Dead Right

I'll sound like a homeschooling bore agreeing with you on the pointlessness of most of the "art" projects kids are forced to do.

Philosophy, however, is absolutely integral to the homeschooling we do. Open ended questions, ethics, philosophy of mind, fun with philosophy of language, (seven is not at all too early to consider Quine's collection of rabbit parts).

If the objective is to enable a free range kid and thus a fully aware adult, philosophy is critical. Largely because it is not necessarily a body of knowledge to be mastered but is, essentially, a cast or habit of mind to be fostered. A seven year old's consideration of "why am I here?" or "how do I know I'm here" will lack the scholarly apparatus of a grad student but will have touched the most fundamental elements of the intellectual enterprise.

I am looking forward to you next articles and your book will grace our shelves.

How about the Little Red School Book for a start?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Schoolbook

The problem with

The problem with philosophies, ideologies and religions is that they, and all other faith based theories, can be turned into weapons of mass destruction and mass murder by mind benders. Every age of history is full of examples.

I grew up in this kind of mental warp, with the best academic education, and have seen how the fascists, nazis, communists and religions have used philosophies to justify and legalize their criminal actions.

Just as today's "conservatives", the "regilious right" and universities are pumping people's heads full with the benefits and joys of life under the corporate dictatorship of neoclassical market economics, once again called "freedom", while the world is being turned into a garbage dump,with people fighting for scraps thrown to them by the anointed aristocracy of Bilderbergers and Trilaterals.

Using philosophies to justify their criminal actions, just as the Romans, and all empires have used them, through the ages.

Ed Deak.

I agree Ed, but

I also believe that the best part of philosophy is to teach people to question why they do/think the way they do. Granted, the first thing that many regimes do when they are trying to control a people is to round up the intellectuals.

Philosophy Basis of Democracy

We live in a time when "freedom & democracy" is spread around the world, delivered at the end of a gun. How far we have fallen from the origins of democracy and philosophy, where Greek Athenians like Socrates developed concepts that inspire to this day. Today's attempt to divorce "democracy" from intellectual curiosity is of course doomed to fail. As the early French and US democracies well knew, democracy was intended to supplant demagoguery. It is less efficient but more just. It requires philosophy and intellectual curiosity so that citizens remain engaged and interested in the direction of their society. I salute Ms. Poirier's work in teaching kids how to think. Without this skill, surely our democracy will fall.

Unfortunately, the

Unfortunately, the intellectuals are the first to jump on bandwagons, as we have seen it many times in the past.

This is why I'm always blaming the world's universities for this present mess and coming horrors, already experienced in some parts of the world.

Let us remember that all these wonderful economic theories and technical advances ruining the Earth, originate in universities and from intellectuals, using criminal theories we could never dream of in our postwar student days.

With universities in the pay of big business we can expect nothing else but more and bigger disasters.

Yes, we used to learn to question everything, but that was many years ago. Today it is preparation for "jobs, jobs, jobs"

Ed Deak.

Child Philosophy West Coast Style

Why does mommy do drugs?

Why does the 19 year old down the street drive a $100,000 sports car and live in a $5 million dollar condo, and I am hungry?

Why did that man get a bullet in his head because he was eating Thai?

If my teacher tells me I seem older for my age is it alright to have sex with my teacher?

If I get plastic boobs can I buy an ad in the back of The Georgia Straight too?

What is Savage Love?

How can politicians find money for athletes to jump higher, be stronger and run faster when I am hungry and cold?
__________
________

Teaching philosophy in school is good because it inspires youth to ask their parents tough questions.

The really tough philosophical questions like, "why am I here" can come later with maturity.

The questions above are a good place for an eight year old to start though.

Let's not.

Let's allow kids to enjoy their childhoods without trying to warp their minds into little Bertrand Russells or Sartres or whoevers because we want to "help" them grow.

Some dialogue about philosophical ideas is good, but let's not forget they are kids. Those questions will come naturally in reading, writing and 'rithmetic classes, if the teacher has any teaching skills at all.

I think kids learn more from practical activities, like playing outside, watching bugs, learning how trees grow from pine cones, and yes, even making homogenous art projects, than from sitting in a class talking about the ideas of some ivory tower philosopher who spent his privileged days on the French Riviera musing on how pointless life was.

I also think it's dangerous to open kids up to an endless world of questions without answers, because it's scary, even for adults. It should come eventually, but throwing kids into the deep end when they're still learning to swim is dangerous.

Finally, let them ask their parents these questions. And if the kids come from religious families, let them learn about beauty and the meaning of life in Sunday School. And before you cry indoctrination, that is exactly what this teacher is proposing to do -- indoctrinate kids with open-ended ideas that even adults struggle with.

Let them keep their innocence. They will lose it soon enough.

Philosophy

Good to see some children get a teacher with an open mind. It does open up a pandoras box however. There are two crowds in this world. Those who enjoy asking open questions and are happy to let everyone be free to find their own answers. Then there is the crowd that insists that open philosophy is dangerous and that philosophy must have absolutes, right answers, adhere to doctrine, political correctness, ethics, etc. etc. This crowd is larger than the first and always seeks to seize power and control. Freedom is always the first casualty.

Interesting idea. If you

Interesting idea. If you scan down the list of timeless pholosophical questions the author mentions ("what is beauty?" etc.), you can see how a lot of these questions are explored (sometimes in ciphered form) in the folklore, allegorical tales and cautionary narratives we've told children for generations (before the ultra-p.c. crowd bleached them out, leaving only their surface caricatures stipped of symbolic potency).

If you think I'm full of it, have a go at Robert Bly's exegesis of the the traditional Jack and the Bean Stock story. He demonstrates how it was changed (for the worse) to accomodate first Victorian bourgeois propriety and then changed further during the 20th century to accomodate the winning side of the Culture Wars. I can remember one self-righteous Social Work grad who insisted that the perpetuation of such timeless narratives in their traditional form was a form of child abuse. Of course, any sordid elements contained in Hans Christian Andersen's original works are now far outstripped by any number of things that are accessible to any child over the internet. So kids are left to seek the thrill of the forbidden on their own without the inherited cultural loadstones they've always had to interpret and process what they see.

Only some degrees, Ed

You may be correct about the university element that controls economics. It may be true that the schools of economics offer little in the way of ethics instruction. As a matter of fact, a year or two back (though my research may not have been complete), I found absolutely nothing about ethics in any of the course listings at the Sauder school of business that is a part of UBC. I took a couple of business courses a number of years back and nothing was ever mentioned about ethical behaviour outside of the need to be conservative when estimating value or future earnings. In this way, one can be accountable to stockholders and bankers. Not only does this help protect those investors from future downturns in value or profit, it holds their tax rates down. Some (myself included), may argue that corporate taxes are already too low and it is unethical to give to corporations and not to the public, but that is a side issue. Returning to UBC schools of business, I can't say that some professors don't discuss the need for ethical behaviour in all actions and not meerly those actions that pertain to the reporting of transactions as required by law.

There are still many PhDs that come out of university, Ed. Eighteen years ago, I took undergrad courses in philosopy and sociology. Four years ago, I took a graduate studies ethics/philosophy course. In none of those courses was anything ever rammed down my throat as to how one ought think. As a matter of fact, the models that were presented to me were always dialogical. Truth and goodness, as best it can be ascertained for all parties involved (including nature), requires that discussion be open and accepting of input. Fairness and the needs of all must be considered in the decision-making process.

(cont.)

only some degrees, Ed (cont.)

The Romanov Report on health care seems to be an ethical enquiry. The Report was arrived at through dialogue and study. It followed its mandate to make recommendations for an improved and sustainable health care system - quite ethically, I believe. It was commissioned by the feds, and it was shelved. Romanov may have been ethical in the way he developed and wrote his report but the controlling powers in the government (the 2002 federal Liberals) were unethical in not following the recommendations. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0086.html

The Harper gov't seems no more ethical in regards to looking after the needs of Canadians. I don't blame the universities for this. In past generations, at least a modicum of ethical training was delivered in the homes and in the churches. I see that the slow but steady increase in stress on families that is mandated by two working people and no true day of rest for families as being one of the greatest factors. Finally, the high school environment has become so dominated by government mandated learning outcomes and having to include special needs students, that it is difficult for teachers to venture into philosophical and existential discussions without hurting provincial exam scores. This is not to say that some teachers don't have their students purposefully move into ethical realms/discussions whenever possible.

Connection

*sigh* The meaning of life is easy to find. It's 42.

The number one life-skill is being able to connect socially and empathically with other human beings to the extent that they can feel that connection. Rapport. There is nothing more important, because it facilitates everything else. Being able to fully question, and explore the world flows from the security of true social facility.

It is really? Are you sure about that? Is philosophizing really the skill that our pre- and early civilization ancestors felt was vital for their offspring? I'm not saying that critical thinking isn't important, but when you engage in dialogue, what are you doing? Is it a process of mere questioning, or is it a meeting of minds where shared experience and shared thought brings people to a better understanding? What exactly draws children engaged in dialogue? Is it the question? Is it the answer? Or is it the process?

Maybe a little more critical thinking, and a little less conceptual idolatry is worth considering?

Fail to plan

If you fail to plan you plan to fail. ED reminds us that education is really job training. For what purpose though? If I could borrow a line from Apocalypse Now. "I don't see any method at all." James Burns reminds us communication skills are required to fom communities and share ideas. Then we need an objective for humanity. This system of go learn stuff then get a job so you can go buy shit, just doesn't cut it. Get a plan for humanity first then we'll talk about the origins of life.

Missing the point

I think that we are missing the point here a bit. I didn't read Ms. Poirier as advocating that we begin to expose children to "Philosophies". It seems to me that she is talking about engaging young people in meaningful inquiry - Inquiry that historically carries the name philosophical but is also the foundation for all forms of human inquiry.

Indoctrination is a danger because the average individual is ill-equipped to resist the slick and fallacious reasoning often presented as reasonable by those doctrines. Good rigorous inquiry is the only defense. I agree with Jeffrey and applaud this teacher's courage.

Educational objectives should be based on what children need for the future, not on what adults are afraid of in the present. I fail to see the value of learning the growth pattern of a pine cone, for anyone, when the world demands something more from us all.

concrete vs. the abstract

I really appreciate the metacognition part you can do with children. Getting them thinking about their own thinking is so important in fostering critical thought.

However, we teach young children concrete concepts and model for them because that is where they are developmentally. I'd hope that any conversation about the point of existence starts with the differences between living and nonliving things. I encounter many six and seven year-olds with very little experiences outside their homes, and children need the background, operational schema before trying to get their minds around abstract concepts.

Additionally, it seems to me that people homeschool mostly because of the ideas that will be presented to their children and not what is absent.

Bravery

I don't think this teacher is brave. Innovative, maybe, but not brave. Brave implies she has something to fear. She does not. Teachers have already won the battle to gain more influence over young minds than parents.

But to the point of the article, I believe free thinking is important and should be encouraged, regardless of faith, creed or religious background. It's important to ask questions.

My contention is that these kids are too young. Let the questions come naturally when you teach English, Science, Math, History and Geography. Talk about what you are learning, instead of simply dumping information into their brains.

Because philosophy is not about beautiful ideas in a vacuum. It is about understanding our world. Unfortunately many people think that throwing around big words and famous names and lofty ideas makes them philosophers. There needs to be a strong connection with reality.

Teach critical thinking first...

...before tackling larger questions about the nature of truth, beauty, reality and justice. Or use the larger questions as segues into practical ones.

Distinguishing good arguments from bad ones is more important for our kids, growing up in a world that seeks to turn them into sheep on behalf of political/economic elites.

So spend a few years empowering them with the ability to distinguish weak, strong, fallacious and sound arguments. And throw in some time on media literacy, pointing out how they're bombarded with all manner of intellectually sleazy crap on a daily basis.

Then consider the big questions, if they haven't moved onto them of their own accord....

Ed, I'm a critical thinker

Ed,
I've attended 3 different universities, one of them in the USA. All of them encouraged critical thinking.

When the teachers of this province were faced with an unjust Law they saw it as their duty not to follow it. They did this though the government and the main stream media called them criminals. They were not sheep and they showed courage in their convictions. The current government has given teachers many things worthy of fighting about, not the least of which has been changes (for the worse) to the delivery of services to students. Teachers are fighting these battles, but they must be selective in their fights, else they would become exhausted and bitter, unable to do what they love: teaching children to think for themselves and make decisions based upon that thinking.

Teachers attempt to model the behaviours they want their students to follow. Philosophy by example.

I don't doubt your sincerity

I don't doubt your sincerity Sharing, but what explanation do you have for the lethargy and academic acceptance of the neoclassical theory, with the tons of evidence of its fraud and criminality burying us ?

This is something I don't understand, or can accept. When I asked some of my scientist friends, including professors, why they don't stand up and take it apart, their usual answer was: "We can't interfere with other disciplines!", although they admit the criminality of the theory.

I never took economics in my student days. In any case, it would have been Keynesian at the time, but remembering the heady atmosphere of the post war years, I'm certain that if any professor would have tried to lecture it, he, or she, would have been laughed out of the classroom.

This garbage science reminds me of Rosenberg's racial theories and Stalins dialectics. And those too were accepted and
submitted to by the academic communities of those countries, with very few exceptions, who often paid for it with their lives. The rest shut up and collected their degrees and paycheques.

What an awakening, practically a rebirth, the England of 1948 was for me, at the age of 21 and I still cherish the memory, as I watch the world going down the same garden path I left behind at the time.

Yet, the whole thing is nothing more, or less, than the constant repetitions of history for exactly the same reasons, through the ages.

What do you think? Will humanity ever learn the lessons, not to listen to the same crooks and fall into the same traps time and time again? Being a perennial optimist, I certainly hope so.

Ed Deak.

Philosophy in Elementary School

"We need to recognize that the number one life-skill is the ability to find the meaning of life. Children need philosophy."

Psycho-drivel. We need to recognize that the number one life-skill is a WORK ETHIC ! Children DON'T need philosophy, they gain a life's philosophy through their experiences. Teach them how to survive in the competitive REAL world, when they leave school, not how to contemplate their navels.

cboo44

Why bother with school at all?

These kids are perfectly able to get out into the workplace and make a living by the time they're six or seven years old. Get 'em onto the factory floor and down the mines - do 'em a world of good and you can pay them a 'training' wage to boot.

Rousseau - gov't release for you

B.C. STUDENTS AMONG TOP IN THE WORLD FOR LITERACY

VICTORIA – British Columbia students have one of the highest literacy levels in the world according to the latest international student assessment, Education Minister Shirley Bond announced today.

“B.C. is a world leader in literacy and this international assessment proves that,” said Bond. “This is the first year B.C. students have participated in this assessment and the results are outstanding. I’d like to thank our students, parents, educators, trustees and support staff for their efforts and commitment to improving literacy for all students in our province.”

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) was released today by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, a global co-operative of national research institutes and governments. More than 215,000 Grade 4 students in 40 countries and five Canadian provinces participated, including over 4,100 students from British Columbia.

British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario were recognized by PIRLS as three of the highest achieving participants. B.C. was recognized as having one of the smallest differences between male and female student achievement of any jurisdiction in the world. Girls generally score higher on these tests than boys, and in many countries by a wide margin. The PIRLS survey questions also identified B.C. students as having a high level of reading for pleasure, a key indicator of success.

“Literacy is a top priority for this government and clearly for British Columbians,” said Bond. “The results we see here show that our ReadNow BC literacy strategy is working to make our province the most literate jurisdiction, not only in North America, but in the world.”

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007EDU0169-001536.htm

Perhaps you should become a teacher if you think you can do better.

Anyone Wonder Why...........?

cboo44

G West

These remarks MIGHT lead one to wonder (philosophically of course!) what the point of education and technology is in the first place. Anyone got any ideas about that? I mean, what about this "leisure society" concept? The whole idea of technological discovery is to further the security and comfort of the individual. In point of fact, I would go so far to assert that there is no other valid reason for technology and education at all!

An explanation for Ed Deak

I share your despair, especially as I read your memories of 1948. As to whether humanity will ever learn - I ask that question too, and keep coming up with the answer, "Very possibly not."

However, there are three people who have, for me, presented good explanations for your questions in paragraph 1 and 7, and thus some hope.

First and foremost is George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive linguistics from the University of Calif at Berkeley (there's a good article on him at http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml)
The title is: Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics. However, this is NOT about spin, manipulating words, or anything superficial.

Next is Bob Altemeyer, a professor at the U of Manitoba who has a free book on the net called The Authoritarians (you can just google that title).

The third, and most easy to misunderstand (I think) is Marshall B. Rosenberg whose first book "Nonviolent Communication: a language of Life" I think really fits in with Lakoff's Nurturant Parent model.

I hope this proves of some interest.
Schorn

Listening first, then questions

One more comment.

The first thing I'd like to give children is an opportunity to be listened to.

Though I have very few memories, I do remember as a kid having no one to talk to, really talk to, and having to struggle to understand so much alone in my head. My life was coping, coping, coping, and I think it's still like that for many kids.

Schorn

education - literacy: rousseau

Firstly, I'd like to say that shorn makes a very good point: children learn better if the learning situation is conducive to their feeling accepted. Part of being accepted is to be able to voice one's opinion. Also, if a teacher follows a dialogical model, then children will also learn how to communicate in this fashion, making it much less likely that bullies will take over. Anti-bullying is a big component of what is worked on in schools as parents, teachers, and their government have seen the need for this. A bullied child often has difficulty learning and staying in school. A child that is a bully often has difficulty being accepted and staying in school.

A huge component of literacy is to be able to be critical of what one reads and to be able to write in a way that shows the ability to reason. Speech acquisition precludes reading and writing. This means that it is very important to help people learn to listen and respond well before expecting them to read with a critical eye or write with a thoughtful pen. Also, there are many people, due to the layout of their neurons, who will always have difficulty reading and/or writing; but that doesn't mean they can't be taught to think and speak critically. Schools would be houses of abuse if they demanded that all children, even those deemed incapable of reading and writing at their respective grade levels, were not given some way to learn and interact with others. Finally, it must be noted that it is part of the Ministry mandated provincial language arts and English learning outcomes that children learn to speak and listen critically - as well as read and write.