Philosophy for Children: Some Thoughts

I'd like to start our discussion this week of Philosophy for Children by reference back to our thoughts of class structure and division.

1) Class division is perpetuated largely by the apathy and acceptance of the middle and lower classes.

I understand this may be contentious but if the middle and lower classes, who largely outnumber the higher were to demand change and work to see it happen, change would come. Our education has been too effective in breeding mindless drones, however, and we allow the rich to further exploit us by our very inaction.

2) Critical thinking adults would be far less willing to accept their position in a patently unfair system.

There is not much to say about this premise. If the system is unfair, as I am suggesting it is, solution and change will only be more likely by the introduction of more critical thought and more autonomous people, unwilling to be forcefully led by the upper classes.

3) Philosophy for Children would produce more critical thinking and more autonomous adults.

Learning to think critically at a young age will habituate such action and by virtue of being more critical thinking, will beget more autonomy as well. If philosophy was introduced at all grade levels, critical thinking, and thereby autonomy, would be more frequent and potent.

4) Therefore, PFC could be an effective method by which to bring reform to the economic, and therefore educational system.

Questions: Are my premises correct? Which are not? Why?

Reform of Classes and Classes

I know I was absent all week, and I am sure some of these things will have been said already but I just wanted to offer some thoughts on schooling in capitalism.

Capitalism in some obvious and some inconspicuous manners undermines proper education, as it is economically beneficial to breed naught but the next generation of mindless obedient working drones. As such, it strikes me that reformation of the educational system will be either meaningless or impossible absent reformation of the economic system. (I understand there are others, Edward Manak notably, who have said similar things. I do not wish to plagiarize his thoughts, only to offer corresponding agreement.) This necessity if unfortunate, as it would seem that as long as school is producing mindless drones, the hope of economic reform is slim. Critically thinking, autonomous, adults are necessary to any meaningful or effective reform, and that is precisely what pour system seems to be set up to avoid. Economic reform seems impossible absent education reform.

So there we have it: Economic reform is unlikely absent education reform, and educational reform is unlikely absent economic reform.

Question: How will this happen then if we are trapped in this self perpetuating cycle?

Retro Reading; Or, a Response to Drew

Drew Asked: At the risk of sounding like a "crotchety old fart", can we set a trend back towards making reading fun, engaging, and not something reserved only for doing research via a wikipedia entry?

I must admit, here at the beginning that I am such a "crotchety old fart": My preferred musical genre is classical...and my preferred medium thereof is vinyl...I smoke a pipe...I play chess...I care about grammar and language. I am an old man.
I mention this only with the humility of a viewpoint that is not entirely disinterested.

That having been said, I am in euphoric agreement with everything Drew mentioned in his blog post.

Literature provides a unique medium through which learning can be achieved. There is a power and durability of a lesson learned via literature that is lost on the ephemeral data of lectures. The lessons strike deeper and last longer. The reader may not even know that she learned something, such is the insidiousness of potent prose. Tolkien and Twain may not teach us algebra, Shakespeare and Poe shall not chemistry show, but the interest incited and the passion provoked is valuable all the more.

The onus of promoting interest in reading comes long before education; it is that of the parents. The obstacle of technology is intimidating. Video games and technology hold the interest of a child without the needed time and effort of the parent. It is, though not solely, for this reason it has become a more dominant hobby. As a child I was allowed neither television nor video games until middle school, and even then, they were introduced quite restrictively. I was turned to books, and I am so glad I was. So setting this trend must begin in the home, though of course, continued in the schools, but I agree strenuously that it is a necessary step.

Question: Despite my antiquated tirades, learning can happen via technology; is there, as I suspect there is, something superior to lessons learned via literature?

Inciting Interest and Augmenting Autonomy

In Bridges to Autonomy Alison suggests that we, as teachers, ought to only wield our paternalism in a way as to ultimately increase the autonomy of our students. It is difficult to ascertain, though, which of our paternalisms will serve to this telos.

So how are we to foment interest while increasing (or at least not hindering) autonomy? It is slightly paternalistic, yes, to force students to create questions on the assigned reading, as Professors Johnson and Silliman both do, but this satisfies the above mentioned maxim. By having prepared questions the ease to exercise autonomy by class participation is significantly increased. Also, there is no force that will better drive interest than curiosity, and the creation of questions, if done with sincerity will raise just such curiosity.

Question: What other concrete techniques satisfy this maxim?

Entertaining Exceptions; Or, a Response to Shelby

Shelby asked: "How can teachers encourage and cater to students who are exceptions to the norm?"

Of students that are exceptions we find, primarily three groups: exceptionally successful students, poor students that struggle with course material and work, and poor students by virtue of apathy.

As Matt mentioned in his response to Shelby's post, there is not much an instructor can do with this ultimate group, and teachers will often exhaust themselves trying. These are the students that deserve the least amount of catering, though, it is important to still be there if they change their minds.

The difficulty primarily arises with the first two sets. Ideally an instructor desires to effectively teach both sets but this would seem to indicate treating them differently which is dangerous at best, and counter-productively disrespectful at worst. I admit I may be bias here, but the method I always preferred as a student was for the instructor to teach the challenging material in class and be available for help if the struggling students needed it, but not to cater to specific difficulties during class time.

Question: Is there an effective method to teach both extremes of the student body while remaining fair and respectful to both?

Sans Swearing; Or, A Response to Shelby

Shelby asked: "Should swearing, and other paternalistic ploys that aim to increase student learning, be employed in the classroom?"

Well, I am less torn. As I mentioned in class, permissibility denotes neither wisdom nor desirability. So while the use of profanity and vulgarity is permissible via the maturity and autonomy of students, it is neither wise nor desirable. These paternalistic ploys of which Shelby speaks are the wrong solutions to the right problems. If swearing is needed to force students to pay attention, the battle is already lost, there is already, lying beneath this, a deeper problem with the class. I agree with Emily that an occasional swear is not an issue, while using vulgarity as a substitute for quality teaching and content is problematic.

Question: Does the use of paternalistic, disrespectful ploys and tricks denote a lack of quality in the teacher, the content, the students, or some combination thereof?