This has all been said before by Edward de Bono decades ago. His advice never went anywhere much because the system is run by people who have university as the child's objective. So, whatever the child learns has to be testable to get through the screening process.

As a philosopher I would like to agree with the authors of this article. Unfortunately, I've recently seen how philosophy is taught in many secondary schools and it is woeful! (nothing whatever to do with clear thinking) Alas teaching of philosophy in universities is rapidly going the same way with the demise of logic and a race to the bottom in order to ensure that enrolement numbers are maintained.

Judging by the failure of a large number of the protagonists on OLO to argue logically, there is indeed a great need for this addition to the education processes. Clear thinking is sadly lacking in a very large number of postings, with those unable to do so simply resorting to personal abuse to refute the arguments of those with whom they find disagreement.

David

While I generally agree with the broad thrust of this article, I have two comments. The first is that recent experiences in Australia have demonstrated that effective pedagogy provides a balance between inculcation, critical thinking and independent learning. If what is being proposed in the article assists in this endeavour, then I would be all for it.

Secondly, however, I feel the need to take issue with the comment, "the problems (are) magnified in state schools by the presence of students whose abilities and behaviour are such that they are or would be excluded from private schools." Despite the myth propulgated by some people, independent and Catholic schools are not problem-student free zones. The student profile of a low fee independent or Catholic school would usually fairly closely reflect the student population of a nearby state school. In addition, there are numerous examples of students with behavioural and other issues transferring out of state schools into independent and Catholic schools. School principals often use cross-sectoral approaches to meet the needs of students who may be experiencing difficulties, much to their credit.

Irrespective of what Mr de Bono may or may not have said, there is nothing wrong with educating so that university becomes an objective. Sounds to me that there is much to be re-learnt about primary and secondary education. Funnily enough, the English Grammar School I went to did not only teach facts, which do have their occasional uses, but also taught how to think once the facts were, in not to mention teaching the historircal background as to how the facts had emerged from superstition and speculation. University was where that process was rounded off thoroughly. Still, that was all 40 years ago, in the "bad old days" of politically incorrect educational practices, and before the wisdom of modern educationalism had come to the fore.

Well done McDonald, Turner and Williams!

An article with no political agenda, no mud-slinging, no doomsday scenario. But most of all, an article which seeks to do exactly what is needed: it presents a viable and cost-effective suggestion from three members of society who are more interested in addressing the problems in education than in wondering how what they say will affect their careers.

My only reservation is that it may be advisable to drop the word "philosophy" from any mention of this proposal. It's too loaded. There are those who are frightened of it and those who are sidetracked by it. This has already been demonstrated on this thread. Even mention of "critical thinking" is sometimes misunderstood. Continue to refer to it as teaching clear-sightedness and get the message out there. I agree wholeheartedly.