This post is written in response to the article posted by MissAVECarter on July 13, 2015.
MissAVECarter’s contribution to the debate on whether there should be a Philosophy GCSE is welcome. Such discussion is surely necessary if any progress is to be made. My concern, however, is that her argument is an essentially conservative one, albeit presented with a radical veneer. I intend to show that it is premised on a false dichotomy and that it unfairly discriminates against Philosophy. I also suggest that she is guilty of misrepresenting the nature of Philosophy and of the way it can be, and indeed already is, taught in schools.
The false dichotomy
MissAVECarter appears to suggest that educators have a choice between either a) allowing Philosophy to exist across and outside the curriculum in dedicated ‘sessions’, or b) teaching it as a dry, content heavy subject at GCSE level. I would like to introduce c - the teaching of GCSE Philosophy in a manner that isn’t dry and content heavy. There are various combinations, including the following:
Rather than explore all these possibilities, my point here is to highlight the false dichotomy (a or b) upon which much of MissAVECarter’s argument is based.
Cutting one's nose off...
MissAVECarter is quite correct to write favourably of Sir Ken Robinson’s ideas. Whilst there may be a straw(ish) man lurking somewhere at the heart of his thesis, he is generally pointing in the right direction. Education, certainly within the UK and USA, is rightly categorised as being based on an industrial model, which works to discourage divergent thinking and fails to appreciate those young people who do not fit so easily into its unnecessarily rigid idea of what being successful means.
But the solution to this challenge must not lie in restricting the choice of subjects that students have. Indeed if one follows MissAVECarter's argument to its logical conclusion, then in order to avoid the corrosive effects of the industrialised education paradigm we should be campaigning for the transformation of the teaching of all subjects into cross curricular ‘sessions’. This may turn out to be the right thing to do. My concern here though is that only Philosophy is singled out by MissAVECarter for such special treatment.
The study of Philosophy may even perhaps empower young people to become critical of their educational environment and agitate for change from within, alongside their more progressive educators. This is probably an exaggerated claim, but the serious study of Philosophy does at least lend itself to such a possibility.
And remember that if, as MissAVECarter suggests, Philosophy as a cross curricular theme does act as a counter to the dominant educational paradigm, then combination 6 (above) allows this challenge to continue unabated. Indeed, combination 1 and combination 6 are logically compatible...
The nature of Philosophy
It would be a mistake, however, to view Philosophy, whether taught as a distinct GCSE subject or across the curriculum, as a panacea for the dominant industrialised paradigm. Philosophy is so much more than this.
Crucially, it is also much more than merely being made to think. To state the obvious, all subjects at school require thought. In fact, all subjects require and indeed encourage a level of critical reflection. If one views Philosophy as little more than the cultivation of divergent/critical thinking, then its marginalisation to the cross curricular hinterland seems quite appropriate. I believe that it is this misunderstanding of the nature of Philosophy that underlies MissAVECarter’s entire argument.
One has only to think of the sheer range of topics available to a student of Philosophy in order to appreciate just how restrictive this mischaracterisation is. Think of aesthetics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, phenomenology, existentialism; all inherently worthy of study and all, sadly, marginalised in the current curriculum. A “screaming silence” indeed.
The teaching of Philosophy
One particularly disturbing aspect of MissAVECarter’s argument is her assertion about the probable way in which a Philosophy GCSE would be taught:
I judge my lessons to have been successful if, and only if, pupils continue to talk about the material when our 40 minutes are up. When this does happen it is usually after a philosophy session. Children love deep thinking like this.
Studying towards a Philosophy GCSE could kill this buzz. There would be content to learn. Facts to remember. Quotes to analyse. Even with the best intentions, all the ‘doing’ philosophy would be side-lined to learning ‘about’ philosophy.
Why would the study of a Philosophy GCSE kill this buzz? I have taught Philosophy at IB level and also for the European Baccalaureate and have hopefully (!) managed to retain that buzz. If young people really do love deep thinking (and I agree that they do), then it seems perverse to limit this experience to special philosophy ‘sessions’, outside of what will be inevitably construed as the ‘real’ subjects. (Talk about reinforcing the dominant paradigm!)
It is the final sentence of the above quote that troubles me the most. Why would ‘doing Philosophy’ be side-lined if it was to become a GCSE subject? Take IB Philosophy as an example. The emphasis here is unambiguously on doing Philosophy - on Philosophy as an activity. This is reflected in the programme, the exam, the coursework and in the assessment criteria. Take a look at a typical IB Philosophy Core Theme exam question and you will see just how imaginative, rigorous and thought provoking a well designed Philosophy programme can be. I can conceive of no obvious reason why a Philosophy GCSE should lack this kind of creativity.
My point is not that a Philosophy GCSE ought to be modelled on the IB course. Rather, it is that Philosophy is already being taught quite successfully as an independent subject in its own right, and as an activity. Of course there are facts to be learnt. How could there not be? I fail to see, however, why remembering something is an obstacle to doing Philosophy. I suspect that the opposite is actually the case.
The way to avoid MissAVECarter’s worst case scenario (i.e. learning ‘about’ Philosophy instead of ‘doing Philosophy’) is to plan any Philosophy GCSE properly. Refraining from such a project for fear of it going wrong would be nothing less than pedagogical cowardice. It would be capitulation in the face of the dominant paradigm and would be truly self defeating.
Philosophy is a beautiful, vibrant and rich subject, completely different from RE (the fact that the two are paired in most British schools remains a mystery to me), and is entitled to its rightful place in the curriculum. Marginalising it in the way that MissAVECarter suggests is not only a dangerous affirmation of the status quo; it impoverishes the intellectual horizons of young people immeasurably.
MissAVECarter’s contribution to the debate on whether there should be a Philosophy GCSE is welcome. Such discussion is surely necessary if any progress is to be made. My concern, however, is that her argument is an essentially conservative one, albeit presented with a radical veneer. I intend to show that it is premised on a false dichotomy and that it unfairly discriminates against Philosophy. I also suggest that she is guilty of misrepresenting the nature of Philosophy and of the way it can be, and indeed already is, taught in schools.
The false dichotomy
MissAVECarter appears to suggest that educators have a choice between either a) allowing Philosophy to exist across and outside the curriculum in dedicated ‘sessions’, or b) teaching it as a dry, content heavy subject at GCSE level. I would like to introduce c - the teaching of GCSE Philosophy in a manner that isn’t dry and content heavy. There are various combinations, including the following:
- a and not b (MissAVECarter’s preferred option)
- b and not a
- c and not a
- a and b
- not a and not b
- a and c (my preferred option)
Rather than explore all these possibilities, my point here is to highlight the false dichotomy (a or b) upon which much of MissAVECarter’s argument is based.
Cutting one's nose off...
MissAVECarter is quite correct to write favourably of Sir Ken Robinson’s ideas. Whilst there may be a straw(ish) man lurking somewhere at the heart of his thesis, he is generally pointing in the right direction. Education, certainly within the UK and USA, is rightly categorised as being based on an industrial model, which works to discourage divergent thinking and fails to appreciate those young people who do not fit so easily into its unnecessarily rigid idea of what being successful means.
But the solution to this challenge must not lie in restricting the choice of subjects that students have. Indeed if one follows MissAVECarter's argument to its logical conclusion, then in order to avoid the corrosive effects of the industrialised education paradigm we should be campaigning for the transformation of the teaching of all subjects into cross curricular ‘sessions’. This may turn out to be the right thing to do. My concern here though is that only Philosophy is singled out by MissAVECarter for such special treatment.
The study of Philosophy may even perhaps empower young people to become critical of their educational environment and agitate for change from within, alongside their more progressive educators. This is probably an exaggerated claim, but the serious study of Philosophy does at least lend itself to such a possibility.
And remember that if, as MissAVECarter suggests, Philosophy as a cross curricular theme does act as a counter to the dominant educational paradigm, then combination 6 (above) allows this challenge to continue unabated. Indeed, combination 1 and combination 6 are logically compatible...
The nature of Philosophy
It would be a mistake, however, to view Philosophy, whether taught as a distinct GCSE subject or across the curriculum, as a panacea for the dominant industrialised paradigm. Philosophy is so much more than this.
Crucially, it is also much more than merely being made to think. To state the obvious, all subjects at school require thought. In fact, all subjects require and indeed encourage a level of critical reflection. If one views Philosophy as little more than the cultivation of divergent/critical thinking, then its marginalisation to the cross curricular hinterland seems quite appropriate. I believe that it is this misunderstanding of the nature of Philosophy that underlies MissAVECarter’s entire argument.
One has only to think of the sheer range of topics available to a student of Philosophy in order to appreciate just how restrictive this mischaracterisation is. Think of aesthetics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, phenomenology, existentialism; all inherently worthy of study and all, sadly, marginalised in the current curriculum. A “screaming silence” indeed.
The teaching of Philosophy
One particularly disturbing aspect of MissAVECarter’s argument is her assertion about the probable way in which a Philosophy GCSE would be taught:
I judge my lessons to have been successful if, and only if, pupils continue to talk about the material when our 40 minutes are up. When this does happen it is usually after a philosophy session. Children love deep thinking like this.
Studying towards a Philosophy GCSE could kill this buzz. There would be content to learn. Facts to remember. Quotes to analyse. Even with the best intentions, all the ‘doing’ philosophy would be side-lined to learning ‘about’ philosophy.
Why would the study of a Philosophy GCSE kill this buzz? I have taught Philosophy at IB level and also for the European Baccalaureate and have hopefully (!) managed to retain that buzz. If young people really do love deep thinking (and I agree that they do), then it seems perverse to limit this experience to special philosophy ‘sessions’, outside of what will be inevitably construed as the ‘real’ subjects. (Talk about reinforcing the dominant paradigm!)
It is the final sentence of the above quote that troubles me the most. Why would ‘doing Philosophy’ be side-lined if it was to become a GCSE subject? Take IB Philosophy as an example. The emphasis here is unambiguously on doing Philosophy - on Philosophy as an activity. This is reflected in the programme, the exam, the coursework and in the assessment criteria. Take a look at a typical IB Philosophy Core Theme exam question and you will see just how imaginative, rigorous and thought provoking a well designed Philosophy programme can be. I can conceive of no obvious reason why a Philosophy GCSE should lack this kind of creativity.
My point is not that a Philosophy GCSE ought to be modelled on the IB course. Rather, it is that Philosophy is already being taught quite successfully as an independent subject in its own right, and as an activity. Of course there are facts to be learnt. How could there not be? I fail to see, however, why remembering something is an obstacle to doing Philosophy. I suspect that the opposite is actually the case.
The way to avoid MissAVECarter’s worst case scenario (i.e. learning ‘about’ Philosophy instead of ‘doing Philosophy’) is to plan any Philosophy GCSE properly. Refraining from such a project for fear of it going wrong would be nothing less than pedagogical cowardice. It would be capitulation in the face of the dominant paradigm and would be truly self defeating.
Philosophy is a beautiful, vibrant and rich subject, completely different from RE (the fact that the two are paired in most British schools remains a mystery to me), and is entitled to its rightful place in the curriculum. Marginalising it in the way that MissAVECarter suggests is not only a dangerous affirmation of the status quo; it impoverishes the intellectual horizons of young people immeasurably.