Get A teacher s guide to philosophy for children 1st edition keith j topping steven trickey paul cle
Teacher s Guide to Philosophy for Children 1st Edition
Keith J Topping
Steven Trickey Paul Cleghorn
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/a-teacher-s-guide-to-philosophy-for-children-1st-editio n-keith-j-topping-steven-trickey-paul-cleghorn/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Teaching philosophy a guide 1st Edition Steven M. Cahn
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children provides educators with the process and structures to engage children in inquiring as a group into ‘big’ moral, ethical and spiritual questions, while also considering curricular necessities and the demands of national and local standards.
Based on the actual experiences of educators in diverse and global classroom contexts, this comprehensive guide gives you the tools you need to introduce philosophical thinking into your classroom, curriculum and beyond. Drawing on research-based educational and psychological models, this book highlights the advantages gained by students who regularly participate in philosophical discussion: from building cognitive and social/emotional development, to becoming more informed citizens. Helpful tools and supplementary online resources offer additional frameworks for supporting and sustaining a higher level of thinking and problem-solving among your students.
This practical guide is essential reading for teachers, coaches and anyone wondering how you can effectively teach philosophy in your classroom.
Keith J. Topping is Professor at the University of Dundee, UK.
Steven Trickey is Scholar in Residence at American University, USA.
Paul Cleghorn is an education consultant at Aude Education, UK.
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children
Keith J. Topping, Steven Trickey and Paul Cleghorn
First published 2019 by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
The right of Keith J. Topping, Steven Trickey, and Paul Cleghorn to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-39327-1 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-39326-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-40187-9 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon by Cenveo® Publisher Services
Visit the eResources: www.routledge.com/9781138393264
Dedication and Acknowledgements
1 Introducing Thinking Through Philosophy
For Whom Is This Book Written? 4
Clarifying the Term ‘Philosophy for Children’ 4
Teachers ‘Making a Difference’ Through Philosophical Inquiry 6
Philosophical Inquiry: Both ‘Practical’ and ‘Evidence Based’ 8
A Psychological and Educational Perspective on a Philosophical Process 8
The Structure of This Book 9
References 12
2 Aims and Process of Philosophy for Children
What Makes an Inquiry Philosophical? 17
What Are the Aims of Philosophy for Children? 18
What Skills, Attitudes and Knowledge Do Teachers Need to Facilitate Inquiries? 21
Are Children Capable of Philosophical Thinking? 24
Developing Teachers’ Facilitation Skills 26 Does Inquiry Need to Be Philosophical? 27
Infusing Philosophical Inquiry into Other Subjects 28
Space for Philosophy for Children in a Crowded Curriculum 29
What This Chapter Has Been About 30
References 30
3 From Theory into Practice
The Need for a Structure 35
What is Philosophical Inquiry in Practical Terms? 37
What Is a Community of Inquiry? 37
The Rational and Moral Dimensions 39
Skillful Questioning 40
Useful Strategies for Building the Inquiry 40
Thinking Development, Emotional Intelligence and Spiritual Intelligence 42
The Seven Steps to Philosophical Inquiry: Lesson Plan 44
The Three Stages of Development 47
Making a Start 48
What About Kindergarten? 54
Sample Themes 56
What Next? 56
Route Map for Introducing P4C Through TTP 57
References 57
4 From Small to Large: Different Contexts for Philosophical Inquiry .
Lunch Club/After-School Club 59
A Single Class 60
Whole School 60
Beacon School 61
The School District Program 62
External Provision of P4C 64
College and Community 65
Conclusion 67
References 67
5 How Inquiry Promotes More Effective Learning . . .
How Philosophical Inquiry Improves Learning 69
How Teachers Can Support Students as They Construct Their Thinking and Learning 72
Transfer Across Subject Boundaries and Beyond 74
Challenging Themes: An Example Beyond the Curriculum 75
Higher-Order Thinking 76
Communities Support Learning 77
Theoretical Perspectives 78
Summary 80
References 81
.69
6 Educating Students to Think: The Contribution of Philosophical Inquiry .
What Are Some of the Issues Around Teaching Thinking? 86
Why Promote Thinking and Problem Solving in the Classroom? 87
Critical Thinking 87
Which Students Do We Teach to Think? 89
An Introduction to Logical Reasoning Skills 90
Creative Thinking 92
Intelligent Students! 94
The Challenge of Thinking 95
References 96
7 Communication, Dialogue and Social/ Emotional Development
Thought and Feeling Are Inseparable 102 Can Philosophical Inquiry Help Re-Educate Emotions? 104
Parallels Between Philosophical Inquiry and ‘Cognitive Behavioral Therapy’ 105
Participation, Communication and Social Well-being 106
Communication in the Classroom 106
Improving Communication and Dialogue in the Classroom 107
Summary 111 References 111
8 Does P4C Work? Evaluation Research
Why Evaluate the Effectiveness of Thinking Programs? 116
Placing Philosophy for Children within Thinking Skills Interventions 116
Early Evaluative Studies of Philosophy for Children 118
Systematic Reviews of Philosophy for Children 119
Evaluating the Thinking Through Philosophy Program 120
What Research Methods Are Best for Evaluating Effects of Philosophy for Children? 125
Sustainability 126
Overall Conclusions About the Effects of Philosophy for Children 127
References 128
9 Evaluating Philosophical Inquiry . . . . . .
Participant Perceptions 134
Observation 136
Research Design 142
Measures 144
Generalization and Maintenance 147
Analysis of Data 147
Evaluation Results Feedback and Dissemination 148
References 149
.133
10 Truth, Democracy and Classroom Communities of Inquiry . . . . . .151
Is Truth Problematic? Should Teachers Be Concerned? 152
Is There a Threat to Healthy Democracies? 153
Conspiracy Theorists and What Is Truth 154
What Can Be Done? 156
Cognitive Biases Complicate ‘Truth’ 157
Overcoming Bias 158
Philosophical Ideas about Truth 159
Concluding Comments on Participation and Democracy 160
References 160
11 Lessons Learned in Sustaining and Embedding . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
What You Need to Do 165
Habits and Dispositions 167
Cost-Effectiveness 168
Cautionary Tales: Sustaining over Time 168
Skills for the World 172
Skills for the Future 172
Final Thoughts 174
References 174
Index
Dedication and Acknowledgements
We would like to dedicate this book to Matthew Lipman, who did so much to highlight the need for independent rational thinking and who, with others, succeeded in creating a practical and liberating process for encouraging young people toward this outcome.
Thanks particularly to my wife, Doris, who brought much from her practical experience of P4C to help refine the Thinking Through Philosophy approach and build supporting classroom aids. She has also worked tirelessly when training teachers and endured many difficult conditions (particularly in rural India) in order to make this pedagogy available to all. Her help and support have been invaluable. Thanks to Jane Craik, school principal in Scotland, who has worked hard over many years to make P4C available to many teachers and schools. She represents all those who work so hard because they believe in this work and approach. Lastly, thanks to Education Renaissance Trust (London) and Yojana Projecthulp (Netherlands), who sponsored the projects in Grenada and India because they too believe in working to improve education for young people, wherever they may be.
Paul Cleghorn
I would like to thank Keir Bloomer, Director of Education for Clackmannanshire Council in Scotland when the Thinking Through Philosophy project was initiated, without whose educational vision and support that development would not have happened. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of all colleagues in Clackmannanshire who helped with the Thinking Through Philosophy project – helping children become more penetrating and diligent in their thinking.
Steve Trickey
To my new grandson. May he grow to be wise.
Keith J. Topping
Introducing Thinking Through Philosophy 1
In their classic 1980 text on Philosophy for Children, Lipman, Sharp and Oscanyon wrote on behalf of a child: ‘When I entered the educational system, I brought curiosity and imagination and creativity with me. Thanks to the system, I have left all these behind’1 (p. 5).
This comment is stark and pessimistic, but it does raise the question of how young students can be supported to retain their curiosity and interest throughout their educational experiences while also being encouraged to be reflective and judicious in their thinking. Matthew Lipman and his colleagues developed the Philosophy for Children (P4C) program in the 1960s and 1970s. P4C has endured while many other educational initiatives have come and gone. The process of Philosophy for Children is now practiced in over 60 countries throughout the world2.
But Lipman was not the first. Much of the questioning in P4C comes from Socratic dialogue and argument, fostered in ancient Greece. Bronson Allcott (father of Louisa May) was a schoolmaster in Boston in the 1840s and a friend and mentor to New England philosophers Emerson and Thoreau. He used a very similar questioning technique, and the sessions were recorded by a Miss Peabody, sitting in the corner! The stimuli were biblical quotations, but the discussions were fascinating and quite
open. It was a bit too ahead of its time for the good folk of Boston, who closed the school down after three years.
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children aims to support teachers who want to engage their students in meaningful discussion to construct knowledge and understanding, rather than seeing learning as a repetitive process aimed at ‘ticking off’ narrow prescribed targets. More active engagement is likely to satisfy and fulfill the psychological needs of both learner and teacher. This book is about a method of inquiry that can be used with students of all ages to explore the meaning of difficult-to-define concepts – such as beauty, fairness and truth – and embed that knowledge in a wider context of understanding. Inquiry stimulates students (and the teacher) to think more deeply and ‘reasonably’ about concepts and issues in general, not just those with a philosophical dimension.
This book will provide guidance as to how this can be done. It aims to promote critical, creative and collaborative thinking and can support learning throughout the curriculum. Philosophical inquiry is also conducive to students’ social and emotional development. Apart from these pragmatic reasons, engaging students in thinking together about questions that interest them is an enjoyable and motivating experience for all concerned.
Philosophy for Children aims to teach children to think for themselves and make informed choices. It also seeks to improve children’s reasoning abilities and judgment by having them think about their thinking as they discuss concepts of importance to them. The process encourages children to develop critical reasoning and creative thinking skills through collaborative dialogue facilitated by their teacher. This book will consider how teachers can facilitate regular practice of Philosophy for Children so it engages students of all ages to think and inquire together. When students are able to think together, they can create meaning and extend understanding beyond that which they could achieve individually. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This book will also consider how P4C can promote long-term cognitive and social development.
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children provides teachers and students with a structure for exploring ‘big’ moral, ethical and spiritual questions such as ‘What is fairness?’ ‘What is beauty?’ or ‘What is a friend?’ Children are curious. It is often said that children are natural
philosophers. They ask questions to make sense of the world. These questions motivate and stimulate them to look further into problems and issues. And curiously, the questions also develop the individuals into better independent learners.
Philosophical inquiries involve a search for meaning, truth, understanding and values supported by reasons. Sometimes likened to a jury, the children become seasoned inquirers and accomplished at arriving at judicious results. Such skills can be applied to the in-depth exploration of historical, literary and religious concepts – and just about any subject matter that merits learning and understanding. Philosophical inquiry is not an exchange of opinions but provides a context where students of all ages are challenged to justify their opinions. Student-led inquiry builds confidence by making space for students to create meaning from their own experience. Student motivation increases because investigating answers to their own questions has personal significance to them.
As well as exploring questions generated by the inquirers themselves (or sometimes their teacher), the practice of Philosophy for Children raises broader questions about its place in contemporary education and, for that matter, what contemporary education should be about. The methods and practices discussed in this book are based on evidence (see later chapters). A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children connects the process of inquiry to what we know about cognitive development and learning.
Teachers are likely to be preoccupied with how they can find ‘inquiry’ time. In view of this, consideration is given to practical options as to how teachers set up inquiries that interest their students. For example, a school may wish P4C to sit within a particular curricular area (English, religious and moral education, social studies, form period, etc.). In some cases, a teacher can make that choice, but note that time also can be created through a more effective teaching method. This book is written by authors who have a wealth of experience in facilitating inquiries, developing philosophical initiatives, working closely with schools and educational districts, applying educational psychology in the classroom and disseminating educational and research expertise. The authors’ four-year longitudinal project provided a unique opportunity to work closely with teachers in ‘real’ classrooms (i.e., full-size classes of up to 30 mixed-ability children), testing the scope for promoting reasoning abilities.
For Whom Is This Book Written?
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children is written for a wide audience, but the main audience is likely to consist of in-service and pre-service teachers and professional development educators. It will be relevant to researchers in this area. It will also be of value to philosophers who wish to work with schools to facilitate inquiries with children. The book will interest anyone committed to developing educational practice and passionate about actively engaging learners and enhancing emotional intelligence. The focus will be on how teachers can establish classroom contexts that support engaging students of all ages to inquire together to develop their thinking. The precious time used to facilitate weekly inquiry will be advantageous to both students and teacher. As Gregory3 suggested, teachers bring advantages to the role of facilitator of children’s philosophical dialogue. Teachers are skilled in classroom management, know their students and can make connections to other curricular areas.
Clarifying the Term ‘Philosophy for Children’
Strictly speaking, ‘Philosophy for Children’ refers to the program developed in the United States by Mathew Lipman and his colleagues. However, a wide range of subsequent developments and materials were inspired by that program, some of which were adapted to the needs of different cultures and times.
Lipman’s program focuses on reasoning and inquiry. Lipman’s Philosophy for Children can be introduced at the five- to seven-year-old level and continue to around the age of sixteen years. The assumption is that children are capable of critical and reflective thinking even at a young age. The original version of Philosophy for Children comprised seven novels with corresponding support materials and training for teachers. The instruction manuals provided discussion plans to help teachers lead discussion strategically without having to wonder constantly what to say next. The central characters in the stories learned to resolve their problems through their powers of reasoning. The novels stimulated reasoned debate by raising issues such as saluting the American flag (which of course makes them culturally specific).
Some practitioners have subsequently used the term ‘Philosophy with Children’ to emphasize the collaborative nature of inquiry and the role of students in generating questions and ideas stemming from those questions. The notion that the method is only for children and therefore unnecessarily age restrictive has led to the term being expanded by some to ‘Philosophy for Children, Colleges and Communities’2 .
In this book we will use ‘Philosophy for Children’ in a looser sense and draw distinctions with other methods, such as Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI)4. CoPI appears to place more emphasis on facilitators learning about philosophical traditions to prepare them for their role in facilitating inquiries. This contrasts with the view3 shared by the authors that adults without academic philosophical training are capable of leading philosophical inquiries. The need for academic philosophical training also contrasts with the idea5 of teachers ‘learning on the job with support’. This book is consistent with the latter position.
Following the publication of Lipman’s original materials, a wide range of alternative stimulus materials have been tailored to the needs of different groups. Alternatives to the original materials included Robert Fisher’s series of books6 that proved popular with British teachers. In Australia, Phil Cam’s7 Thinking Together’ was widely used. In Scotland, one of the current authors, Paul Cleghorn 8, developed the Thinking Through Philosophy program. A steady stream of materials for supporting inquiry has continued to evolve, many attuned to different cultures, traditions and student needs. Such materials include stories, poems, pictures, media news reports, objects and moral dilemmas, all of which can used to stimulate questioning and conceptual exploration of whatever content is under consideration. The teacher seeks to encourage students to explore possible initial meanings of the story (or other stimulus) and then ‘bridge’ that discussion to explore the meaning of the philosophical concepts underpinning the story, such as the nature of ‘truth’ and ‘beauty’. Whatever stimulus is used, it should be contestable, that is, have sufficient ambiguity to resist attempts to define it with complete finality. Better still if the stimulus is controversial.
Whether these programs can still be called Philosophy for Children is a matter for debate. However, all these programs remain based on and heavily influenced by Lipman’s Philosophy for Children. Consequently, the term ‘Philosophical Inquiry’ will be used interchangeably with ‘Philosophy for Children’ in this text, given the caveats.
So, this book, consistent with Lipman’s original aims, is about helping children become more thoughtful, more reflective, more considerate and more reasonable 1 (p. 15). The integration of critical thinking into every aspect of the curriculum sharpens children’s capacity to make conceptual connections and distinctions. Practicing collaborative inquiry has implications for improving student learning and helps students express themselves better. Academic performance can be no better than the thinking skills that underlie that performance.
Teachers ‘Making a Difference’ Through Philosophical Inquiry
This section considers philosophical inquiry from a teacher perspective. Teaching is essentially an interpersonal activity. As Christopher Day9 quoted in his introduction to A Passion for Teaching: ‘Teachers are the human point of contact with students. All other influences on the quality of education are mediated by who the teacher is and what the teacher does. Teachers have the potential for enhancing the quality of education by bringing life to the curriculum and inspiring the students to curiosity and self-learning.’ (p. 3).
Teachers matter. Teachers have been estimated to have two to three times the impact of any other school factor 10. A synthesis 11 of over 500,000 studies found sixteen of the top twenty influences on student achievement to be under the control of the teacher. Interestingly, the second most powerful effect on student achievement (‘students’ prior cognitive ability’), was described as something that teachers cannot influence. However, A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children will argue that regular participation in Philosophical Inquiry can influence cognitive ability. The observation that teachers ‘make a difference’ raises the question as to how teachers can best be supported to make that difference. Encouraging collaborative inquiry is seen as one way of expanding the teacher’s ‘toolbox’. The approach also helps ‘future proof’ youngsters. They are better able to cope with change and the rate of change, and using the four Cs (critical, creative, collaborative and caring thinking) can build on and make use of change.
However, teachers are not free agents and their teaching is influenced by factors at different levels12. These include government directives
prescribing how the curriculum should be ‘delivered’. If the curriculum becomes narrowed to tight measurable objectives, such directives can put pressure on the teacher to ‘teach to the test’. Tight objectives also tend to influence classroom dynamics, reinforcing traditional teacher-student communication patterns. Such patterns (discussed in Chapter 7) can test recall but contrast with teachers’ improving logical thinking and understanding through regular participation in collaborative inquiry (discussed in Chapters 5 and 6). Inquiry underpins good teaching practice. While recitation restricts discussion, inquiry encourages students to engage, allowing issues to be freely explored. Philosophical inquiry is about nurturing curiosity and provides a way forward. The current book offers a process and possibilities that can be practiced despite a background climate working against space for thinking.
The needs of students are inseparable from the needs of those educating them. A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children maintains that philosophical inquiry provides an enriching experience for both educators and students. Teaching is seen in this context as a moral enterprise that exceeds any mechanistic ‘transmission’ of the curriculum. The two Latin roots of the word ‘education’ (educare – to train and educere –to draw out) are both reflected in this process. As advocated by Socrates, philosophical inquiry encourages students to become better at asking questions and not just be masters of answering questions. Haynes13 found teachers described a sense of liberation derived from the spontaneity of inquiries. ‘They describe some initial fear of the open space of unscripted teaching, followed by a sense of release and excitement as they learn the role of philosophical facilitator, listening to children’s thinking and responding in the moment.’
In the United States, it has been reported14 that ‘Teacher morale, according to various surveys, has plummeted in recent years, with educators saying that school reform has made them the scapegoat for problems in public education.’ In England such concerns have been similarly reflected15. While increased workloads have reduced teacher satisfaction16, it is also likely that a results-driven environment has made it more difficult to set aside time for students being able to think together to explore issues in more depth. While Philosophical Inquiry is not going to provide a panacea to these concerns, it has a place in providing an occasional and effective classroom antidote to more rigid practice.
Philosophical Inquiry: Both ‘Practical’ and ‘Evidence Based’
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children is evidence based and seeks to bridge the gap between research and practice. Unfortunately, research evidence often fails to get translated into classroom practice. In recent years teachers have often felt overwhelmed by relentless waves of government initiatives. This trend has not been evaluated in terms of what is ‘most effective’. For example, it has been suggested17 that ‘Teachers have little regard for the findings of educational research, seeing it as having limited, if any, practical value’ (p. 4). It has also been suggested18 that many existing school practices are inconsistent with what is known about effective learning and that the influence of research on professional practice has been weak. A proposal19 that educational psychologists should translate research evidence into more user-friendly forms for teachers so that it can be applied to real world classroom contexts is reflected in this book.
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children is particularly relevant to translating research evidence about classroom dialogue into practice. In this context, Murphy20 recognized that ‘successful implementation in classrooms requires buy-in from a host of educational stakeholders, including district administrators, building principals, teachers, students and care-givers’. Murphy cautioned that ‘buy-in’ is not easily obtained. However, successful buy-in was exemplified by the authors’ Thinking Through Philosophy project in a whole local authority (school district) that optimized a context where teachers regularly inquired with their students.
A Psychological and Educational Perspective on a Philosophical Process
A key aim of this book is to develop student habits of thinking critically. Both psychology and philosophy are concerned with critical thinking. Philosophers have been developing rigorous ways of thinking about logic and the nature of knowledge for millennia. Philosophy can be also regarded as a structured search for truth using reason and good argument. Psychologists have had a more recent history, but have developed a range of empirical scientific methods to test theories and build practical models of how humans develop their thinking. Unusually for a book
on Philosophical Inquiry, the authors have approached this subject from a psychological perspective. Together, psychological and philosophical perspectives powerfully inform educational practice to promote learners who are able to critically analyze and apply what they are learning beyond the classroom.
Apart from the practical educational benefits of Philosophy for Children, encouraging children and young people to voice their views is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child21. This Convention is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history and gives children the legal right to express views freely and to freedom of expression and thought. Although the United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention, the United States is the only country other than Somalia that has not ratified the Convention22. So, while there is not any binding legal obligation under international law, it seems particularly apposite for American schools to support the spirit of the Convention through a process that gives children a voice as part of their educational experience and development. A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children helps teachers to achieve this.
The Structure of This Book
The current chapter introduces Philosophy for Children and sets the scene for the rest of the book by summarizing the main ideas in each of the subsequent chapters. This first chapter also starts to explore philosophical inquiry as a fulfilling addition to the teacher’s repertoire of skills. While the book explores developing the practice of inquiry in classrooms, the need to base such practice on sound research evidence is also emphasized. Recognition is given to the need for research findings to be expressed in simple terms for practitioners who do not have the luxury of time to pore over the details (and sometimes obtuse language) of research reports.
Chapter 2 discusses the aims of Philosophy for Children and explores some key issues relating to both teachers and students. The chapter considers what makes a question philosophical and whether the inquiry has to be philosophical in the first place. Consideration is given in this and other chapters as to how a teacher can make time for philosophical inquiry in the context of competing demands and a crowded curriculum.
The characteristics that make facilitators well placed to help children contribute to inquiries are discussed. The chapter also considers the extent to which younger inquirers are capable of abstract reasoning and philosophical thinking.
Chapters 3 and 4 are both highly practical chapters. The key elements of the Thinking Through Philosophy (TTP) approach are described in Chapter 3. It looks at the details of each element and how they might be combined to form a cohesive approach in the classroom. Information on useful types of questioning is given to show how to ‘dig deeper’ into a philosophical question. Alongside are practical strategies showing how to build a richer inquiry. Templates are provided (and are also available on an accompanying Resources Website so they can be printed off), along with guidance in how to complete them in order to build an Inquiry Plan. There is a range of games and activities that can used to develop and reinforce skills useful to facilitating an enquiry. Details of some of these are given in order to show their place in the method and how they may be used in a classroom. The idea that inquiries within a particular community (classroom) may mature and develop over time is introduced, related to three stages of the development of an inquiry and information. There is a detailed description of the three stages and information on how and when to move from one to the other.
Chapter 4 describes the Thinking Through Philosophy project, how it came to be undertaken and how it spread across a whole school district. It shows some of the reasons for particular elements being included in the approach and gives a description of the support given to teachers in the project. Examples are given of different approaches to introducing philosophical inquiry – for example, a whole school approach, a ‘Beacon School’ approach where one school is the lead organization for the area, a small ‘cluster’ approach and a whole school district approach. Evidence from Hungary, Grenada and India is included to connect with this last point, showing effectiveness in hugely different educational, social and cultural contexts. The chapter describes potential classroom difficulties and strategies for success, and also gives anecdotal evidence of what classroom teachers found successful and important when first introducing philosophical inquiry. This chapter reinforces the idea that the method can be successful in a wide range of educational or social contexts.
Chapter 5 explores in more detail how P4C can help students become more independent thinkers and learners. Thinking and learning are
closely intertwined. P4C has implications for students becoming more effective learners as they construct more meaningful understandings. P4C encourages students to consider evidence supporting (or negating) their particular beliefs and viewpoints. The influence of beliefs (attributions) about our abilities in learning is also considered. We know that students who are able to reflect on their learning and thinking processes (i.e., have metacognitive strategies) are more effective learners than those who do not. We look at how regular practice in philosophical inquiry encourages metacognitive reflection on thinking and learning. We also draw connections between the practice of P4C and what we know about the psychology of cognitive development.
Chapter 6 will explore what higher or more complex thinking skills are, why they matter in contemporary society and how P4C can promote such skills. Particular emphasis is given in this chapter to critical thinking, including what we mean by critical thinking and a discussion of the sub-skills that contribute to critical thinking.
Chapter 7 considers how P4C meets the emotional needs of learners and promotes their social development. The strong connection between thinking and feeling is explored. Consideration is given to the contribution of inquiry to student’s emotional health and why this is the case. The chapter places P4C in the wider context of how classroom talk in general can be used to strengthen communication and participation.
Chapter 8 will be of interest to those who seek evidence of outcomes from P4C. It is important that in an era of ever-changing educational fashions and fads, practitioners are confident that philosophical inquiry has a sound evidential base. Although far from a simple panacea, P4C has proven durable since Lipman’s first publications in the early 1970s. This chapter includes the authors’ findings from an evaluative four-year longitudinal study, together with a wider summary of other evaluation findings relating to P4C. We live in an era when concerns are regularly expressed about the validity of information. In 2016 the Oxford Dictionaries declared ‘post-truth’ to be their international word of the year23. Defined by the dictionary as an adjective ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’, dictionary editors said that use of the term ‘post-truth’ had increased by around 2,000% in 2016 compared to the previous year.
Chapter 9 is of practical benefit to those who facilitate inquiries, by giving them some tools to help them evaluate whether those inquiries
have worked. A range of measures are identified, from objective, quantitative ones to subjective, qualitative ones. Of course, different measures take up different amounts of time, which is a consideration. How can you use data you would have been gathering anyway for the wider purposes of evaluating your inquiries? And how can you find time to analyze your data and report it, first to other teachers in the school then maybe to wider interest groups?
Chapter 10 considers how the community of inquiry can be taken as a microcosm for participation in broader democratic institutions. In a time when there are concerns about fake news distorting and undermining democratic discourse, this chapter looks at how P4C can inoculate students from being easily manipulated by emotive views that lack any rational basis. P4C encourages questioning and inquiring minds, so students critically evaluate information they are exposed to.
The concluding Chapter 11 considers how inquiries can be sustained and embedded in educational practice. Sustaining philosophical inquiry in the classroom is far from straightforward in educational contexts riven with competing demands and pressures. Many innovations in education (even when evidence based) come and go as teachers and their enthusiasms change. Sustainability issues are considered at the level of the individual teacher, the whole school district and national education systems. Lessons (including some painful ones) learned in sustaining inquiry in schools will be shared.
References
1. M. Lipman, A. M. Sharp and F. Oscanyon, Philosophy in the classroom. 1980. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
2. Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education (SAPERE). Available at: www.sapere.org. uk/Default.aspx?tabid=162 [November 27, 2018].
3. M. Gregory. Precollege philosophy education: What can it be? The IAPC Model. In S. Goering, N. J. Shudak and T.E. Wartenberg (Eds.). Philosophy in schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers. 2013, pp. 69–85. New York: Routledge.
4. C. C. McCall. Transforming thinking: Philosophical inquiry in the primary and secondary classroom. 2009. London: Routledge.
5. R. Sutcliffe. Evolution of philosophy for children in the UK. In Anderson, B. (Ed.) Philosophy for children: Theories and praxis. 2017, pp. 3–13. Abingdon: Routledge.
6. R. Fisher. Stories for thinking. 1996. Oxford: Nash Pollock Publishing.
7. P. Cam. Thinking together. 1998. Alexandria, NSW: Hale & Iremonger.
8. P. Cleghorn. Thinking through philosophy. 2002. Blackburn, England: Educational Printing Services.
9. C. Day. A passion for teaching. 2004. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
11. J. Hattie. Visible learning. 2008. London & New York: Routledge.
12. U. Bronfenbrenner. The ecology of human development— Experiments by nature and design. 1981. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. J. Haynes. Freedom and the urge to think in philosophy with children. Gifted Education International, 2007, vol. 22, pp. 229–237.
14. L. Sutcher, L. Darling-Hammond and D. Carver-Thomas. A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. 2016. Washington, DC: Learning Policy Institute.
15. House of Commons Education Committee. Recruitment and retention of teachers. 2017. London: Her Majesty’s Government.
16. D. Hughes and G. Hitchcock. Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research . 1995. London: Routledge.
17. M. S. Donovan, J. D. Bransford and J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. 1999. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
18. C. Day et al. Teachers matter: Connecting work, lives and effectiveness. 2007. London: Open University Press.
19. R. H. Shute. Promoting mental health through schools: Is this field of development an evidence-based practice? The Psychologist, 2012, vol. 25, issue 10, pp. 752–755.
20. P. K. Murphy et al. What really works: Optimising classroom discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2016, vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 27–35.
21. United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the rights of the child. 1989. New York: UNGA.
22. Human Rights Watch. United States ratification of international human rights treaties . 2009. Available at: www.hrw.org/ news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international-humanrights-treaties [September 1, 2018].
23. ‘Post-truth’ declared word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. BBC. November 16, 2016. Available at: www.bbc.com/news/ uk-37995600 [November 27, 2018].
Aims and Process of Philosophy for Children 2
John Dewey famously said in his book Democracy and Education in 1916: ‘Education is not an affair of “telling” and being told, but an active and constructive process’1 (p. 19). So, what is Philosophy for Children? It provides a method that enables ′students to construct their own understanding rather than having teacher knowledge told to them. This chapter will set the scene for the next two chapters where practicalities are considered in more detail.
Philosophical inquiry is about making meaning (or sense) of concepts and putting meanings to the test of truth. It can be regarded a structured search for truth in important questions using reason and good argument. Philosophy for Children is concerned with the development of a community of inquiry, a community where students think together and build on each other’s ideas. The process of inquiry can be applied to any subject and almost all inquiry can be described as philosophical in nature. Philosophy is essentially a process of asking questions and thinking about answers to those questions. Very often there is no answer to a philosophical question and it will throw up more questions. However, through the process of inquiry there should be forward movement so that by the end more is known about the question. The participants move further toward an answer even if it is not considered as a final absolute answer. Even in
science answers/truths are now held as ‘holding positions’. It is good to encourage the results of philosophical inquiries to be considered in the same light.
Philosophy for Children is the activity that children engage in when discussing philosophical questions. Students and their teacher share a short story, picture, poem, object or some other thinking stimulus. In a mature community the children then take time to think of their own questions before one is selected for more extensive discussion. The teacher reinforces a climate that encourages participation. Ground rules are set in advance that encourage showing respect for everyone. Students construct their own conceptions of whatever topic is being considered. If someone disagrees, they must find a good reason to express that disagreement (as against simply saying that the other person is ‘wrong’). Philosophical inquiry is not a ‘tool-kit’ approach to promoting independent thinking and the process is dependent on the quality of interaction and dialogue engendered rather than assiduously following a simple step-by-step procedure2.
Philosophy for Children tends to focus on concepts that are intrinsically interesting to children, such as fairness, justice, friendship, rights, love, identity, knowledge, truth and free will. It draws on practical Socratic discussion as against more academic philosophizing. The teacher helps the students build constructive dialogue in which concepts are clarified, meanings explored and a shared understanding is achieved. In Philosophy for Children, the slow thinker with a sound argument is no less respected than the child who presents their views quickly and articulately3 (p. 43). It is about giving young students the opportunity to express ideas confidently in a safe environment.
Philosophical inquiry seeks to gradually build classroom dialogue and requires students to listen carefully to each other’s views. The quality of the dialogue is helped by the simultaneous development of the language of inquiry, initially by the use of protocols and imitation. Dialogue differs from debating in that the emphasis is more on reflective learning than on ‘winning’ an argument. Dialogue also differs from conversation in that conversation implies the stating of personal opinions without justification or reason. Dialogue, by contrast, is an exploration of ideas – an inquiry. So, philosophical inquiry is about exploring great ideas, asking open questions and participating in engaging activities that generate a better understanding of a concept.
What Makes an Inquiry Philosophical?
Teaching philosophy to children throws up many questions, such as ‘What is a philosophical question?’, ‘Can children do philosophy?’ and ‘Do teachers need a philosophical background to lead inquiries?’ A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children will define the term ‘philosophical’ in a broad and practical sense. Philosophy for Children moves away from direct instruction of targeted knowledge to more spontaneous (and satisfying) exchanges that freely explore ideas. While the teacher gives up some control of the content of student contributions, the process remains under the control of the teacher. A method and rules are necessary to prevent a conversational free-for-all.
A Teacher’s Guide to Philosophy for Children considers philosophy to be thinking deeply about complex philosophical questions. This involves developing the capacity to pose questions and respond to others in a thoughtful rational way. It is also about a search for truth and meaning in important questions using reason and good argument. The word ‘Philosophy’ could bring to mind an abstract approach not well fitted to the harsh demands of real contemporary education. However, Philosophy can and should be about exploring concepts that directly relate to the student’s world and therefore are of relevance and interest to them. For example, having a dialogue about bullying could be helpful not only with regard to reducing bullying but also to developing thinking more generally.
When students are encouraged to question and develop their own opinions, they can be said to be philosophizing. A philosophical question invites people to pool and resolve their differing viewpoints in response to an open question. Children (and adults) are much more open to changing their mind (therefore showing reasonableness) by considering other points of view and the evidence that accompanies them. ‘Big’ open-ended philosophical questions inquire into moral, ethical and spiritual questions and invite reflection on values, beliefs and meanings. These questions lack simple answers. Many problems facing not only individuals but also nations lack simple answers. Despite this, politicians sometimes seem compelled to come up with simple solutions to complex issues in adversarial climates that fail to recognize the validity of other viewpoints.
What Are the Aims of Philosophy for Children?
Teachers are likely to be motivated to invest their time and energy in Philosophy for Children if they believe the thinking, learning and social development of their students will show tangible benefit from engaging in inquiries. Philosophical inquiry develops the ability to express oneself and provides a method that can be used in all school subjects. It provides practice in listening, keeping to the point, assessing assertions and substantiating one’s own point of view.
1. Developing Independent Thinkers
The overall aim of Philosophy for Children is ‘to help children learn how to think for themselves’ and make informed choices3 (p. 53). The goal of the program is to improve children’s reasoning abilities and judgment by having them think about thinking as they discuss concepts of importance to them. An independent thinker is able to organize their thinking through questioning, hypothesizing and suggesting alternative explanations. Their conclusions are directly linked to their reasoning from evidence. The UNESCO Philosophy report4 states that Lipman’s primary goal was to foster critical thinking and formal logic in particular. Lipman believed that children have the ability to think abstractly and understand philosophical questions from an early age. While the scientific method can contribute to critical reasoning, the skills of philosophy address more abstract questions, for example, ‘Do we have free will?’, ‘Is there a God?’ and ‘What is greed?’. The ambiguity of such questions maximizes the scope for eliciting different views and justifying one’s argument rationally.
Lipman suggested that Philosophy for Children encourages children to develop critical and creative thinking skills through collaborative dialogue. Reasoning skills are central to critical thinking and involve students justifying their views with reasons, drawing inferences, making deductions, identifying underlying assumptions and dealing with contradictions. Ill-defined concepts are clarified, sweeping generalizations avoided and decisions informed by reasons and/or evidence. The facilitator encourages reasoning through probing questions to help student’s judgments become more balanced. Examples of such questions would be ‘How do you know that?’, ‘Can you explain what you mean by saying something is not fair?’ and ‘Can you give me an example of what you are
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
schools. … The only important amendment to this Act was passed in 1875, and provided that the legislative grant, instead of being divided between the Protestant and Catholic schools as heretofore, should in future be distributed in proportion to the number of children of school age in the Catholic and Protestant districts. Already immigration had begun to upset the balance of numbers and power, and as the years went on it became evident that the Catholics were destined to be in a permanent minority in Manitoba. This trend of immigration, which in 1875 made legislation necessary, has continued ever since; and to-day the Catholics of the province number only 20,000 out of a total population of 204,000. No further change was made in the educational system of Manitoba until the memorable year of 1890. In that year the provincial legislature boldly broke all moorings with the past, and, abolishing the separate denominational schools, introduced a system of free compulsory and unsectarian schools, for the support of which the whole community was to be taxed. … To test the legality of the change, what is known as Barrett's case was begun in Winnipeg. It was carried to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Canadian judges by a unanimous decision declared that the Act of 1890 was ultra vires and void.
{60}
The city of Winnipeg appealed to the Privy Council, and that tribunal in July 1892 reversed the decision of the Canadian Court and affirmed that the Act was valid and binding. … The second subsection of the 22nd section of the Manitoba Act already quoted says: 'An appeal shall lie to the Governor-General in Council from any Act or decision of the legislature of the province, or of any provincial authority, affecting any right or privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen's subjects in relation to education.' But if the legislation of 1890 was intra vires, and expressly declared to be so on the ground that it had not prejudicially affected the position which the minority held at the time of the Union, how could there be an appeal from it? …
The Governor-General, however, consented to refer the question as to his jurisdiction to the courts of justice. What is known as Brophy's case was begun, and in due course was carried to the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of that tribunal, though not unanimous, was in accord with public expectation. The majority of the judges felt that the previous judgment of the Privy Council had settled the matter beforehand. The Act of 1890 had been declared intra vires on the ground that it had not interfered with the rights which the minority possessed before the Union, and therefore there could be no appeal from it. …
"Still the undaunted Archbishop of St. Boniface went on, and for a last time appealed to that Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which two years and a half before had so spoiled and disappointed the Catholic hopes. In January 1894 the final decision in Brophy's case was read by the Lord Chancellor. For a second time the Lords of the Council upset the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, and treated their reasoning as irrelevant. It will be remembered that both the appellant prelates and the Canadian judges had assumed that the clause in the Manitoba Act, which conferred the right of appeal to the Governor-General, was limited to one contingency, and could be invoked only if the minority were robbed at any time of the poor and elementary rights which they had enjoyed before the Act of Union. But was the clause necessarily so limited? Could it not be used to justify an appeal from legislation which affected rights acquired after the Union? … In the words of the judgment: 'The question arose: Did the sub-section extend to the rights and privileges acquired by legislation subsequent to the Union? It extended in terms to "any" right or privilege of the minority affected by any Act passed by the legislature, and would therefore seem to embrace all the rights and privileges existing at the time when such Act was passed. Their lordships saw no justification for putting a limitation on language thus unlimited. There was nothing in the surrounding circumstances or in the apparent
intention of the legislature to warrant any such limitation.'
… In other words, the dispute was referred to a new tribunal, and one which was free to consider and give effect to the true equities of the case. The Governor-General and his responsible advisers, after considering all the facts, found in favour of the Catholic minority, and at once issued a remedial Order to the Government of Manitoba, which went far beyond anything suggested in the judgment in Brophy's case. The province was called upon to repeal the legislation of 1890, so far as it interfered with the right of the Catholic minority to build and maintain their own schools, to share proportionately in any public grant for the purposes of education, and with the right of such Catholics as contributed to Catholic schools to be held exempt from all payments towards the support of any other schools. In a word, the Governor-General and Sir Mackenzie Bowell's Administration, exercising, as it were, appellate jurisdiction, decided that the minority were entitled to all they claimed. The Government of Manitoba, however, had hardened their hearts against the minority in the province, and refused to obey the remedial Order. …
"The refusal of the provincial Government 'to accept the responsibility of carrying into effect the terms of the remedial Order' for the first time brought the Parliament of Canada into the field, and empowered them to pass coercive legislation. A remedial Bill was accordingly, after an inexplicable delay, brought into the Federal Parliament to enforce the remedial Order. … The Cabinet recognised that the Federal Parliament had no power to spend the money of the province, and so all they could do was to exempt the minority from the obligation to contribute to the support of schools other than their own. The Bill bristled with legal and constitutional difficulties; it concerned the coercion of a province; it contained no less than 116 clauses; it was introduced on the 2nd of March 1896, when all Canada knew that the life of the Federal Parliament must necessarily expire on the 24th of April. Some fifteen clauses had been considered
when the Government admitted, what all men saw, the impossibility of the task, and abandoned the Bill. … While the fate of the remedial Bill was still undecided, Sir Donald Smith and two others were commissioned by the Federal Government to go to Winnipeg and see if by direct negotiations some sort of tolerable terms could be arranged. … Sir Donald Smith proposed that the principle of the separate school should be admitted wherever there were a reasonable number of Catholic children thus, wherever in towns and villages there are twenty-five Catholic children of school age, and in cities where there are fifty such children, they should have 'a school-house or school-room for their own use,' with a Catholic teacher. … In the event the negotiations failed; the baffled Commissioners returned to Ottawa, and on the 24th of April 1896 Parliament was dissolved. The Government went to the country upon the policy of the abandoned Bill. On the other hand, many of the followers of Mr. Laurier in the province of Quebec pledged themselves to see justice done to the Catholics of Manitoba, and let it be understood that they objected to the remedial Bill only because it was not likely to prove effective in the face of the combined hostility of the legislature and the municipalities of the province. … Catholic Quebec gave Mr. Laurier his majority at Ottawa. …
{61}
"When the Liberal party for the first time for eighteen years found itself in power at Ottawa, Mr. Laurier at once opened negotiations with Manitoba. The result was a settlement which, although it might work well in particular districts, could not be accepted as satisfactory by the Catholic authorities. It arranged that where in towns and cities the average attendance of Catholic children was forty or upwards, and in villages and rural districts the average attendance of such children was twenty-five or upwards, one Catholic teacher should be employed. There were various other provisions, but that was the central concession. … Leo the Thirteenth, recognising the
difficulties which beset Mr. Laurier's path, mindful, perhaps, also that it is not always easy immediately to resume friendly conference with those who have just done their best to defeat you, has sent to Canada an Apostolic Commissioner."
J. G. Snead Cox, Mr. Laurier and Manitoba (Nineteenth Century, April, 1897).
CANADA: A. D. 1895. Northern territories formed into provisional districts.
"The unorganized and unnamed portion of the Dominion this year was set apart into provisional districts. The territory east of Hudson's Bay, having the province of Quebec on the south and the Atlantic on the east, was to be hereafter known as Ungava. The territory embraced in the islands of the Arctic Sea was to be known as Franklin, the Mackenzie River region as Mackenzie, and the Pacific coast territory lying north of British Columbia and west of Mackenzie as Yukon. The extent of Ungava and Franklin was undefined. Mackenzie would cover 538,600 square miles, and Yukon 225,000 square miles, in addition to 143,500 square miles added to Athabasca and 470,000 to Keewatin. The total area of the Dominion was estimated at 3,456,383 square miles."
The Annual Register, 1895, page 391.
CANADA: A. D. 1895. Negotiations with Newfoundland.
Negotiations for the entrance of Newfoundland into the federation of the Dominion of Canada proved ineffectual and were abandoned in May. The island province refused the terms proposed.
CANADA: A. D. 1896 (June-July).
Liberal triumph in Parliamentary elections. Formation of Ministry by Sir Wilfred Laurier.
General elections held in Canada on the 23d of June, 1896, gave the Liberal Party 113 seats out of 213 in the Dominion House of Commons; the Conservatives securing 88, and the Patrons of Industry and other Independents 12. Much to the general surprise, the scale was turned in favor of the Liberals by the vote of the province of Quebec, notwithstanding the Manitoba school question, on which clerical influence in the Roman church was ranged against that party. The effect of the election was to call the Liberal leader, Sir Wilfred Laurier, of Quebec, to the head of the government, the Conservative Ministry, under Sir Charles Tupper, retiring on the 8th of July.
CANADA: A. D. 1896-1897.
Policy of the Liberal Government.
Revision of the tariff, with discriminating duties in favor of Great Britain, and provisions for reciprocity.
"The position of the Canadian Liberals, when they came into power after the General Election of 1896, was not unlike that of the English Liberals after the General Election of 1892. Both Liberal parties had lists of reforms to which they were committed. The English measures were in the Newcastle Programme. Those of the Canadian Liberals were embodied in the Ottawa Programme, which was formulated at a convention held at the Dominion Capital in 1893. … A large part of the Ottawa Programme was set out in the speech which the Governor-General read in the Senate when the session of 1897 commenced. There was then promised a measure for the revision of the tariff; a bill providing for the extension of the Intercolonial railway from Levis to Montreal; a bill repealing the Dominion Franchise Act and abolishing the costly system of registration which goes with it; and a measure providing for the plebiscite on the
Prohibition question. Neither of these last two measures was carried through Parliament. Both had to be postponed to another session; and the session of 1897 was devoted, so far as legislation went, chiefly to the tariff, and to bills, none of which were promised in the Speech from the Throne, in retaliation for the United States Contract Labor Laws, and the new United States tariff. …
"The new tariff was a departure from the tariffs of the Conservative regime in only one important direction. Protective duties heretofore had been levied on imports from England, in the same way as on imports from the United States or any other country. The 'National Policy' had allowed of no preferences for England; and during the long period of Conservative rule, when the Conservatives were supported by the Canadian manufacturers in much the same way as the Republican party in the United States is supported by the manufacturing interests, the Canadian manufacturers had been as insistent for adequate protection against English-made goods, as against manufactured articles from the United States or Germany. The Conservative party had continuously claimed a monopoly of loyalty to England; but in its tariffs had never dared to make any concession in favour of English goods. In the new tariff, preferences for England were established; and with these openings in favour of imports from Great Britain, there came a specific warning from the Minister of Finance that Canadian manufacturers must not regard themselves as possessing a vested interest in the continuance of the protective system. …
"When the Minister of Finance laid the tariff before the House of Commons, he declared that the 'National Policy,' as it had been tried for eighteen years, was a failure; and … claimed that lowering the tariff wall against England was a step in the direction of a tariff 'based not upon the protective system but upon the requirements of the public service.' During the first fifteen months of the new tariff, the
concession to England consists of a reduction by one-eighth of the duties chargeable under the general list. At the end of that time, that is on the last of July, 1898, the reduction will be one-fourth. The reductions do not apply to wines, malt liquors, spirits and tobacco, the taxes on which are essentially for revenue. While England was admitted at once to the advantages of the reduced tariff, this tariff is not to be applicable to England alone. In July, it was extended to the products of New South Wales, the free-trade colony of the British Australasian group; and any country can come within its provisions whose government can satisfy the Comptroller of Customs at Ottawa, that it is offering favourable treatment to Canadian exports, and is affording them as easy an entrance through its customs houses as the Canadians give by means of the reciprocal tariff. It is also possible, under a later amendment to the Tariff Act, for the Governor in Council to extend the benefits of the reciprocal tariff to any country entitled thereto by virtue of a treaty with Great Britain. {62}
Numerous alterations were made in the general list of import duties. Some of these involved higher rates; others lowered the duties. But if the changes in the fiscal system had been confined to these variations, the new tariff would not have been noteworthy, and it would have fulfilled few of the pledges made by the Liberals when they were in Opposition. It owes its chief importance to the establishment of an inner tariff in the interests of countries which deal favourably with Canada."
E. Porritt, The New Administration in Canada (Yale Review, August, 1897).
CANADA: A. D. 1897 (June-July). Conference of colonial premiers with the British Colonial Secretary.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE-JULY).
CANADA: A. D. 1897 (October).
Self-government for the Northwestern Territories.
By an Act passed in October, a system of self-government, going far towards the full powers of a provincial government, but having some limitations, was provided for the Northwest Territories.
CANADA: A. D. 1898 (January).
Encyclical Letter of the Pope on the Manitoba School Question.
On the report made by his delegate, Monsignor Merry del Val, Pope Leo XIII. addressed an encyclical letter to the Roman Church in Canada, concerning the duty of Catholics in the matter of the Manitoba schools (see above: A. D. 1890-1896), which was made public at Quebec on the 9th of January, 1898. The letter has great general importance, as defining with precision the attitude of the Church towards all secular school systems. With a few unessential passages it is given in what follows:
"It was with extreme solicitude," wrote the Pope, "that we turned our mind to the unhappy events which in these later years have marked the history of Catholic education in Manitoba. … And since many expected that we should make a pronouncement on the question, and asked that we should trace a line of conduct and a way to be followed, we did not wish to decide anything on this subject before our Apostolic delegate had been on the spot, charged to proceed to a serious examination of the situation, and to give an account to us of the state of affairs. He has faithfully and diligently fulfilled the command which we had given him. The question agitated is one of great and exceptional importance. We speak of the decision taken seven years ago by the parliament of
Manitoba on the subject of education. The act of Confederation had secured to Catholic children the right of education in public schools in keeping with their conscientious convictions. The parliament of Manitoba abolished this right by contrary law. By this latter law a grave injury was inflicted, for it was not lawful for our children to seek the benefits of education in schools in which the Catholic religion is ignored or actively combated, in schools where its doctrine is despised and its fundamental principles repudiated. If the Church has anywhere permitted this, it was only with great reluctance and in self-defense, and after having taken many precautions, which, however, have too often been found unequal to parrying the danger. In like manner one must at all cost avoid, as most pernicious, those schools wherein every form of belief is indifferently admitted and placed on an equal footing as if in what regards God and Divine things, it was of no importance whether one believed rightly or wrongly, whether one followed truth or falsehood. You well know, venerable brothers, that all schools of this kind have been condemned by the Church, because there can be nothing more pernicious nor more fitted to injure the integrity of faith and to turn away the tender minds of youth from the truth. … For the Catholic there is but one true religion, the Catholic religion; hence in all that concerns doctrine, or morality, or religion, he cannot accept or recognize anything which is not drawn from the very sources of Catholic teaching. Justice and reason demand, then, that our children have in their schools not only scientific instruction but also moral teachings in harmony, as we have already said, with the principles of their religion, teachings without which all education will be not only fruitless but absolutely pernicious. Hence the necessity of having Catholic teachers, reading books, and textbooks approved of by the bishops, and liberty to organize the schools, that the teaching therein shall be in full accord with Catholic faith as well as with all the duties that flow therefrom. For the rest, to decide in what institutions their children shall be instructed, who shall be their teachers of morality, is a
right inherent to parental authority. When, then, Catholics demand, and it is their duty to demand, and to strive to obtain, that the teaching of the masters shall be in conformity with the religion of their children, they are only making use of their right; and there can be nothing more unjust than to force on them the alternative of allowing their children to grow up in ignorance, or to expose them to manifest danger in what concerns the supreme interests of their souls. It is not right to call in doubt or to abandon in any way these principles of judging and acting which are founded on truth and justice, and which are the safe-guards both of public and private interests. Therefore, when the new law in Manitoba struck a blow at Catholic education, it was your duty, venerable brothers, to freely protest against the injury and disaster inflicted; and the way in which you all fulfilled that duty is a proof of your common vigilance, and of a spirit truly worthy of bishops; and, although each one of you will find on this point a sufficient approbation in the testimony of his own conscience, learn, nevertheless, that you have also our conscience and our approbation, for the things which you sought and still seek to protect and defend are most sacred. The difficulties created by the law of which we speak by their very nature showed that an alleviation was to be sought for in a united effort. For so worthy was the Catholic cause that all good and upright citizens, without distinction of party, should have banded themselves together in a close union to uphold it. Unfortunately for the success of this cause, the contrary took place. What is more deplorable still, is that Catholic Canadians themselves failed to unite as they should in defending those interests which are of such importance to all the importance and gravity of which should have stilled the voice of party politics, which are of much less importance. We are not unaware that something has been done to amend that law. The men who are at the head of the federal government and of the Province of Manitoba have already taken certain measures with a view to decreasing the difficulties of which the Catholics of Manitoba complain, and against which
they rightly continue to protest.
{63}
We have no reason to doubt that these measures were taken from love of justice and from a laudable motive. We cannot, however, dissimulate the truth; the law which they have passed to repair the injury is defective, unsuitable, insufficient. The Catholics ask and no one can deny that they justly ask for much more. Moreover, in the remedial measures that have been proposed there is this defect, that in changes of local circumstances they may easily become valueless. In a word, the rights of Catholics and the education of their children have not been sufficiently provided for in Manitoba. Everything in this question demands, and is conformable to justice, that they should be thoroughly provided for, that is, by placing in security and surrounding with due safe-guards those unchangeable and sacred principles of which we have spoken above. This should be the aim, this the end to be zealously and prudently sought for. Nothing can be more injurious to the attainment of this end than discord; unity of spirit and harmony of action are most necessary. Nevertheless since, as frequently happens in things of this nature, there is not only one fixed and determined but various ways of arriving at the end which is proposed and which should be obtained, it follows that there may be various opinions equally good and advantageous. Wherefore let each and all be mindful of the rules of moderation, and gentleness, and mutual charity; let no one fail in the respect that is due to another; but let all resolve in fraternal unanimity, and not without your advice, to do that which the circumstances require and which appears best to be done. As regards especially the Catholics of Manitoba, we have every confidence that with God's help they will succeed in obtaining full satisfaction. This hope is founded, in the first place, in the righteousness of the cause, next in the sense of justice and prudence of the men at the head of the government, and finally in the good-will of all upright men in Canada. In the meantime, until they are able to obtain their full rights, let them not refuse partial
satisfaction. If, therefore, anything is granted by law to custom, or the good-will of men, which will render the evil more tolerable and the dangers more remote, it is expedient and useful to make use of such concessions, and to derive therefrom as much benefit and advantage as possible. Where, however, no remedy can be found for the evil, we must exhort and beseech that it be provided against by the liberality and munificence of their contributions, for no one can do anything more salutary for himself or more conducive to the prosperity of his country, than to contribute, according to his means, to the maintenance of these schools. There is another point which appeals to your common solicitude, namely, that by your authority, and with the assistance of those who direct educational institutions, an accurate and suitable curriculum of studies be established, and that it be especially provided that no one shall be permitted to teach who is not amply endowed with all the necessary qualities, natural and acquired, for it is only right that Catholic schools should be able to compete in bearing, culture, and scholarship with the best in the country. As concerns intellectual culture and the progress of civilization, one can only recognize as praiseworthy and noble the desire of the provinces of Canada to develop public instruction, and to raise its standard more and more, in order that it may daily become higher and more perfect. Now there is no kind of knowledge, no perfection of learning, which cannot be fully harmonized with Catholic doctrine."
CANADA: A. D. 1898 (September).
Popular vote on the question of Prohibition.
Pursuant to a law passed by the Dominion Parliament the previous June, a vote of the people in all the Provinces of the Dominion was taken, on the 29th of September, 1898, upon the following question: "Are you in favor of the passing of an act prohibiting the importation, manufacture or sale of spirits, wine, ale, beer, cider, and all other alcoholic
liquors for use as beverages?" The submitting of this question to a direct vote of the people was a proceeding not quite analogous to the Swiss Referendum, since it decided the fate of no pending law; nor did it imitate the popular Initiative of Swiss legislation, since the result carried no mandate to the government. It was more in the nature of a French Plébiscite, and many called it by that name; but no Plebiscite in France ever drew so real an expression of popular opinion on a question so fully discussed. The result of the voting was a majority for prohibition in every Province except Quebec, Ontario pronouncing for it by more than 39,000, Nova Scotia by more than 29,000, New Brunswick by more than 17,000, Manitoba by more than 9,000, Prince Edward's Island by more than 8,000, and the Northwest Territories by more than 3,000, while British Columbia gave a small majority of less than 600 on the same side. Quebec, on the other hand, shouted a loud "No" to the question, by 93,000 majority. The net majority in favor of Prohibition was 107,000. The total of votes polled on the question was 540,000. This was less than 44 per cent of the total registration of voters; hence the vote for Prohibition represented only about 23 per cent of the electorate, which the government considered to offer too small a support for the measure asked for.
CANADA: A. D. 1898-1899.
The Joint High Commission for settlement of all unsettled questions between Canada and the United States.
As the outcome of negotiations opened at Washington in the previous autumn by the Canadian Premier, relative to the seal-killing controversy, an agreement between Great Britain, Canada and the United States was concluded on the 30th of May, 1898, for the creation of a Joint High Commission to negotiate a treaty, if possible, by which all existing subjects of controversy between the United States and Canada should be settled with finality. Appointments to the Commission by the three governments were made soon afterwards, Great Britain
being represented by the Lord High Chancellor, Baron Herschell; Canada by Sir Wilfred Laurier, Premier, Sir Richard Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce, and Sir Louis Henry Davies, Minister of Marine and Fisheries; the United States by Honorable John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State, Senator Charles W. Fairbanks, Senator George Gray, Representative Nelson Dingley, and the Honorable John A. Kasson, Reciprocity Commissioner. Senator Gray having been subsequently appointed on the Commission to negotiate peace with Spain, his place on the Anglo-American Commission was taken by Senator Faulkner. {64}
The Joint Commission sat first in Quebec and later in Washington. Among the questions referred to it were those relating to the establishment of the boundary between Alaska and British Columbia; the issues over Bering Sea and the catch of fur seals; the unmarked boundary between Canada and the United States near Passamaqnoddy Bay in Maine and at points between Wisconsin and Minnesota and Canada; the northeast fisheries question, involving the rights of fishing in the North Atlantic off Newfoundland and other points; the regulation of the fishing rights on the Great Lakes; alien-labor immigration across the Canadian-American border; commercial reciprocity between the two countries; the regulation of the bonding system by which goods are carried in bond across the frontier and also the regulation of traffic by international railways and canals of the two countries; reciprocal mining privileges in the Klondyke, British North America and other points; wrecking and salvage on the ocean and Great Lakes coasting waters; the modification of the treaty arrangement under which only one war vessel can be maintained on the Great Lakes, with a view to allowing warships to be built on the lakes and then floated out to the ocean. The sessions of the Joint Commission were continued at intervals until February, 1899, when it adjourned to meet at Quebec in the following August, unless further adjournment should be agreed upon by the several chairmen. Such further
adjournment was made, and the labors of the Joint Commission were indefinitely suspended, for reasons which the President of the United States explained in his Message to Congress, December, 1899, as follows: "Much progress had been made by the Commission toward the adjustment of many of these questions, when it became apparent that an irreconcilable difference of views was entertained respecting the delimitation of the Alaskan boundary. In the failure of an agreement as to the meaning of articles 3 and 4 of the treaty of 1825 between Russia and Great Britain, which defined the boundary between Alaska and Canada, the American Commissioners proposed that the subject of the boundary be laid aside and that the remaining questions of difference be proceeded with, some of which were so far advanced as to assure the probability of a settlement. This being declined by the British Commissioners, an adjournment was taken until the boundary should be adjusted by the two Governments. The subject has been receiving the careful attention which its importance demands, with the result that a modus vivendi for provisional demarcations in the region about the head of Lynn Canal has been agreed upon [see (in this volume) ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION] and it is hoped that the negotiations now in progress between the two Governments will end in an agreement for the establishment and delimitation of a permanent boundary."
CANADA: A. D. 1899 (October).
Modus Vivendi, fixing provisional boundary line of Alaska.
See (in this volume) ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION.
CANADA: A. D. 1899-1900. Troops to reinforce the British army in South Africa.
A proposal from the Canadian government to assist that of the Empire in its South African War was gratefully accepted in the
early stages of the war, and a regiment of infantry called the Royal Canadian, numbering a little more than 1,000 men, sailed from Quebec, October 30. In the following January a second contingent of more than 1,000 men was sent to the field. This latter comprised squadrons of mounted rilles and rough-riders, and three batteries of field artillery. In the same month the Canadian government accepted an offer from Lord Strathcona to raise, equip and transport at his own expense a body of 500 mounted men from the Northwest.
CANADA: A. D. 1900 (November). General election.
The general election of members of the Dominion House of Commons was held November 7, resulting as follows:
As in the election of 1896, the Liberal Ministry of Sir Wilfred Laurier found its strong support in the province of Quebec. Its party suffered unexpected losses in Ontario. The slight meaning of the election was summed up by Professor Goldwin Smith as follows: "The net result of the elections seems to be a Government resting on French Quebec and an Opposition resting on British Ontario. The minor provinces have been carried, as usual, by local interests rather than on general questions. Apart from the distinction of race between the two great provinces and the antagonism, before dormant but somewhat awakened by the war, there was no question of importance at issue between the parties. Both concurred in sending contingents to South Africa. The Liberals, though they went in at first on the platform of free trade at least, of a tariff for revenue only have practically embraced protection under the name of stability of the tariff, and are believed to have received from the protected manufacturers contributions to their large election fund. The other special principles, such as the reduction of expenditure and discontinuance of the bonus to railways, proclaimed by Liberals before the last election, have been dropped. So has reform of the Senate. It is not likely that the Liberal victory will be followed by any change either in legislation or government, or by any special reform. Mr. Bourassa and Monet, of the French-Canadian members who protested against the contingent, have been re-elected. Great as may be the extent and warmth of British feeling, the statement that Canadians were unanimously in favour of participation in the war must not be taken without qualification. For myself, I felt that so little principle was at stake that I voted for two Conservatives on their personal merits."
{65}
CANAL, The new Bruges.
See (in this volume)
BRUGES: A. D. 1900.
CANAL, The Chicago Drainage.
See (in this volume)
CHICAGO: A. D. 1900.
CANAL, City of Mexico Drainage.
See (in this volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1898.
CANAL, The Elbe and Trave.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (JUNE).
CANAL, Interoceanic, The Project of the: A. D. 1581-1892. The early inception of the project. Movements towards its realization.
"The thought of uniting the two great oceans by means of a canal across the American isthmus sprang up, as is known, from the moment the conviction was reached that the passage which, from the days of Columbus, was thought to exist towards the Southern Sea, was not a reality. … Nevertheless the first survey of the land was not carried out until the year 1581, when, in obedience to superior instructions, Captain Antonio Pereira, Governor of Costa Rica, organized an expedition and explored the route by way of the San Juan river, the lake, and the rivers emptying into Gulf Nicoya, Costa Rica. Thirty-nine
years later Diego de Mercado submitted to King Philip III his famous report of January 23, 1620, suggesting the route by the river and lake, and thence through Costa Rican territory along the Quebrada or Barranca Honda to Salinas Bay, then called Puerto del Papagayo. Either because the magnitude of the undertaking was at that time superior to the necessities of trade, or, as was said, because Spain considered the canal antagonistic to her interests, the era of independence arrived without the execution of the project ever having been entered upon. After independence the Congress of Central America, in which Costa Rica and Nicaragua were represented as States of the Federation which succeeded the Colonial Government, enacted on June 16, 1825, a decree providing for the construction of the canal, and in that same year Don Antonio José Cañas, Diplomatic Representative of Central America in Washington, addressed the Secretary of State, Mr. Henry Clay, informing him of this resolution and stating that: 'A company formed of American citizens of respectability was ready to undertake the work as soon as a treaty with the United States insuring the coöperation of the latter was signed; that he was ready to enter into negotiations for the treaty, and that nothing would be more pleasant for Central America than to see the generous people of the United States joining her in the opening of the canal, sharing the glory of the enterprise, and enjoying the great advantages to be derived from it.' The Government of Central America could not carry the undertaking into effect, notwithstanding that among the means employed to reach the desired result there figures the arrangement concluded with the King of Holland in October, 1830. But, though the hopes centered in the undertaking were frustrated, to the honor of Central America the declarations of that Congress, which constitute, like the concession for the canal itself, one of the loftiest public documents ever issued by any nation of the earth, have become a matter of record. The Central American Federation dissolved, this important matter attached to Nicaragua and Costa Rica directly, and the boundary line between the two republics having been determined
