I agree with Foyle about the need for philosophy in school curricula. A philosophy programme -- regular, sequential and developmental -- should be a core component of the curriculum for all children to Year 10 level. After trialling the Philosophy for Children programme in Adelaide back in the 1980s I could see immediate benefits and huge potential for more. Sadly the school did not follow my recommendations.

How to find time in an already crowded curriculum? Well, the activities involve a huge amount of learning in linguistic, deductive and inter-personal operations. Therefore it would be educationally justifiable to take some of the time from lessons in each of reading, writing, speaking, listening, mathematics and social studies. One hour per week would thus easily be found in the time-table. And the wonderful thing is that the kids thoroughly enjoy the lessons!

Apart from the Scottish research that Foyle has mentioned, the experience of Australian schools where the philosophy programme is permanently run indicates great cognitive and social benefits to the children. Bullying and behaviour problems decrease significantly.

Ethics is a major component of the philosophy programme, and so all children would be learning the process of ethical decision-making as well as rational thinking in general.

""Education is the duty and privilege of parents. Teachers and schools are mere helpers, should the parents need them. Certainly what the parents wish to teach their children is none of the business of the state, the church, or anyone else.""

Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 22 November 2010 1:16:14 PM

I disagree strongly. Children have a right to be educated in contemporary ideas that do not place them on the outer of their society or the rest of the world.

Children have a right to current knowledge and understanding as peak bodies see it, and education authorities and experts conciliate to present it. They have a right to be introduced to techniques and methods of investigation, evaluation and appraisal which is age-appropriate.

It takes a community and a society to raise a child, to reduce the chances of "parent eccentricity" disadvantaging that child for life, or a long period of their early adulthood.

Well McReal,

All I can say is that such an attitude is fascistic and paternalistic. It assumes that the state and its "peak bodies" knows better what is good for me and you. It assumes that the state is leading us to a better place. It assumes that everybody ought to be part of your society and that it is advantageous for everyone to be so. It has total and violent disregard and disrespect for those who came to this world for any other purpose, other than yours.

Such differences in the outlook of life are so fundamental that they can only be resolved on the battlefield.

Yuyutsu,

The philosophy programme is not a collection of information: it comprises activities which focus on the processes of reasoning between individuals and within one's own mind. A child could not simply TELL another what was in a lesson. They would have to actually DO the lesson to learn what was involved.

Children (and even most adults) would rarely or never encounter these sorts of activities in everyday life. That's why the school has such an important role in this matter.

*You are telling us more about your own upbringing or experience rather than the Christian position on ethics.*

Oh come on Boaz, you make this up as you go along. Xtians have
been threatenting non Xtians with judgement day, since the day
dot.

Hope and fear is what the Xtian religion is based on. Check out
what the Catholics, the Baptists and all the rest have been preaching.

That is the Xtian religion, not what your small cult claims today.

Fact is the fundamentals of ethics are grounded in genetics. A number of
primate species have been shown to feel empathy for instance.
Ethical ways of societies living in harmony, were around a long
time before Xtianity came along.

*secular ethics boils down to what you think you can get away with.*

All that tells us is that is your perspective, which reflects on
your thinking, the way your particular mind works. Speak for yourself.

You have clearly never given the question of ethics, beyond your
narrow religious perspective, a great deal of thought

Yuyutsu
Not teaching children to think clearly, and indoctrination, is child abuse. I do not mind what a child or adult thinks except that I won't value their opinion if they are unable to supply arguments to support their view. If their view is based solely on unverifiable authority I will discount it.
In the Clackmannanshire trial the control group classes and the trial classes were probably in different schools although the report does not provide that information. The people running the trial were professionals connected to a university, not amateurs. The trial and control classes were matched with each group having CAT scores of 99 before the trial commenced.
Unfortunately the site address provided in my earlier post does not seem to be available. I have a temporary email address at elyof145@gmail.com and will make the report available to anyone who supplies a reply email address.