Reflections on the future of philosophical education

The SAPERE Conference on Saturday 18 November 2023, brought together around 90 delegates with more joining online, across 16 sessions, led by 36 experts, academics, educators and practitioners, discussing topics as diverse as tackling sexism with school students, the role of philosophy in climate education, and strategies for challenging conspiracy theories.

There really is too much to sum up in one post, but conference delegates have today received access to a Padlet containing various presentations, links and resources from conference contributors; and we will be releasing keynote videos on our Youtube channel soon. You can also look back on the hashtag: #sapere23.

Dr Jane Gatley of Swansea University gave our first keynote, with an argument for teaching philosophy in schools. She acknowledged that delegates at the SAPERE conference probably didn’t need much persuading, but she guessed that many of us may need help persuading the decision-makers and funders we encounter, on whose support the future of philosophy in schools depends.

Jane argued that teaching philosophy is the best way to help students to think clearly using ordinary concepts such as ‘good’, ‘truth’, or ‘happiness’. She went on to argue that ‘teaching philosophy is the best way to help students to make sense of the different conceptual schemes used by different school subjects’ before concluding that these two roles for philosophy ‘are central to the task of educating people’, and so philosophy ‘ought to be included on school curricula’.

Jane, who was herself a teacher for many years, recognised that even with great arguments, philosophy is not always valued by every school. She suggested that where that is the case, teachers can sneak philosophy in to RE, PHSE, RSE and Citizenship.

Given the flexibility of P4C and its contribution to oracy and metacognition, I’d argue that P4C can sneak its way into every subject. The value of doing this is captured beautifully by Jane. Not only are the curriculum subjects bursting with concepts that unlock what matters and what is meaningful to learners, but the very meaning of education itself (and everything we ask students to do in the name of education) requires philosophical enquiry to make sense of it.

Our next keynote speaker was Dr Laura D’Olimpio from Birmingham University, after the optimism of Jane’s talk, Laura struck a more cautious tone. The great hope of the Community of Enquiry (CoE), she argued, was to ‘cultivate critical thinkers who would be guided by epistemic and moral virtues in their engagement with one another’ to ‘uncover truth’ and ‘enact good decision making in their lives’. While this is inspiring stuff, Laura explored the limitations of this approach highlighting three issues: ‘paying lip service’ – a form of excessive politeness where participants shy away from disagreeing with one another; ‘existing power dynamics’ – which make it difficult to commit commitment to freedom, open debate, pluralism, self-government and democracy, and ‘the transfer problem’ – where there is a gap between the skills exhibited within a classroom CoE and interactions in other classes  Laura responded to these problems for P4C and ultimately affirmed the role for CoE to support radical listening and genuinely inclusive dialogue.

Laura’s talk was an important antidote to the occasional tendency of philosophical educators to think of their practice as a kind of panacea and their methods and practices as orthodoxies. Although her talk focused on the CoE, Laura highlights some of the specific issues faced by everyone who engages people in dialogue.

Our conference concluded with a lively session led by Jason Buckley (aka the Philosophy Man), who shifted gears from theory to practice but revisited the themes of ‘sneaking’ philosophy in and of resisting pedagogical ‘orthodoxies’.

To fit philosophy in to crowded curricula, he invited us to question the procedures we insist on, like sitting in a circle or deriving questions from the learners. For each practice we insist on, he urged us to ask why we do it that way, and to consider if there is another means of arriving at the same result. For example, if we sit in a circle so participants can see each other, can this be achieved just as well when participants stand and face a partner, as is common in his work?

In his interactive workshop he encouraged delegates to play with asking questions at different ‘levels’. So, if you’re enquiring about freedom, he suggested, can you begin with something playful? (e.g., If you were completely free to do anything you wanted, what would you do?) From there, you might progress though questions that still feel safe (e.g., Would you be more free if there were no rules?); and then more serious (e.g., Who are more free, children or adults?) Or you might pose something really weighty (e.g., Is freedom more important than safety?).

If you joined us in Bristol, I hope you’ll agree it was a stimulating day that flew by in a flash. If you’re experiencing any FOMO, please join us next November. We release super early bird tickets to SAPERE members first so if you’d like to come for a fraction of the price, please join us and support our work.

Inspired by Jason I’ve got a few questions for you to throw at your students about the future of philosophical education.

• Playful: In a future run by robots, should the robots receive a philosophical education?
• Safe: Can you think of any reasons to ban philosophy in the future?
• Serious: In the future, should philosophy occupy time currently devoted to Maths or English?
• Weighty: When you look back on your life, how will you know if you’ve been philosophically educated?

Happy philosophizing!