Their influences in setting up the programme were Socrates 470BC. and the pragmatists John Dewey and Charles Pierce. Socrates states in [Apologia 38a]. "the unexamined life is not worth living" This tenet is central to Socratic dialogue and philosophical enquiry. Socrates is often termed the midwife of philosophy because his dialogical method helped others to give birth to their own ideas.

There are now organisations set up across the world devoted to the promotion of P4C and a vast array of sources and materials available to enable teachers with little or no philosophical background to take philosophy into the classroom. These range from Matthew Lipman's specially written texts to picture books taken off the shelf. An interesting picture or sometimes a piece of music can spark off a philosophical discussion as well as a written text . The sources are really unlimited. It depends on the audience. I want to stress the value and the applicability of this to everyone no matter what their individual subject speciality or age, cultural or social grouping.

Some effort must be made to place P4C within a cultural and temporal context. The practice has been taken on board by many educational institutions over the last 25 years but particularly in the nineties in spite of, or because of the traditional education environment. Since the introduction of the National Curriculum where a teacher has to, and be seen to follow a syllabus for any given subject. There is often no time for reflection. A sizeable portion of the National Curriculum seems to be concerned with the need to feed children with facts, which they are expected to digest unconditionally, instead of giving them the powers to evaluate and judge adequately and to think critically about what they learn. Nowadays more than ever, by the time children leave school the facts that they have learnt at the age of ten or twelve will be obsolete. This is especially true of science and technology. But even in subjects like history and mathematics where certain facts may never change. For example, it may always and forever be true that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. The interpretation of old texts and the finding of new sources and ideas concerning this event, may change enormously over a few years. In mathematics for instance, though a student may learn the rules and formulae he has to know when to apply them. This involves an intuitive leap of the imagination rather than the retention and regurgitation of received information.

I was giving tutorials to part one students on Dickens' "Hard Times" while writing this talk and I was struck by the similarity of the National Curriculum today and Dickens' implicit criticism of nineteenth century education in that story. Gradgrind's school of hard facts could easily be thought analogous to what I suspect goes on in most classrooms across the country today. Most of the exercises and activities carried out by children now have to be numerically graded. While the teacher may add up the scores of a pupil's mental arithmetic test and put the answers in the appropriate box on a report form how will she evaluate and classify the imagination of the same pupil. I think the very notion of assessing something qualitative in quantitative terms is confused. As this passage from Hard Times illustrates;

[ Charles Dickens Hard Times p48 Chap 2 "Murdering the Innocents" Penguin.

In today’s state schools there is very little room for a teacher to assess the quality as opposed to quantity of a child's work. Where this exists the answers have to be noted in little boxes, grades are given for more or less good work with no criteria for the definition of good set out in the first place. There are seldom distinguishing criteria between one subject and the next. The form of questioning that takes place in the classroom is closed and empirical, and answers are either true or false depending on experiential evidence and concrete facts rather than conceptual, interrogative and reflective thought. Questioning under these circumstances is considered to be the teacher’s domain and not the task of the children.

Although we can find rules and methods for many school subjects, such as the rule of addition in arithmetic, or a mnemonic for memorising the order of the Kings and Queens of England, there are some things that just cannot be taught in the sense that Gradgrind intended the pupils of the school of Hard Facts in Hard Times to learn. While we can drill children in memorising their tables we cannot drill them into an appreciation of Shakespeare. There are no set formulas for enjoyment of poetry it is something they will either do or not do. Though of course there are ways of introducing these subjects to children that will help them to appreciate it. Nor can the rights and wrongs of an action be drilled into pupils, no matter how often we may shout at them in the playground for bullying their classmates. Though they may come to learn not to do this if they want to avoid detention or lines, the value of good acts is something that ultimately they have to come to see for themselves. Not only is this shown in league tables and statistics [one example that springs to mind could be the academically bright child who breaks the law]- it is a conceptual confusion to think that it could be so. Sissy Jupe’s father in "Hard Times" owns, trains and tends sick horses but Sissy is unable to define a horse to Gradgrind’s satisfaction on pages 49-50 of the same text.

Of course the irony is that Sissy Jupe does not recognise this description of a horse although she can probably ride and take care of a horse better than Bitzer will ever be able to. Instruction plays a large role in today's education system. Pupils learn how to do things but not how to think for themselves. While students learn theory after theory and definition after definition from course books and teachers, this does not mean that they are capable of being critical in their own thoughts or of making value judgements. This has a profound influence for the education of children in ethics and aesthetics. We cannot learn these things like learning a skill, how to practice wood -work or how to bake a cake. A skill is something you can do over and over again according to a set of rules or a formula. This is not true of value judgements where students have to learn to think critically for themselves about individual dilemmas and problems, where there may be no rule to follow in a particular instance or where problems are unique to the person who has them. Socrates believed that through dialogue each person involved in an argument or discussion could come to an understanding of the issues involved for themselves. This makes knowledge gained from such an enquiry the student's own. Of course such competence in argument could be mis-used leading to sophistry where truth is irrelevant as long as others can be persuaded of your point of view. It would then become a skill with prescribed formulas to persuade and influence others. But philosophy and P4C as we see it is not like this -it encourages a search for the truth through greater understanding and discernment of the issues involved. So busy are educators concentrating on hard facts like Mr Gradgrind, the role of the imagination is often severely neglected in the classroom.

It must be noted, however, that many teachers new to the subject of philosophy see P4C as radical and threatening. What! Allow children to think for themselves? And perhaps dare to contradict the teacher? Yes, it is true that children might learn to contradict what the adults say. Children who think for themselves [critically] are not always the easiest to look after though they are unlikely to be disruptive to the class as a whole at least not intentionally. The whole process of a community of enquiry is run on democratic lines, thereby making each child’s contributions to the discussion of equal value. A community of enquiry often works best when an outsider comes into the school to facilitate enquiry. Children look to their teacher to answer their questions and not to discuss things with them. I'm generalising very broadly here, not all teachers are like this of course, but it is what the curriculum encourages. Naturally, a critical pupil is one who is alert to the possibilities that the established rules of a school or family should be rejected, changed or at least challenged. It is this that often makes teachers think philosophical enquiry is radical. But a critical student also possesses greater self- confidence and self -esteem than her non-reflective counterparts, more initiative and imagination, empathy and sensitivity. But if a student rejects without critical thought, the dogmas of his teachers, in order to take a stab at authority he runs a real risk of becoming a delinquent.

The directly opposite approach to critical debate and enquiry could be seen as indoctrination. I'm sure most teachers would blanch at the thought but it is so. Indeed Socrates was charged with corruption for encouraging critical debate in his pupils and condemned to death. The goal of many a teacher in school life is to keep her class quiet and orderly so that the syllabus may be taught and exams passed. Facts are put into minds like sausage meat into a machine where the only objective is to fashion and mould the meat in order to produce sausages of the required length and shape. The analogy with fact learning would be to mould and fashion minds that are capable of producing or regurgitating answers of the required nature and character relevant to the questions asked. A teacher who endorses this kind of manufactured teaching/learning processes will not have the courage to admit that he/she does not have an answer to the pupil’s question for this would require her to admit that she does not have all the facts at her fingertips.

The emphasis in a community of enquiry then, is on problems to which the answer is not one of "look and see". The answers to philosophical questions cannot [unless the questions are about the history of philosophy] be looked up in a dictionary or textbook. Very often there is no answer to a philosophical problem but it will throw up many more questions and doubts than the original question presumed. Philosophical questions are often like paradoxes--unless you see the problem inherent in them then you haven't understood the question.

The aims of a facilitator are not to teach philosophy to children or to be prescriptive in any way. A Community of Inquiry is not a "putting in" of information, a means to an end, but a method of developing children's all round abilities by enhancing and cultivating their:

1. Thinking skills, reasoning and problem solving abilities: These are encouraged by the process of dialogue. While looking for consequences of their views, clarifying concepts, children come to see when they are being inconsistent in holding two opposing views, or incoherent when it is seen that their view does not comply with other known facts. By giving justifications for their opinions, making inferences and finding underlying assumptions in other's views, children are encouraged to ask themselves why they hold those opinions. This helps them to be reflective in their thoughts and actions and to develop their powers of self awareness.

2. Powers of imagination and creativity. Critical discussion encourages children to make leaps with concepts, connecting ideas together, gathering thoughts, and hypothesising. Art and aesthetics have an exceptionally important part to play - stories, poems, visual aids, music and films.

3. Moral and spiritual welfare. By being asked to give justification for their beliefs, evaluating ideas, listening to and respecting another's point of view, discussing hypothetical ethical dilemmas children place themselves in imaginary problem situations, They may come to realise what it is like "to be in someone else's shoes" thereby gaining empathy and compassion for fellow human beings. Thus increasing their tolerance to others.

4. Social and emotional welfare. Through philosophical enquiry children will develop confidence and self esteem thereby enhancing communication skills. By creating situations where every child has a right to be heard and who knows their views are worthy of discussion, they will come to see that their views are important to others. When this happens they are more likely to be respectful of other's views even when they differ from their own. The necessity of respect for other members of the group is one of the first ground rules which has to be understood before a community of enquiry can successfully take place. Children are encouraged to talk to each other rather than always directing their comments to the teacher. This may seem a trivial point but it is fundamental to a reasonable discussion taking place. Children thereby become equipped with useful tools with which to face the world both inside and outside the school.

If the above aims are achieved then it follows that the value of Philosophy for Children is immense and can be shown to benefit not only the children who take part in it but of value to society as a whole. For instance it has a part to play in the prevention of crime and the promotion of moral citizenship. If we don't give children the opportunity to think for them-selves and to take responsibility for their views and actions then they might accept irrational dogmas uncritically. Alternatively as they grow, they might come to realise that autocratic rules they once followed uncritically are to be rejected in the light of their more mature reasoning powers. There is a real danger then that they might reject authority altogether, because they have now learnt that authority is not to be trusted, rather than accepting authorities that they have reasoned they can trust. Learning to challenge and to reflect on other's points of view that they feel are misguided or immoral, will help children to become morally aware citizens.

The less able as well as the more able children benefit from philosophical enquiry because whatever their background or abilities all children are susceptible to bad acts and moral impropriety. Because philosophical inquiry encourages a questioning nature this means they are less impressionable and less likely to be influenced by peer pressures on them for example, to take illicit drugs and turn to crime for amusement. When they learn that they are accountable for their thoughts and deeds they will be more inclined to take responsibility for their actions. While reflective thought and philosophical inquiry may cast a sceptical doubt on the child's received store of knowledge and beliefs which may temporarily lead to confusion, it also broadens their knowledge, experience and educational horizons helping the child to develop new concepts and ideas. Facts are not sufficient to guide children through life. Many of these will be obsolete before they leave school and without the power to analyse, and reason about what they read and hear they will be unable to cope with the vast plethora of new information and knowledge.

By displaying a willingness to change in the light of new information and knowledge children will avoid becoming stuck in a time warp of outdated facts. If they have been encouraged to be open minded by exposure to philosophical inquiry they will be less likely to become fanatics and dogmatists. They will be able to apply knowledge more successfully and confidently. One benefit that cannot be overestimated is the consequence of a more emotionally secure adult. Through reasoned, self- reflection we can give a child the resources to come to terms with whatever life has to offer. If she is secure in the knowledge that her opinions have been formulated rationally and are valued by other members of her community she is more likley to feel emotionally secure and be a happier more "well rounded" person because of it. In total the benefits of the establishment of more stable, rational and emotionally stable human beings in the future far outweighs the cost to the current education system. It is surely short sighted not to employ philosophical enquiry with and for children in today’s classrooms.

Jenni Jenkins helps to run the Wales Centre for Practical Philosophy. Enquiries for membership/information C/O Philosophy Dep’t University of Wales Swansea SA2 8PP. Tel: 01792 205678 X 4775. Fax 01792 295893 email pdjjj@swan.ac.uk