trying so hard to “raise the bar” we are, in fact, lowering it; we’re
doing a really good job of shooting at a lesser target.
This needs to change. We need to aim ambitiously andsquarely at equipping our students to live love-filled, flourishing lives. This is a moral imperative because, as I observe
most every day, our current state of preoccupation is causing
significant pain to both teachers and their students.
Even if they can’t always articulate it, I think manyteachers, in their hearts, are aware of this gap between what
our schools are doing and what they should be doing. One day
a veteran teacher looked at me, gave a weary sigh, and said “I
got into teaching because I care about kids, but now I feel likeI don’t have time to do that.” Many teachers would like to aim
higher, but they lack the freedom to do so. Depersonalized by
expectations that they do what everyone else is doing and harried by too many tasks, they feel discouraged because they’rebeing pulled away from what they were called to do.
Students, I’ve found, have less trouble articulating theirdistress. Their problem, however, is getting anybody to listen
them. “You have no idea,” a student recently wrote to me,“how hard my life is.” She’s right; we oftentimes, in the hustle
and bustle of the day, see children as objects to be instructed
rather than subjects to be heard. But if you listen carefully,
you’ll hear their voices, surprisingly unified and loud: “It’svery nice that you want to teach us all of these things. But you
grown-ups are so busy preparing us for tomorrow that you’re
forgetting that we need your help to make it through today.”In our preoccupation, in our quest to “raise the bar,” we are
failing to hear the cries of those, like Carolyn, whose concerns
go far beyond higher test scores: “We need help,” they say.

BELIEF #4: Philosophy for Children is aneffective means to cultivate loving
human relationships.
I think that our approach should change. I also thinkthat it can change. We can broaden our focus and teach in a
way that deliberately cultivates not only loving relationships

55

but also the other virtues that are essential to living well.
How can we do this? Once again, my answer arises from anexperience with a student.
“Ann,” as I’ll call her here, was a fourth grader who is
one of the most talented people I’ve ever met. She was a topnotch student and was good at just about everything. Except,
she too, had a problem: She felt so sad and alone because
she was surrounded by family members who were altogether
preoccupied by their own anger, grief, and pain. One day,as we sat talking, I observed that, for all her strengths, shewasn’t a very kind person. She looked at me and said with aquiet and thoughtful voice: “How am I supposed to be kind if
I don’t even know what kindness is?”Ann raises the million dollar question. How do you
cultivate skills and dispositions in an environment—be it ahome or a school—that is at odds with such an effort? The
answer, quite simply, is to change the environment. Ann willlearn kindness not by us telling her to be kind, but by being
immersed in an environment where love is consistently practiced, expressed, modeled, and thereby learned. It’s the ideaof the hidden curriculum: Children learn not only from what
we tell them, but, perhaps even more significantly, from how
we relate with them.
Now I loop back to where I began a decade ago.
Thinking, Vygotsky argued, is internalized speech (1978,
pp. 56,57). You can cultivate intellectual skills and dispositions, P4C founder Matthew Lipman realized, by creating
a community of inquiry where these skills and dispositions
are consistently expressed and modeled through speech.5
The same thing, I now argue, goes for social, emotional, andethical capacities. As the generations-old advice to choose
your friends carefully attests to, one can create a culture
which leads children not only to be smart but also to be kind,loving, happy, and good.
The implications of this point are both simple andprofound. You can prepare a child to live well tomorrow byliving well with them today. Certainly, if the good life sometimes calls, as it seems to do, for diligently buckling-down
and doing what you don’t want to do, then we should put
students in an environment where this sometimes happens.
But just as surely, and this is the part that we seem to be forgetting, if being able to give and to receive love is part of theflourishing life, then children need to spend time in loving,laughter-filled places. We need to purposefully create loving
places—with the same amount of forethought and care that

56

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

we devote to designing other instructional strategies—for all
children and especially for children who do not experience
love often enough.
There are, to be sure, a variety of ways to craft suchan environment. Perhaps the simplest and most effective
strategy would be to provide teachers with the freedom
to be true to themselves. I do believe, however, that an
exemplary example of such a way is P4C’s Communityof Inquiry. The Community of Inquiry is, as Jackson puts
it, “a safe place” “where people care about each other andshow that they do” (1998).
That the Community of Inquiry can be a place that not
only sharpens the mind but purposefully cultivates loving
relationships is a truth that my experience has repeatedly
affirmed. Certain, as we say in Hawaii, “chicken-skin”
moments stand out in my mind; times when I witnessed, inawe, the loving power of the community of inquiry.
I remember doing p4c with a class of sixth graders.
Whenever they had p4c, the students would close all thewindows and doors. “Philosophy time is our time,” theywould say, “we don’t want anyone to bother us.” One week
the students decided to talk about the following question:
Should you hang out with your boy/girlfriend or yourfriends? Of course, they laughed, you should hang out withyour boyfriend or girlfriend. That is, most everyone agreed,
the cool thing to do. Then a girl who hardly ever spokeraised her hand. “I think that you’re better off hanging out
with your friends,” she quietly said, “because of domestic
violence and stuff.”
You could have heard a pin drop. “Uncle,” the otherstudents perhaps knew, beat up the girl’s mom. Maybe hebeat her too. The tone of the inquiry changed. No morejoking. No more trying to seem cool. You could feel theirlove and support wrapping around the quiet girl like a warm
blanket. In a genuine community people care about eachother and show that they do.
I vividly remember another discussion. This one was acollege class full of military folks. It was the last class andwe were nearing the climax of a movie that the students had
been eagerly anticipating. Then one of my students walked
to the back of the darkened room and sat down next to me.
“Sorry I’ve been absent,” he whispered. “Do you know,” hesaid, “the tsunami that hit American Samoa?” Yes, I said
with a sinking feeling because I knew that the soldier wasfrom there. “Well,” he continued, “my 5 year-old niece waskilled by it.” Then his voice cracked: “Dr. Yos, I have aquestion: Why would God let such a beautiful, innocent
child die? Can we talk about it in our community ofinquiry?”
We stopped the movie. We got in our circle andgot out our community ball. The soldier, his voice again
cracking with pain, asked his question. Some students werequiet. Some gently cried. And then, one by one, they began
to give their answers. Some talked about God having aplan, some talked about heaven needing a new angel, some
said that, sadly enough, is just what life dealt us, and some
said they simply didn’t know.
What the community answered, in each of these cases,
wasn’t necessarily clear. The students didn’t arrive at
definitive solutions as to why men beat women or innocent
children have to die. But there was no doubt about how
the community members were relating to one another. The
giving and receiving of love was being lived, experienced,
modeled, and most powerfully taught. “This class,” oneof my university students wrote on her evaluation, “ismy salvation.” She understood what many of us forget:
Education is, in large part, about relationships.
Fun, it sometimes seems, has become a dirty word
in today’s schools. Spending time caring for one anotherand appreciating each other’s company is oftentimes
considered to be “off-task” time. But it is only “off-task”
if we define the task too narrowly. Giving love to one
another, receiving love from one another, having fun
together, and the rest of the really good stuff: These are
not superfluous things but are, indeed, essential piecesof the flourishing life. If we are to take seriously ourtask of preparing our children for such a life and to truly“raise the bar,” then we must purposefully strive to create
environments, like P4C’s Community of Inquiry, wherethese valuable qualities are lived and, so, taught.
A decade ago I argued that the “community” in theCommunity of Inquiry has tremendous instrumental value.
Community precedes inquiry. Far from being at odds
with intellectual rigor, the genuine relationships of thecommunity make such rigor possible. Now, what I realize
is that this aspect of community is not only of instrumental
value. It is, in and of itself, of great intrinsic value. Indeed,
forming caring and loving relationships with people does
not merely lead to the good life; it, in part, is constitutiveof the good life. As Mahatma Gandhi said: you must bePhilosophy for Children

the change you want to see in the world. If our children are
to live well, if our society is to be harmonious, then our
schools, most definitely, ought to be places full of love, joy,and laughter.
REFERENCES
Albom, M. (1997), Tuesdays with Morrie. New York: Broadway
Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997) Mind in Society. Edited by M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Jackson, T. (1998). Philosophy in the Schools Project: A Guide for
Teachers. Unpublished Manuscript.
ENDNOTES
1

Yos, Thomas. Educating for Good Judgment. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: UMI, 2002.

2

This is my modification of a quote that I heard on Todd Wilson’s
Help! I’m Married to a Homeschooling Mom (audio book).
www.familymanweb.com, 2007.

3

See James 2:8. The Holy Bible (New King James Version),
Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1982.

4

These terms, it seems, originate from the research of theInternational Center for Leadership in Education. See
http://www.leadered.com/rrr.html.

5See, for instance, Lipman, Matthew. Natasha: Vygotskian
Dialogues. New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.
pp. 104–105.

57

58

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

Community in the Classroom: An Approach to Curriculum andInstruction as a Means for the Development of Student Personal
Engagement in a High School Classroom
Tammy Jones
Curriculum for Community[C]oncepts and values will be meaningful to children only to the extent that they can relate them insome way to their own experience (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p.164).

In this age of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act,the school curriculum risks becoming scripted, distant, andimpersonal. More and more, it is controlled by professionals outside of the classroom who are unfamiliar with theparticular needs and learning style of students and what they
are interested in and curious to inquire about. As Freire points
out, the curriculum, which includes the classroom environment, should aim to “create possibilities for the construction
and production of knowledge rather than [engage] simply in agame of transferring knowledge” (1998, p.49). Unfortunately,
it is the students’ individual scores on one specific highstakes assessment that has become the focus of attention in
our country; and, as a result, it has limited the extent to which
students are able to interact with each other and inquire into
matters of interest.
NCLB has created a climate where teachers feel increasingly pressured to ensure their students pass the test, with theresult that they allocate less time for purposeful and authentic
learning experiences (Kohn, 2004). Thus, rote memorization
is favored over inquiry, and there is no room to personalize
the curriculum in order to fully engage, motivate, and invite
students to become active participants in their own learning.
This approach to teaching and learning, as Freire says, “turns[students] into ‘containers,’ into ‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by
the teacher, and the more completely she fills the receptacles,
the better teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles
permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are”
(1998, p. 71).
I reject this approach to teaching and learning and argue
that the goal of education should be to create thoughtful,
critical, curious, confident, personally aware, independent
students. “Something must be done to enable children toacquire meanings for themselves. They will not acquire suchmeanings merely by learning the contents of adult knowledge.
They must be taught to think and, in particular, to think forthemselves” (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980, p. 13). The
curriculum that I carry into my classroom and present to mystudents reflects my understanding of them as individuals andwhat I have come to learn about their interests and abilities.
I want to challenge them to go beyond their present understanding and try to “think outside the box.” I want them toengage their own sense of wonder and natural curiosity and tocreate meaning for themselves.
School is a place where students should feel safe toengage intellectually, socially, and emotionally in the act oflearning. It is the school’s responsibility to provide knowledgeable teachers and promote a classroom climate where all
students are heard and where they can learn from one another.
It is a teacher’s responsibility to implement a curriculum thatchallenges students and empowers them to become problems
solvers who can take what they learn in the classroom into
the world outside. Teachers must aim to create a classroom
environment that recognizes and values students’ genuine
thoughts, questions, and ideas. They should aim to provide
them with opportunities to express their thoughts and feelings
and to learn to work with others in a constructive way. As
Kohn (2004) writes,“all of us yearn for a sense of relatedness
or belonging, a feeling of being connected to others” (p. 119).
Students must also be able to connect, in some way, to thematerial as well as to one another. Lack of engagement iswhat causes students to tune out and turn off.
Teaching specific topics or skills without making clear
their context in the broader fundamental structure ofa field of knowledge is uneconomical…such teaching

Philosophy for Children

makes it exceedingly difficult for the student to generalize from what he has learned to what he will encounter
later. (Bruner, 2003, p. 31)

Students need to have opportunities to apply what
they are learning and understand the reasons behind thecontent in order to internalize the material and fully learn
it. The content needs to become a part of them, movingfrom external content to internal knowledge. As Jerome
Bruner (2003) contends, “the best way to create interest in a
subject is to render it worth knowing, which means to makethe knowledge gained useable in one’s thinking beyond
the situation in which the learning has occurred” (p.31).
Therefore, what a student experiences in the classroom
should be applicable to life outside of the classroom.
Experiences should be provided for students to practice theskills needed for independent thinking, instead of inviting
them to respond to questions on pre-determined topics. Only
with the implementation of such educational experiences
can we hope to create interested, independent, intellectuallyengaged members of society.
Though there are a variety of tools that can be used toencourage, promote, and foster engagement, more powerfulfactors, such as a lack of self-confidence, poor self-concept,
fear, and apathy, often stand in the way. Participation in classactivities can be threatening to some students, although moreworrisome is the fear that their contribution may be judged
as trivial or incorrect by their peers. Conditions have to beproperly established and maintained for many students to get
involved:
When students need close affiliation, they experiencea large depersonalized school; when they need todevelop autonomy, they experience few opportunities for choice and punitive approaches to discipline;
when they need expansive cognitive challenges andopportunities to demonstrate their competence, theyexperience work focused largely on the memorizationof facts. (Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 122)

My main concern, therefore, is getting students torecognize their ability to learn and, more importantly, tocommunicate with and learn with others. I believe the “key”
to achieving success in advancing and improving theirself-concept and confidence is to work to build relationships
within an intellectually safe classroom community.

59

Community as Foundation
Education is, or should be, a cooperative enterprise. An atmosphere of mutual respect and positive regard increases thelikelihood of cooperation and student success in school (Purkey& Novak, 1996, p. 43).

From the first day of school I work to create a classroom
environment where students are engaged, both on their own
and in dialogue with each other. My classroom becomesalmost entirely student-directed, allowing students to explore
their own needs, wants, questions, thoughts, and ideas.
Furthermore, I strive to create a classroom that allows students to develop good thinking skills that they can use when
they are at school and that they can take with them when they
are engaged in the world outside of the school. As Haynes(2002) comments, “Dewey argued that schools should beparticipatory communities, a meaningful part of society
where young people could develop as citizens” (p.46). I view
my ultimate goal as one of creating independent, confident,
responsible learners who can fully participate in community
life. Of course, I am aware that this is a process that takes
time and relies heavily on the collaboration of the group.
There are three stages of community development, which
I identify as the beginning, emerging and mature stages(Jackson, 2001). It is essential to begin laying a foundation
for a community to emerge and develop from the first day ofschool; the initial experience must reflect the need for andimportance of forming a classroom community. For example,
I begin by facilitating an inquiry into the meaning of “community” by viewing a film about relationships within penguin
communities and asking students to compare and contrast
aspects of the bird’s community to that of a classroom.
During this early stage students are often hesitant and may
even reject the idea of community due to their unfamiliarity
with it, or they may simply be unwilling or unable to listen
due to all the views and concerns that have been presented(Splitter & Sharp, 1995). That is why I present the topic
within a structured format they are familiar with (i.e., viewing a film, taking notes, constructing a written response) as
opposed to leading a more advanced, open discussion on theidea. The teacher must remain true to the process and gradually invite students to direct their own learning. At the sametime, the skills of critical thinking, formulating questions, andtaking part in discussions must be modeled and practiced in a
structured way before the students can be asked to implement
these skills within a guided inquiry. “To develop the class-

60

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

room community and the needed skills, the teacher needs todeliberately set aside time for both” (Jackson, 2001, p. 460).
Student-generated questions “provide a doorway for children
to enter into the realms of an inquiry which is…in their own
hands. To bypass this part of the procedure is to risk undermining the egalitarian and democratic nature of the entire
enterprise” (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 140). Since theseskills are new to students, such questions may not initiallylead to a very elaborate or productive inquiry; however, it is
not the outcome but rather the process that is important at thisstage in community development.
In the school year 2009–2010, I conducted a self-study in
my classroom to examine the impact of using a communitycentered approach to curriculum on student identity, I wanted
to gain an understanding of the students’ levels of cognitive,social, and emotional engagement during the collective
learning process over the course of an entire school year. The
project allowed me to examine all three phases of community
development, which included, interestingly, a community“break down” that occurred during the emerging stage andthreatened to prevent all learning, engagement and any further
community development. Fortunately, the breakdown was
temporary, and I was able to use it as a lesson on community.
By relying on the initial sense of community we had established prior to this incident, I was able to use it as the stimulus
for reflection and self-correction. I reminded students that
their voices and feelings were valued. “Caring classrooms…
enhance opportunities for student engagement by developing
supportive relationships, increasing opportunities for participation in school life, and allowing for the pursuit of academic
success” (Zins, et al., 2004, p. 62).

Communities of Inquiry
There are…thinking communities and unthinking communities,
communities that are reflective and self-corrective and communities that are not. What education requires, obviously, arecommunities of inquiry (Lipman, 2003, p. 94).

In developing a sense of community in the classroom,
it is necessary also to establish clear parameters for the
conduct of inquiry and classroom dialogue. The creation of acommunity of inquiry “makes it possible for children to seethemselves as active thinkers rather than passive learners,
as discoverers rather than receptacles, and as valuable andvalued human beings rather than resources or commodities”(Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 21). There is a distinct and observ-

able difference between the student engaged simply in listening to directions and completing assignments, and a student
who is internalizing the knowledge, connecting and relating
it to other knowledge, and expanding individual thought into
collaborative inquiry. John Dewey (1930) spoke to the importance of being a member of a classroom community:[B]eing a unique member of a meaningful group isimportant for both the individual and the group…themore democratic a group is, the more the group experience builds on the unique perspectives and interests of
its members, and this the more the group experience
becomes a source of educational development for all
involved. (cited in Purkey & Novak, 1996, p. 50)

It is in a student’s best interest to engage in the learning process in order to improve the level of inquiry for thegroup. However, students seldom have this perspective whenentering the classroom; therefore, it is the task of the teacher
to create an inviting environment that encourages students toparticipate in group inquiries in a safe way.
Matthew Lipman (2003) identifies fifteen key featuresof communities of inquiry. As a seasoned elementary school
teacher, something Lipman was not, I consider the first three
to be the most essential to emphasize at the initial stages ofcommunity development:
A. INCLUSIVENESS. Within a community no one is
excluded from internal activities without adequate justification.
B. PARTICIPATION. Communities of inquiry encourage
but do not require participants to participate verbally as
equals.
C. SHARED COGNITION. In a private reflection, an
individual will engage in a series of mental acts aimed at
penetrating and analyzing the matter at hand. In sharedcognition, the same acts (wondering, questioning, inferring, defining, assuming, supposing, imagining and distinguishing) are engaged in, but by different members of
the community. (p. 95)
The additional characteristics that Lipman identifies
and explains emerge and become more effective as the community grows over time, but are not readily applicable or possible at the beginning. These characteristics include seeking
meaning; creating a sense of solidarity; promoting individual
thinking; and being impartial, challenging, reasonable, reflective, and curious through discussion.

Philosophy for Children

Within a community of inquiry, students participate inintellectual and social activities respectfully. In Richardson’s(2003) social constructivist perspective, meaning is individually constructed as a result of “opportunities to determine,challenge, change or add to existing beliefs and understandings through engagement in tasks that are structured for thispurpose” ( p. 1624). A community of inquiry provides a spacefor students to actively participate in learning both by building shared meanings and through the processes of internalization. Such participation provides students with opportunities
to gain confidence in expressing their own views. “Throughtaking part in thoughtful, reflective discussions, children gain
confidence in their ability to think on their own” (Lipman, et.
al., 1980, p. 131). As students come to understand and appreciate that there are few, if any, “wrong” answers and possibly
more than one right answer, the community provides themwith a safe forum in which they can exchange and develop
ideas and learn to respect the ideas of others. “The purpose of
a community of inquiry is to…bring participants into deeper
and more significant relationships, to shake them free of theircomplacency, their false convictions and to make them available for more comprehensive understanding” (Sharp, 1993, p.
340).
When students feel they are valued members of thecommunity and that their opinions and constributions areimportant, there are fewer distractions from the work of theclassroom and fewer behavior problems (Allender, 2001).
It is therefore essential that the teacher develop lessons that
invite students to learn within a safe, inviting environment.
“Learners must be active participants in the creation of a caring classroom community” (Zins et al., 2004), These beliefs
are at the core of my teaching philosophy. Thus, as a teacherresearcher, I am interested in the the way that students’emotional connection and responsibility affects the level ofcognitive and social engagement within that community.

61

students are trusted, willing, and able to engage in responsible
dialogue and inquiry and to create meaning, “a particular
relationship must develop among members to the classroom
community that is quite different from standard classroom
practice” (p. 459). He recommends that these relationships
should be those that place more emphasis on listening,
thoughtfulness, silence, and care and respect for the thoughtsof others:
Essentially, the classroom needs to become an intellectually safe community; a place where students do nothave to worry about being put down, belittled, teased,or ridiculed by their peers or teacher when they offer
their personal insight, experiences or questions, so longas these comments are respectful to all members of thecommunity. Within this place, the group accepts virtually any question or comment, so long as it is respectfulof the other members of the [community]…Intellectual
safety is the bedrock upon which inquiry grows. (p. 460)

Jackson describes an intellectually safe place as one thatis free of put-downs, where no comments are made with theintent to “belittle, undermine, negate, devalue, or ridicule”
other community members (p. 460). In order to create an environment where students feel secure enough to participate ininquiry, all members first need to trust one another with theirpersonal thoughts and questions. Intellectual safety creates aclassroom community where students do not fear the responseto their contributions, where they know they will not be put
down by the teacher or teased by the other students. Greely(2000) speaks to the importance of respect in developing andmaintaining a safe classroom community:Students choose to learn, just as they choose not to learn in theface of ridicule, embarrassment, or coercion (Purkey & Novak,
1996, p. 45).

When students feels safe, when they feel respect fromboth their peers and their teachers, and when they trust
the people around them, they become free to learn. They
are able to engage in the practices that lead to authentic
intellectual growth. They become more willing to say
what they think, more willing to share their work andinvite feedback, more willing to experiment and try new
things, more willing to try again when they don’t get it
right the first time, and more willing to invest in theirown learning. And, because of this, they become better
readers, writers, and thinkers. (p. xiv)

Matthew Lipman (1993), the founder of Philosophy forChildren (P4C), believes that “children hunger for meaning,and get turned off by education when it ceases to be meaningful to them” (p. 384). Jackson (2001) advises that in orderto promote and develop a classroom environment where

In order to foster an environment where students areable to carry on responsible dialogue and inquiry within
the community, it is necessary for students to feel safeenough to take risks. Without the element of intellectual
safety in place within a community, students will not take

Intellectual Safety

62

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

educational risks and will not recognize the importance andbenefits of doing so.
I begin to build an intellectually safe classroom at thevery beginning of the year through modeling, extending lowrisk invitations to share, and acknowledge all contributions
as valuable. During the first few days of school we do
not engage in a formal inquiry. However I do endeavor
to facilitate inquiries with each of the students as well as
introduce the idea of community. The initial class meetings
focus on the unique identities of each student. I believe that
this is crucial due to the fact that my class size is often forty
or more students. Each individual needs to feel welcomed
and recognized within my classroom. In order to generateauthentic, even if brief, discussions with each student I havethem complete an informational sheet asking questions about
their background and interests. I use the information on thesesheets to take attendance for the first few days and to help me
make personal connections to each of them.. For example,
I note that “You are the one who takes Judo,” or “You canspeak four languages.” This provides a way for me to connect
with each student while sharing aspects of their identity withthe rest of the classroom community, and do it in a safe way.
It is not just the building of a yarn ball and the circularseating arrangement that makes Philosophy for Children
work. It is the establishment of an atmosphere that recognizes
that learning is risky, and that what we are asking ourstudents to do is often a more difficult thing than it was forus. It is the acknowledgement of the “basic human need for
positive regard from both others and from oneself” (Purkey
and Schmidt, 1987). In order for this type of learning tooccur, classrooms must become a place where students
feel intellectually safe and therefore choose to participate
cognitively, socially, and emotionally in educational
activities.

Philosophy for Children
Likewise, philosophy—when embedded in the context of thecommunity of inquiry—cultivates habits based on reflection
and self-correction, rather than inculcation and rote learning(Lipman, et. al., 1980, p. 179).

I have observed numerous instances where students
were asked to learn, rather memorize, information only tospit it back on a multiple-choice test and never return to it
again. The information never related to their own lives andtheir comments were seldom welcomed, especially questions

that might lead the class “off topic,” which seemed to be theequivalent of the discussion going beyond what the teacher
might know or want to discuss. The curriculum was organizedwith content as a first priority and student interests second.
Students were expected to repeat this information on a test
to show that they had ‘mastered’ this material. “Education
thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are
the depositories and the teacher the depositor. Instead ofcommunicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes
deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, andrepeat” (Freire, 2005, p. 72). Freire’s statement suggests a
different approach—that children’s questions and thoughtson the material should be included in the way in which they
are assessed. Tests should not simply be about their ability torepeat what the teacher or textbook has informed them.
Philosophy for Children (P4C) is at the core of myapproach to teaching. P4C is a curriculum approach createdby Matthew Lipman, a professor of philosophy at Columbia
University, as an attempt to “improve children’s reasoning
abilities by having them think about thinking as they
discuss concepts of importance to them” (Lipman, 1989, p.
146). P4C has grown into a worldwide movement that has
expanded beyond Lipman’s original approach, emerging
as a researched-based pedagogy that has been built on
the assumption that learning is socially constructed. The
P4C curriculum aims to give priority to student interestsand independent judgments over the memorization andpresentation of content. P4C has become an important partof my teaching philosophy and allows student to engage
thoughtfully and regularly within an intellectually safe
classroom community. It is an approach that promotes asense of classroom community while developing skill in
critical thinking. The concept of community advanced by
P4C changes and challenges the model of traditional teacher/
student roles and relationships—one that moves the teacher
from information-giver to co-inquirer. P4C is “based aroundthe notion that [the students] must construct meanings
for themselves, rather than simply accept those which arehanded down to them” (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p.99).
In addition, P4C strategies help teachers construct a safe
classroom environment where all ideas are welcomed andvalued equally.
One of the goals of using P4C is to allow students
to view the classroom as one in which they feel safe andrespected, as well as excited to enter and eager to learn:

Philosophy for Children

Philosophy for Children is an attempt to reconstruct(not water down) the discipline of philosophy, to makeit accessible and attractive to children who will thenbe able to appropriate it and thereby acquire the tools,
skills, and dispositions they need in order to think forthemselves. (Splitter & Sharp, 1995, p. 99)

P4C leads to the creation of a student-centered environment, which ultimately leads to the improvement ofself-confidence. Students raise their own questions, discusspossible answers with one another, listen to one another’s
responses, consider alternative points of view, and form theirown ideas based on the evidence presented by themselves
and their peers. P4C aims to create independent, self-directed
thinkers who are challenged to discover more about the topic
under discussion. “Philosophy for Children’s egalitarian
nature, commitment to varying viewpoints and insistence on
the inherent value of all participants helps foster empathy andpro-social behavior as an essential basis for values education”(IAPC, 2003).

Role of Teacher as Facilitator
I think of teaching as if I were directing a play – an improvised
play in which there are no lines for the players to read…Thereis, however, a specific structure that allows for and encourages
all of the players, the teacher, and the students towards goals…
the teacher’s predominant role is that of director. (Allender,
2001, p. 5).

Teachers must be proactive in making the necessary
adjustments to the classroom environment that allows forauthentic engagement to take place. “From the outset, herefforts must coincide with those of the students to engage incritical thinking and the quest for mutual humanization…
efforts must be imbued with a profound trust…they must be
partners of the students in their relations with them” (Freire,
1998, p. 75). In addition to being a partner in inquiry, theteacher-facilitator has to continue to provide the structure thatoffers opportunities for student participation and engagementwith content; “…invitations must be sent and received; theycannot merely be wished for. People do not reach their potential because others simply wish them well” (Purkey & Novak,
1996, p. 50).
In terms of instruction, the teacher-as-facilitator mustencourage students to discover meanings on their own. “Theteacher cannot think for her students, nor can she impose
her thought on them. Authentic thinking, thinking that isconcerned about reality, does not take place in ivory tower

63

isolation, but only in communication” (Freire, 2005, p. 77).
The use of a “gently Socratic inquiry” method (Jackson,2001) allows for the teacher to develop relationships withstudents that go beyond the information-giver-to-informationreceiver affiliation. As Dewey says, “In such shared activity,
the teacher is a learner, and the learner is, without knowing
it, a teacher—and upon the whole, the less consciousness
there is, on either side, of giving or receiving instruction, thebetter” (1916, p. 160).
Carl Rogers (1980) presents the concept of empathic
understanding to explain the way in which a teacher connectswith students in this type of environment:
When the teacher has the ability to understand thestudent’s reactions from the inside, has a sensitiveawareness of the way the process of education andlearning seems to the student, then again the likelihood of significant learning is increased…. [Students
feel deeply appreciative] when they are simply understood—not evaluated, not judged, simply understoodfrom their own point of view, not the teacher’s. (as citedin Smith, 1997)

The development of empathetic understanding takes
time. The teacher should not abandon the approach if they do
not have immediate success in establishing a deep connection
with students. Yet, staying true to my role and purpose bybecoming a trusted co-inquirer has proved to be a challenge
and the most challenging part has been in creating a sense ofcommunity with the students. However, continued reflection
and adaptation has given me a renewed sense of purpose andaided in my success.
The teacher who adopts and implements a P4C approach
plays a role that is different from that of the traditional
educator:
The P4C facilitator sees her/himself as a co-inquirer
with the children, as interested as they are in exploring philosophical concepts, improving judgment anddiscovering meaning. However, when it comes to theprocedures of inquiry, the facilitator both guides thechildren and models for them—by asking open-ended
questions, posing alternative views, seeking clarification, questioning reasons, and by demonstrating selfcorrecting behavior. It is through this kind of modelingthat the children eventually internalize the proceduresof inquiry. (IAPC, 2003)

Dewey argues that education should be considered asa form of social activity. “When education is based upon

64

Educational Perspectives v Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2

experience and educative experience is seen to be a social
process, the situation changes radically. The teacher loses the
position of external boss or dictator but takes on that of leaderof group activities” (Dewey, 1998, p. 66). Taking on such a
non-traditional instructional role is challenging; it demands
a lot from the teacher, especially if she or he is a novice.
It is hard work to stay true to the process and to her or his
own beliefs about education especially if other teachers are
unsympathetic. This is why it is more empowering to be partof a recognized program like P4C.

Conclusion
Students’ curiosity, their eagerness to engage in inquiry,
and their natural sense of wonder needs “a place to grow,breathe and make sense. [T]he authentic ‘Aha!’ experience
requires risk on the part of the learner, and a climate of trustand safety is essential for all of these things to happen”(Bluestein, 2001, p. 210). Trust is a fundamental componentof learning process—students are “most likely to thrive in an
atmosphere of trust…This involves maintaining a warm, caring relationship with students, one in which teachers can be‘real’ with themselves and others” (Purkey & Novak, 1996,
p. 50). Teachers in a constructivist classroom act as a guide indiscovering areas where the student lacks understanding or issimply mistaken and in need of assistance from the teacher.
The utilization of a P4C approach is what allows me to create the type of intellectually safe community environmentthat I know is crucial to my students’ cognitive, social andemotional development, and is therefore an essential aspect of
their educational experience and growth.

Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical conciousness. New York,
NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Greely, K. (2000). Why fly that way? Linking community andacademic achievement. New York: NY. Teachers College Press.
Haynes, J. (2002). Children as philosophers: Learning throughenquiry and dialogue in the primary classroom. New York, NY:
Routledge Falmer
Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy or Children (IAPC).
(2003). What is philosophy for children? Retrieved from
Montclair State University website: http://cehs.montclair.edu/
academic/iapc/whatis.shtml

Jackson, T. (2001). The art and craft of “gently socratic” inquiry. In
A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching
thinking (3rd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated? Boston,
MA: Beacon Publishers.
Lipman, M., Sharp, A. & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in theclassroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lipman, M. (Ed). (1993). Thinking children in education.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness in education. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Purkey, W. W., & Schmidt, J. (1987). The inviting relationship: An
expanded perspective for professional counseling. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A
self-concept approach to teaching, learning and democratic
practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College
Record, 105 (9), 1623–1640.
Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.

REFERENCES

Sharp, A. M. (1993). The Community of Inquiry: Education for
democracy. In M. Lipman, (Ed). (1993). Thinking Children in
Education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
337–345.

Allender, J. (2001). Teacher self: The practice of humanistic
education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Smith, M. K. (1997). Carl Rogers and informal education.
Encyclopedia of informal educational. Retrieved from www.

Bluestein, J. (2001). Creating emotionally safe schools. Deerfield
Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
Bruner, J. (2003). The process of education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: a blueprint for
creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1916/1997). Democracy and education. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary
edition. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: ethics, democracy, andcivic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm.

Splitter, L. & Sharp, A. (1995). Teaching for better thinking.
Melbourne: Australia. Australian Council for Educational
Research Ltd.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (eds).
(2004). Building academic success on social and emotional
learning: What does the research say? New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
College of Education
Educational Perspectives
1776 University Avenue
Wist Hall, Room 113
Honolulu, HI 96822

NONPROFITORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
HONOLULU, HI
PERMIT NO. 278

Educational Perspectives
Journal of the College of Education/University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

Website: www.hawaii.edu/edper

Philosophy for Children
Volume 44 v Numbers 1 and 2