38

Educational Perspectives ❖ Volume 44 ❖ 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 ❖ Volume 44 ❖ 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 ❖ Volume 44 ❖ 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.