Content uploaded by Gilbert Burgh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gilbert Burgh on Apr 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
38
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy:
A case for philosophy in the curriculum
Gilbert Burgh
University of Queensland
g.burgh@uq.edu.au
Abstract
The studies by Trickey and Topping, which provide empirical support that
philosophy produces cognitive gains and social benefits, have been used to advocate
the view that philosophy deserves a place in the curriculum. Arguably, the existing
curriculum, built around well-established core subjects, already provides what
philosophy is said to do, and, therefore, there is no case to be made for expanding it
to include philosophy. However, if we take citizenship education seriously, then the
development of active and informed citizens requires an emphasis on citizen
preparation, but significantly more than the existing curriculum can provide,
namely, the acquisition of knowledge and skills to improve students’ social and
intellectual capacities and dispositions as future citizens. To this end, I argue for a
model of democratic education that emphasises philosophy functioning
educationally, whereby students have an integral role to play in shaping democracy
through engaging in philosophy as collaborative inquiry that integrates pedagogy,
curriculum and assessment. I contend that only philosophy can promote democracy,
insofar as philosophical inquiry is an exemplar of the kind of deliberative inquiry
required for informed and active democratic citizenship. In this way, philosophy can
make a fundamental and much needed contribution to education.
Key words
Australian curriculum; citizenship education; deliberative inquiry; democratic
education; John Dewey; pedagogy
Introduction
If philosophy improves academic performance, and delivers social gains, then there
is no good educational reason it should not receive appropriate funding,
institutional support and be allocated a place in the curriculum for the betterment of
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
39
all students and wider society. The much-touted studies by Trickey and Topping
provide empirical support that philosophy does indeed produce cognitive gains and
provide social benefits (Trickey & Topping 2004, 2006, 2007; Topping & Trickey
2007a, 2007b, 2007c). However, philosophy has not been given priority on the
education agenda as it is often seen as irrelevant to modern society. Its ivory tower
associations, in a decidedly anti-intellectual political climate, contribute to
philosophy suffering ‘from an image problem, with it sometimes being thought of as
a remote and abstract discipline suitable only for a small number of academically-
minded adults’ (Millett & Tapper 2012, pp. 546-547). Thoughts of philosophers
conjure images closer to Rodin’s The Thinker, motionless, introverted, cold and
distant, instead of cognitively able and active members of society. Moreover, within
philosophy’s most esteemed ranks, Plato himself can be quoted as saying that
philosophy is not mere child’s play, but rather, serious business. Unfortunately, this
attitude is enduring, as Philosophy for Children founder, Mathew Lipman (1993)
attests:
To the report that very young children almost invariably greeted opportunities
to discuss philosophy with joy and delight, the standard reply was that this
proved that the children could not be doing philosophy, since the study of
philosophy is a serious and difficult matter. The recent career of philosophy in
elementary and secondary education has been a matter of overcoming precisely
these objections and misconceptions. (p. 5)
Arguably, the existing curriculum, built around well-established core subjects
(referred to here as learning areas), already provides what philosophy is said to do,
and therefore, there is no case to be made for expanding it to include philosophy (see
Pritchard 2014). I take the opposing stance, and argue that philosophy is unique in
its ability to provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to improve their
capacity as future citizens to be able to exercise competent autonomy. Put another
way, I argue that only philosophy can promote democracy, insofar as philosophical
inquiry is an exemplar of the kind of deliberative inquiry required for informed and
active democratic decision-making. I propose a model of democratic education that
emphasises philosophy functioning educationally; that recognises the social role of
schooling as a means of achieving social reconstruction in which students have an
integral role to play in shaping democracy. In this way, philosophy can make a
fundamental and much needed contribution to the present curriculum; a view that
has been promoted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) (2007) in Philosophy: A School of Freedom. UNESCO endorses
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
40
teaching philosophy to promote the development of critical reasoning and the
exercise of freedom, placing emphasis on ‘putting concepts and ideas into
perspective’ through reflection and developing ‘each person’s skills to question,
compare *and+ conceptualise’, which are requisite for ‘an open, inclusive and
pluralistic, knowledge-oriented society’ (p. ix). As such, philosophy can provide an
education that Matthew Lipman (1988) described ‘as a form of life that has not yet
been realized and as a kind of praxis’ (p. 17), toward the development of lifelong
learners.
I begin with a broad overview of the Australian Curriculum as an example of an
educational environment in which philosophy has the potential to contribute where
other learning areas cannot, or do not, offer the same educational force. Much can be
learned from examining Australia as an example, for like other Western democracies,
such as the UK, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, it is underpinned by a liberal
discourse that drives education primarily toward economic concerns, ahead, and
often to the detriment, of a multitude of other educational aspirations, included
those described by UNESCO above.
The Australian Curriculum
The idea of a nationwide curriculum for all Australian students is not new, and has
been on the political agenda at least since the late 1980s when Prime Minister Bob
Hawke and the Federal Labor government attempted to achieve agreement from
State governments. However, by 1991 the initiative was abandoned due to lack of
consensus from state education ministers. In August 2006, it was back on the agenda.
The renewed push came from then Liberal Prime Minister John Howard who
convened the Australian History Summit, which recommended that Australian
History be a compulsory subject in the curriculum for Years 9 and 10 in all
Australian schools. According to Howard, the call was a response to criticism of a
lack of awareness of historical events by Australian students and the Australian
population generally. Due to the defeat of the Howard government at the 2007
Federal election implementation was never fully achieved.
In 2008, a significant change occurred when the Rudd Labor Government
established an independent National Curriculum Board. Unlike Howard, who could
be described as having a nationalist view of Australia’s past, hence his push for
Australian History to be included on the curriculum, Kevin Rudd leaned toward a
regional and global world view. The Board appointed four academics to draft
framing documents to establish a broad direction for the Australian Curriculum in
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
41
four core subject areas: History, English, Science and Mathematics, and in 2009 the
statutory Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)
1
was established to oversee the implementation of the proposed Australian
Curriculum. Many of the reforms that manifest in the curriculum have their origins
in the ‘Education Revolution’ initiative of the Rudd-Gillard Labor government of
2008, which put education at the centre of the ‘productivity agenda’. While Julia
Gillard expressed a desire to reduce inequity, her primary motivating vision was for
‘Australia to become the most educated country, the most skilled economy and the
best trained workforce in the world’ (Gorur 2016). This somewhat reflects the views
of other Prime Ministers before and after her. To Gillard, education was the key to
winning a global economics race; a view that has become an obsession in Australian
politics.
As it now stands, the Australian Curriculum is a national curriculum from
Kindergarten to Year 12 for schools in all states and territories of Australia, and
purports to set more consistent national standards for teachers and students to
improve learning outcomes for all Australian students. It identifies core knowledge,
understanding, skills and capabilities considered to be important for all students as
they progress through school. The Australian Curriculum includes seven general
capabilities that are key dimensions of the curriculum: literacy, numeracy,
information and communications technology (ICT) capability, intercultural
understanding, personal and social capability, ethical understanding, and critical
and creative thinking. All the general capabilities encompass knowledge, skills,
behaviours and dispositions and are identified as playing a significant role in
equipping students for life in complex and changing circumstances.
2
Teachers are
required to assess all general capabilities by incorporating them within learning area
content with the aim of developing successful learners, confident and creative
individuals, and active and informed citizens. The trouble is that the aims of the
curriculum sit at odds with those of the wider political and economic climate.
Further, I contend that without philosophy the aim of developing confident, creative,
active and informed citizens, is undermined. Modern democracies need to confront
the challenge of providing education that is both responsive to an increasingly
complex and globalised world and responsible to the pluralistic needs of students
(Burgh & O’Brien 2002). If education is to contribute to the cultivation of democratic
1
Information is available on the official Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority website:
http://www.acara.edu.au/
2
For an introduction on the role the general capabilities play in the Australian Curriculum see ACARA (n.d.):
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/overview/introduction
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
42
competencies and values to enable civic participation, governments cannot ignore
the importance of citizenship preparation as an integral component of schooling.
Civic participation can be described in two ways: (1) as collective and individual
activities reflecting interest and engagement with governance and democracy, and
(2) as the quality of the participation with regards to deliberative processes and
decision-making. The task of civic participation ‘is for better decisions, supported by
the public and fostering the increased wellbeing of the population’ (Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2006, p. 173). However, a persistent obstacle preventing students
from participating in an education that develops civic participation is the education
system itself. Education in Australia ‘is constrained by bureaucratic rationality,
which not only informs the way teachers approach education, but tends to thwart
efforts by teachers and parents who seek democratic reforms’ (Burgh 2014, p. 23).
Although there have been attempts to include philosophy in the Australian
Curriculum, it has been a very difficult task to convince education decision-makers
to accept the idea of teaching philosophy at school. In 2009, the Australasian
Association of Philosophy (AAP) established a Working Party to promote the
inclusion of philosophy in the Australian Curriculum,
3
which subsequently
submitted an argument to ACARA.
4
Unfortunately, the submission was
unsuccessful.
It is unfortunate that there is a tendency, even among policy-makers who are
sympathetic toward the goals of lifelong learning, to relegate education to the task of
enabling individuals, organisations and nations to deal with the challenges of an
increasingly competitive neoliberal world. They do this to the neglect of immersing
people in a continuing process of education that focuses on the development of a
learning society, one in which students develop an understanding of the connections
between societal values and their own. Such an understanding is essential in
successful efforts to deal with dissension and confrontation over matters of public
interest, which rely on shared commitments of citizens to provide a context for
deliberation and decision-making. Schools become little more than institutions that
produce a product that is then sold as education to children and parents. The
opportunity is lost to create democratic habits, ‘integrated with work and the rest of
life that prepare and direct children toward becoming an integral part of a well-
informed citizenry’ (Burgh 2014, p. 24).
3
The Australasian Association of Philosophy Chair Graham Oppy with the assistance of Eliza Goddard chaired the
meetings. Member of the Working Party were Monica Bini, Gilbert Burgh, Philip Cam, Clinton Golding, Sue Knight,
Stephan Millett, Janette Poulton, Tim Sprod, Alan Tapper and Adrian Walsh.
4
See ‘The case for inclusion of philosophy in the National Curriculum’, available on the FAPSA website:
http://fapsa.org.au/curriculum/national-curriculum/.
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
43
To achieve the overarching educational goals that most countries, including
Australia, strive for, such as those laid out in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational
Goals for Young Australians, the curriculum needs to be underpinned by an education
aimed at the development of democratic citizens. The Melbourne Declaration, which
informs the Australian Curriculum, is committed ‘to supporting all young
Australians to become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and
active and informed citizens’ (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs 2008, p. 13). This requires more than lessons in civics and
citizenship education. To be active and informed citizens, students require an
understanding of how the curriculum contributes to the development of the
requisite social and intellectual capacities and dispositions. To this end, philosophy
needs to be reconceptualised as collaborative philosophical inquiry that reflects
democracy as a way of life; an inquiry that not only develops students’ capacities for
critical thinking, but also creative thinking, ethical behaviour, and personal and
social capabilities.
Rather than expanding the existing academic curriculum to include philosophy as a
discrete learning area, I argue that philosophy has the potential to contribute its
greatest educational force as an inquiry pedagogy, insofar as it can integrate the
curriculum, not only through the learning areas but through the general capabilities,
in which the development and improvement of thinking is first and foremost.
Through philosophy as collaborative inquiry students improve their cognitive
abilities, increasing not only their knowledge of the learning areas, but also the
connections made between all aspects of the curriculum. In support of these claims,
in the next section I will note the benefits of philosophy by highlighting empirical
studies and applied research that demonstrate that collaborative philosophical
inquiry can have cognitive and social benefits as Lipman contended, ‘not to turn
children into philosophers or decision-makers, but to help them become more
thoughtful, more reflective, more considerate, more reasonable individuals’
(Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1977, pp. 69-70; see also Lipman 1988, especially
chapters 5 & 6). I argue that not only is philosophy useful, it is an essential
pedagogical requirement to the effective teaching of many of the key dimensions of
the curriculum.
Philosophy as an exemplar of democratic education
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
44
There is ample evidence, supported by many international research studies, on the
effectiveness of philosophy in schools (Burgh & Thornton 2016a). According to
Millett and Tapper (2012):
In the past decade well-designed research studies have shown that the practice
of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools can have marked cognitive and
social benefits. Student academic performance improves, and so too does the
social dimension of schooling. (p. 546)
An analysis of 18 studies by Garcia-Moriyon, Robello and Colom (2005) concluded that
‘the implementation of P4C led to an improvement in students’ reasoning skills of
more than half a standard deviation’ (p. 19). Topping and Trickey’s studies concluded
that the practice of collaborative philosophical inquiry produces increases in measured
IQ, sustained cognitive benefits, and clear performance gains in other school studies
(Trickey & Topping 2004, 2006, 2007; Topping & Trickey 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). In
Australia, recent studies have attempted to show to what degree philosophical inquiry
in the classroom has been successful. These studies have demonstrated the potential for
collaborative philosophical inquiry to foster pedagogical transformation (Scholl,
Nichols & Burgh 2008, 2009, 2014, 2016), more effective learning in the science
classroom (Burgh & Nichols 2012; Nichols, Burgh & Kennedy 2015), and the potential
for cognitive dissonance during students’ experiences of inquiry to be transformed into
the impetus for the acquisition and improvement of social and intellectual inquiry
capabilities and thinking behaviours across the curriculum (Nichols, Burgh & Fynes-
Clinton 2017). The empirical evidence points to the effectiveness of philosophy to
increase learning outcomes in a wide range of areas. Lipman’s notion of philosophy as
a community of inquiry (viz. collaborative philosophical inquiry) thought of as a
pluralistic community, focuses on dialogue and collaborative activities that ‘forms an
inclusive cooperative community in which communication and inquiry sow the seeds
for democracy’ (Cam 2006, p. 8).
Lipman’s emphasis on philosophy as a community of inquiry, which draws on the
educational theory and practice of John Dewey, expressly puts thinking at the heart
of teaching and learning, by fostering good habits of thinking; a tradition that has
become known as ‘reflective education’, in which, not Plato but ‘Socrates, most
famously, stands at the beginning’ (Cam 2008, p. 163). Philosophy as collaborative
inquiry is crucial for citizenship preparation and, as I will argue, of all the subjects
available, philosophy as democratic inquiry has the greatest potential to actively
promote the acquisition of democratic habits. However, as it is unlikely that an
upheaval of current institutional practices will be forthcoming, I contend that
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
45
educational reform is better served incrementally, as bottom-up reforms are more
practical as means to subverting dominant epistemic practices and accompanying
social, economic and political agendas. This approach not only regards reform as a
social process, rather than dictated by government policy that must somehow be
implemented, but it also has an educative potential, insofar as it can provide
opportunities for increased participation (from parents, teachers, educators) in the
formulation of educational policy. Moreover, this is a pragmatic approach to the
integration of philosophical awareness and procedures in all aspects of curriculum,
teaching and learning.
The emergence of philosophy in schools illustrates this well. It indicates a growing
willingness of administrators, teachers and parents to challenge the institutional
practices of the educational system. It can also be taken as evidence of acceptance
by the community, generally, of philosophical inquiry as a model of education.
Some educators see the introduction of philosophy in the classroom as a
reappraisal of education, others see it as an appealing approach to be integrated
into the current curriculum or new curriculum innovations, while others realise its
potential of improving reasoning skills or as an appropriate pedagogy for value
inquiry. (Burgh 2014, p. 24)
To this end, I will argue that a suitable framework for assessing philosophy as an
educational approach with regards to citizenship preparation is to distinguish between
what I call ‘education for democracy’ and ‘democratic education’. Whereas education
for democracy focuses on the acquisition of knowledge and skills to improve the
capacity of future citizens to exercise competent autonomy, democratic education
recognises the social role of schooling as that of reconstruction and that both children
and adolescents have an integral role to play in shaping democracy (Burgh 2003a,
2003b, 2009, 2014; Burgh, Field & Freakley 2006; Burgh & Yorshansky 2011). I contend
that education for democracy serves politicians who have a vested interest in
promoting the essentially pre-political conception of citizenship, ‘a means for enabling
individuals, organisations, and nations to meet the challenges of an increasingly
competitive world to the neglect of involving people in a continuing process of
education aimed at self-actualisation and a learning society’ (Burgh 2002, p. 1).
Conversely, democratic education places priority on the development of social and
intellectual capacities and dispositions for active and informed citizenship, insofar as it
recognises democracy as an educational process and not something to educate toward.
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
46
Education for democracy
The desired outcome of education for democracy is an educated citizenry that is
competent to participate in liberal-democratic societies, by providing students with a
‘sufficient degree of social understanding and judgment so that they have the capacity
to think intelligently about public issues’ (Burgh 2014, p. 31). I identify four approaches
to education for democracy favoured by educational policy-makers and curriculum
designers. The first, and obvious, approach is to teach or instil a set of values or
promote such democratic values as respect for the institutions of democracy. This
approach presupposes a common identity that is congruent with dominant values of
the society at the time.
The assumption is that values can be prescriptively taught through either: (1) a
character education approach which identifies the stated values as universally
shared values that students will supposedly accept and enact as guides for
behaviour, or (2) a cognitive developmental approach which promotes moral
reasoning through moral dilemmas or values clarification. (Burgh 2014, p. 32)
An example of this first approach is the National Framework for Values Education in
Australian Schools (Department of Education, Science and Training 2005) which
emphasised democracy underpinned by a set of broadly defined values as a body of
knowledge, rather than the kind of democracy advocated by Dewey as an associated
form of life.
5
A second approach to education for democracy, often referred to as political
education and usually situated in the curriculum as a component of humanities or
social studies programs, teaches students to be adaptable and socially responsible
contributors to society. To achieve this, students require a thorough knowledge and
understanding of their country’s political heritage, democratic institutions and
processes, systems of government, the judicial system, and other aspects that will
assist them to become fully functioning citizens. The assumption is that specific
political knowledge can be attained and that such knowledge should be reinforced in
schools and, as such, it relies heavily on a normative approach to education, which if
not taught critically becomes a model of cultural transmission.
A third approach focuses on political literacy, which lessens the emphasis on
political competence, placing it instead on the development of a broad range of
5
The then Australian Federal Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, proclaimed that the basic values are intuitive of
education itself that ‘parents want prescriptively taught. Imperfect though each of us is as parents, we nonetheless expect
school to reinforce the values we believe important foundations for life’ (Nelson 2004, p. 7).
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
47
knowledge, skills and attitudes that are prerequisites for political understanding
(Wringe 1984, p. 97).
Teaching democracy or democratic values through values education, political
education or political literacy programs inculcates specific political obligations and
social responsibilities that students are expected to embrace as citizens. It is an
illustration of what Gerard Delanty (2003) calls the governmentalisation of
citizenship as a learning process, which tends to emphasise disciplinary citizenship,
i.e. learning citizenship entails the teaching of the official values of the polity as
interpreted by public officials and citizenship is reduced to measuring competence
through formal learning. This is reflected also in ACARA’s (2012) definition of
citizenship:
Citizenship can be formally defined as the legal relationship between an
individual and a state. More broadly, citizenship is the condition of belonging
to social, religious, political or community groups, locally, nationally and
globally. Being part of a group carries with it a sense of belonging or identity
which includes rights and responsibilities, duties and privileges. These are
guided by the agreed values and mutual obligations required for active
participation in the group. In the Australian Curriculum citizenship
incorporates three components—civil (rights and responsibilities), political
(participation and representation) and social (social values, identity and
community involvement). (p. 2)
Education for democracy, however, need not be limited to these three approaches;
the articulation of critical thinking skills in the context of disciplinary knowledge
that informs the learning areas of the curriculum has also been advocated. The aim
of this approach is:
to provide opportunities for students to critically evaluate the principles, values
and processes that underlie democratic institutions and systems of governance.
Rather than superficial discussion of particular facts, emphasis is on the
underlying concepts that those particular facts reflect. The basis of this
approach is to develop an active and informed citizenry able to participate
responsibly as members of their society. (Burgh 2014, p. 33)
Crucial to this fourth approach is that students develop a sufficient degree of social
understanding and judgement to improve their capacity to think intelligently on
matters of public affairs. While this approach is a move in the right direction, the
underlying idea is that students need to first be ‘initiated into the established
traditions and institutional practices, and that gradually they could adapt their
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
48
ability to think critically to novel situations or challenge some practices that may no
longer be rationally defensible’ (Burgh 2014, p. 33). Although the educational focus is
shifted to the development of democratically minded citizens, the desirable citizen is
still characterised by the liberal citizen, namely, an autonomous individual with the
capacity to think rationally and to make choices.
A concern over the dearth of critical thinking capabilities in students has not only
resulted in a call to increase students’ analytic and logical acumen, but it has also re-
kindled an interest in the use of philosophy as an effective pedagogy for facilitating
intellectual engagement. Proponents have been quick to point to the merits of
philosophical inquiry for improving students’ thinking that empowers them to transfer
the skills associated with critical thinking across the curriculum and into other areas of
their lives. However, this conception of philosophy as a teaching method for instilling
thinking skills is misconstrued because ‘it immediately marginalises the social, ethical,
aesthetic, affective and political components that are as integral to the teaching of
thinking as the skills themselves’ (Splitter & Sharp 1995, p. 3). Whereas an adequate
theory of education for democracy cannot avoid the inclusion of critical thinking, it is a
mistake to not acknowledge the integral link between philosophy and democratic
practice, ‘as it is this link that distinguishes education for democracy, whereby
citizenship is seen as a set of values, from democratic education which emphasises
citizenship as a learning process’ (Burgh 2014, p. 34).
Democratic education
Democratic education acknowledges the need for students to have an integral role in
shaping democracy, and that democracy is educative; a process, and not something to
educate toward. Historically, two models of democratic education have emerged; one
emphasising self-regulation and the other the development of communicative and
deliberative capabilities. According to the self-regulating or school governance model,
schools must embody decision-making structures that facilitate and foster meaningful
participation by all members of the school community, so that students will develop as
far as they are capable of developing and share in the responsibility for social
reconstruction and change. A.S. Neill’s renowned Summerhill School is an exemplar of
a permissive self-governing school. Neill (1960a, 1960b, 1992) believed that if students
were given freedom and self-governance in relation to school practices they would
develop good habits and demonstrate the capacity to share responsibility with adults
for positive social reconstruction. Few schools have actually practised school
democracy, insofar as all functions of school management, curriculum, and the
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
49
pedagogical relationship between teachers and students are fully democratised.
Currently, there is a diversity of educational approaches among alternative schools, but
most are less permissive, leaving administration mainly to professionals with varying
degrees of input from students and parents.
It is not evident that freedom and self-governance in relation to schooling are sufficient
to foster an educated citizenry competent to participate in democratic societies.
Speaking on the notion of participation in school governance generally, Mark
Weinstein (1991) has argued that ‘children have neither the responsibility for making
actual school policy decisions, nor information and deliberative competence adequate
to the task’ (p. 16), and that expecting children to participate and share the
responsibility for school governance is ‘contrary to the democratic principles of
nondiscrimination and nonrepression’ (p. 16). Instead, Weinstein favours the
development of communities of inquiry in the classroom, whereby students learn
deliberative strategies not through participation in school governance, but by focusing
on issues in such a way that enables them to prepare for sharing the responsibility of
public deliberation and governance.
Democratic education that focuses on the development of communicative and
deliberative capabilities and attitudes has its roots in a pragmatist interpretation of
Dewey’s educational philosophy, which recognises the importance of education as
communication ‘where different perspectives are brought into ongoing meaning-
creating processes of will-formation’ (Englund 2005, p. 141). As Dewey (1916) put it:
‘Not only is social life identical with communication, but all communication (and
hence all genuine social life) is educative’ (p. 8). Lipman (1991) also recognised the
integral connection between effective communication, education and social life, and
extended Dewey’s philosophy of education to his constructivist pedagogy of the
community of inquiry, which he argued provides a model of democracy as inquiry,
as well as being an educative process. The classroom community of inquiry is, he
says, ‘the embryonic intersection of democracy and education’, and ‘represents the
social dimension of democratic practice, for it both paves the way for the imple-
mentation of such practice and is emblematic of what such practice has the potential
to become’ (pp. 249-250). I cannot stress enough, however, the importance of
Dewey’s contribution to the formulation and evolution of this model of democratic
education.
According to Dewey, an idea must be tested and final judgment withheld until
it has been applied to the situation or state of affairs for which it was intended.
Through reflection and reasoned judgment, the consequences that ensue from
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
50
the testing of ideas are evaluated, and only then do the inquirers establish
meaning. (Burgh 2014, p. 38)
The practical testing of ideas is, therefore, essential for the facilitation of the
Deweyan ideals of thinking, community, autonomy, and democratic citizenship that
it intends to facilitate (Bleazby 2006), and, in turn, essential to Lipman’s formulation
of philosophy as a community of collaborative philosophical inquiry.
To sum up so far, my emphasis on the educative role of philosophy in democratic
education relies on Dewey’s (1916) notion of communion, which is present in his
educative ideal of communal dialogue as being identical with social life. The school
becomes a microcosm of a greater deliberative democratic community that provides
opportunities for students to understand the connection between themselves as
active members of the community, the school of which they are a part, the greater
community, and responsible decision-making. What this reveals is a radical
conception of citizenship.
To convert the classroom into a community of inquiry is to foster in students
the capacity to form opinions about democratic ways of life; to encourage
experimental intelligence and plurality as a way of transforming or
reconstructing society. But it is also accomplished through education as
effective communication which is exemplary in communal dialogue. It is an
educative ideal that moves between the classroom and civil society. (Burgh
2009, p. 9)
This is in stark contrast to citizenship preparation being mainly the responsibility of
a designated learning area, such as civics and citizenship, under the rubric of
humanities and social sciences that provides skills and knowledge ‘to foster
students’ commitment to national values of democracy, equity and justice’ by
developing their appreciation of political institutions and ‘what it means to be a
citizen’ (ACARA 2016, ¶2).
Why should philosophy be taught in schools?
I am now able to answer the question: ‘Is there any good reason to expand the
existing academic curriculum to include philosophy?’ Clearly, there are educational
benefits that can be delivered by the study of mathematics, science and other
learning areas of the curriculum. However, as discussed previously, there is
significant evidence that philosophy increases educational outcomes in terms of both
sustainable cognitive and social benefits, such as the acquisition and improvement of
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
51
social and intellectual inquiry capabilities and thinking behaviours across the
curriculum. In other words, the capabilities and thinking behaviours acquired from
exposure to philosophy are transferrable to other disciplines that inform the learning
areas of the curriculum: English, mathematics, science, humanities and social
sciences, the arts, technologies, health and physical education, and languages.
Nevertheless, philosophy’s ability to enhance studies in other areas is not necessarily
justification enough for including philosophy as an additional learning area in the
curriculum.
On the other hand, if the aim of the Australian Curriculum is more than creating the
most skilled economy and the best trained workforce in the world to compete with
other countries, which the curriculum documents, Melbourne Declaration and
related literature illustrate, then a much stronger case can be made for the inclusion
of philosophy as an integral component of the curriculum. If we take seriously the
claim that ‘*t+he link between schooling, citizenship and democracy is enshrined in
every set of Australian education goals, most recently in Goal 2 of the Melbourne
Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEEDYA 2008), which states
that all young Australians should become active and informed citizens’ (ACARA
2012, p. 3), then citizenship preparation necessitates more than study in a discrete
learning area. It also requires not only understanding of the learning areas and how
they inform our understanding of the world that impacts on social and political
decision-making, but also realisation of the general capabilities in which philosophy
is grounded—especially critical and creative thinking, ethical understanding and
personal and social capability. This is particularly relevant, as the AAP Working
Party noted:
much work has been done in the pedagogy of teaching philosophy about how
to assess more abstract general capacities such as thinking and ethical
behaviour. Philosophy actually enables the assessment of these areas where
most teachers have little idea how they might assess the capacities and
achievements of their students. (AAP Working Party 2009, §4.¶10)
A model of democratic education provides a more effective model for philosophy as
pedagogy, in which the teacher’s role in facilitating inquiry is multifaceted. As well
as being co-inquirer, the teacher is also facilitator:
The latter role requires teachers to draw on their expertise as members of
professional communities (i.e., members of the teaching profession with
interests in key learning areas, such as arts, mathematics, science or history).
Students come to understand that teachers have subject knowledge, but
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
52
teachers need also be aware that their expertise and the expertise of their
discipline or profession is limited, and they must also convey or model this
limitation in their role as co-inquirer. (Burgh & Thornton 2016b, p. 173)
This model of philosophy, as transforming classrooms into communities of inquiry,
relies on developing effective teacher education programs for pre-service teachers
and professional development for qualified teachers to deliver the kinds of teaching
and learning required to integrate pedagogy, curriculum and assessment.
Philosophy as pedagogy is an educational methodology for teaching and learning
across the curriculum. Philosophy has a substantive component in the core concepts
present in the sub-disciplines of ontology, epistemology and axiology (values
inquiry, i.e. ethics and aesthetics) that are embedded in and link all the learning
areas. Philosophy, by its very nature, is open to self-correction as the result of
rigorous inquiry, and, therefore, can make a substantial contribution to assessment,
both formative (as self- and peer-assessment) and summative evaluation.
As the AAP Working Party discovered and I have shown, there is ample evidence to
take seriously a proposal for the inclusion of philosophical inquiry as integral to the
integration of the curriculum and meet a variety of curriculum objectives at once.
By doing philosophy, we can meet curriculum aims from a subject area as well
as many general capabilities. For example, by philosophical discussion of justice
arising from historical cases, we can meet objectives from history and civics and
citizenship, as well as general capabilities of thinking, ethics and self-
management. (AAP Working Party 2009, §4.¶6)
For an effective model of democratic education, attention needs to be on the learning
area of civics and citizenship, and general capabilities of ethical behaviour, personal
and social capability, and critical and creative thinking, and how these connect to the
other learning areas and capabilities, to meet the objectives of citizenship
preparation. It follows that the philosophical and educational basis for developing
the kinds of curriculum materials and accompanying teaching practices that will
enable students to explore the core concepts associated with democracy and
citizenship needs to take into account the primacy of deliberative democracy (i.e. the
development of deliberative and communicative relationships) and to place
emphasis on the radical conception of citizenship as a learning process (i.e.
citizenship is experienced as a practice that connects individuals to their society,
sustained through social reconstruction).
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
53
Conclusion
A case can be made that philosophy should seriously be considered as having a
significant role to play in the curriculum. However, proponents must avoid the two
most common public misconceptions that philosophy is either a remote and abstract
discipline that has no place in schools or claims to have superiority over other
learning areas, insofar as it can show students how to think in the disciplines that
inform the content. Otherwise, this perpetuates an image problem that has severe
repercussions. It makes it difficult to communicate with educators and teachers on
the importance of philosophy, and subsequently, even more difficult to introduce
into education policy.
I have argued that only philosophy can promote democracy, and in doing so it can
make a fundamental and much needed contribution to the present curriculum; a
view that has been promoted by UNESCO. My concern in this article is for the
inclusion of philosophy in the school curriculum, not as a discrete learning area but
as both pedagogy and embedded across the curriculum. In the Australian
Curriculum, philosophy has the potential to contribute to the general capabilities,
key dimensions of the curriculum that encompass knowledge, skills, behaviours and
dispositions, and play a significant role in realising the goals of the Melbourne
Declaration to support students to become successful learners, confident and
creative individuals, and active and informed citizens. All the general capabilities
that are addressed through the learning areas, especially critical and creative
thinking, ethical understanding and personal and social capability, can benefit from
philosophy. In doing so, I propose the inclusion of philosophy not only as
procedural but as substantive content that can engage with core concepts that
underlie and unify the other disciplines as well as inform the learning areas that are
the province of philosophy only. In other words, what philosophy can do is also
allow students to think about what is the core of thinking in each learning area and
how they relate to one another.
To create successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and
informed citizens requires an emphasis on citizen preparation, but significantly more
than the existing curriculum can provide, namely, the acquisition of knowledge and
skills to improve students’ social and intellectual capacities and dispositions as
future citizens. The model of democratic education I propose emphasises philosophy
functioning educationally, whereby students have an integral role to play in shaping
democracy through engaging in philosophy as collaborative inquiry that integrates
pedagogy, curriculum and assessment. The integral role philosophy plays in
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
54
democratic education justifies the inclusion of philosophy as part of the school
curriculum, insofar as no other discipline that informs other learning areas has the
same educational force.
References
Australasian Association of Philosophy Working Party (2009) The case for inclusion
of philosophy in the National Curriculum (report submitted to the Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority *ACARA+ in Oct 2009.
Available from http://fapsa.org.au/curriculum/national-curriculum/
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Measures of Australia’s progress. Belconnen, ABS.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012) The Shape of the
curriculum: Civics and Citizenship. ACARA, Sydney.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2016) Civics and
Citizenship, Australian Curriculum. Available from
http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/learning-areas-subjects/humanities-and-
social-sciences/civics
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d). Introduction to
General Capabilities: Critical and creative thinking. Australian Curriculum.
Available from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/critical-and-
creative-thinking/introduction/introduction
Bleazby, J (2006) Autonomy, democratic community, and citizenship in philosophy
for children: Dewey and philosophy for children’s rejection of the
community/individual dualism. Analytic Teaching, 26(1), pp. 30-52.
Burgh, G (2002) Democratic education: Engaging in self-governance. Paper presented
at A Community of Inquiry on Education, 12th Annual Philosophy in Schools Conference,
Federation of Australasian Philosophy for Children Associations, Brisbane,
Queensland, 28-30 September.
Burgh, G (2003a) Philosophy in Schools: Education for democracy or democratic
education? Critical & Creative Thinking: The Australasian Journal of Philosophy in
Schools, 11(2), pp. 18-30.
Burgh, G (2003b) Democratic education: Aligning curriculum, pedagogy, assessment
and school governance. In P Cam (ed), Philosophy, democracy and education.
Korean National Commission for UNESCO, Seoul, Korea, pp. 102-120.
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
55
Burgh, G (2009) Reconstruction in philosophy education: The community of inquiry
as a basis for knowledge and learning. In Proceedings of 36th Annual Conference
of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia: The ownership and dissemination
of knowledge (CD). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 4-
7 December 2008.
Burgh, G (2014) Democratic pedagogy. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 1(1), pp. 22–44.
Burgh, G, Field, T & Freakley, M (2006) Ethics and the Community of Inquiry: Education
for deliberative democracy. Thomson, South Melbourne.
Burgh, G & Nichols, K (2012) The parallels between philosophical inquiry and
scientific inquiry: Implications for science education. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 44(10), pp. 1045-1059.
Burgh, G & O’Brien, M (2002) Philosophy and education: Integrating curriculum,
teaching and learning. Critical & Creative Thinking: The Australasian Journal of
Philosophy for Children, 10(1), pp. 45-58.
Burgh, G & Thornton, S (2016a) Philosophy goes to school in Australia: A history 1982–
2016. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 3(1), pp. 59-83.
Burgh, G & Thornton, S (2016b) Lucid education: Resisting resistance to inquiry. Oxford
Review of Education, 42(2), pp. 165–177.
Burgh, G & Yorshansky, M (2011) Communities of inquiry: Politics, power and
group dynamics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), pp. 436-452.
Cam, P (2006) Twenty thinking tools. Australian Council for Educational Research,
Camberwell, VIC.
Cam, P (2008) Dewey, Lipman, and the tradition of reflective education. In M Taylor,
H Schreier & P Ghiraldelli Jr (eds), Pragmatism, education, and children:
International philosophical perspectives. Editions Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 163-184.
Delanty, G (2003) Citizenship as a learning process: Disciplinary citizenship versus
cultural citizenship. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(6), pp. 597-605.
Department of Education, Science and Training (2005) National framework for values
education in Australian schools. Australian Government, ACT.
Dewey, J (1916) Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education
Macmillan, New York, NY.
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
56
Englund, T (2005) Rethinking democracy and education: Towards an education of
deliberative democracy. In W Carr (ed), Philosophy of education. Routledge, New
York, NY, pp. 305-313.
Garcia-Moriyon, F, Robello, I & Colom, R (2005) Evaluating Philosophy for Children:
A meta-analysis. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(4), pp. 14-22.
Gorur, R (2016) Governments need to look beyond education rankings and focus on
inequities in the system. The Conversation (Dec 5). Available from
http://theconversation.com/governments-need-to-look-beyond-education-
rankings-and-focus-on-inequities-in-the-system-69715
Lipman, M (1988) Philosophy goes to school. Temple University Press, Philadelphia,
PA.
Lipman, M (1991) Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Lipman, M (1993) The educational value of philosophy. Critical & Creative Thinking:
The Australasian Journal of Philosophy for Children, 1(1), pp. 1-9.
Lipman, M, Sharp, A & Oscanyan, F (1977) Philosophy in the classroom. The Institute
for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, Upper Montclair, NJ.
Millett, S & Tapper, A (2012) Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in
schools. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), pp. 546-567.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2008)
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. MCEETYA,
Melbourne, VIC.
Neill, AS (1960a) Summerhill. Hart, New York, NY.
Neill, AS (1960b) Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. Foreword E Fromm.
Hart, New York, NY.
Neill, AS (1992) The new Summerhill. A Lamb (ed). Penguin, London.
Nelson, B (2004) Values in education. North Shore Times, 28 January. Reprinted in The
Social Educator, 22(3), p. 7.
Nichols, K, Burgh, G & Fynes-Clinton, L (2017) Reconstruction of thinking across the
curriculum through the Community of Inquiry. In MR Gregory, J Haynes & K
Murris (eds), The Routledge international handbook of philosophy for children.
Routledge, London, pp. 245-252.
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
57
Nichols, K, Burgh, G & Kennedy, C (2015) Comparing two inquiry professional
development interventions in science on primary students’ questioning and
other inquiry behaviours. Research in Science Education, 47(1), pp. 1-24.
Pritchard, M (2014) Philosophy for Children. In EN Zalta (ed), Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy. Available from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/children/
Scholl, R, Nichols, K & Burgh, G (2008) Interactions within a philosophical
community of inquiry: Can they transform pedagogy and what do teachers
learn in the process? Paper presented at Changing climates: Education for
sustainable futures, AARE 2008 International Educational Research Conference,
Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, 30 November–4
December.
Scholl, R, Nichols, K & Burgh, G (2009) Philosophy for children: Towards
pedagogical transformation. In J Mitchell (ed), Proceedings of Teacher education
crossing borders: Cultures, contexts, communities and curriculum, Annual Conference
of the Australian Teacher Education Association. Albury, Australia, 28 June–1 July
2009, pp. 1-15.
Scholl, R, Nichols, K & Burgh, G (2014) Transforming pedagogy through
philosophical inquiry. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9(3), pp.
253-272.
Scholl, R, Nichols, K & Burgh, G (2016) Connecting learning to the world beyond the
classroom through collaborative philosophical inquiry. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 44 (5), pp. 436-454.
Splitter, LJ & Sharp, AM (1995) Teaching for better thinking. The classroom community of
inquiry. Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne, VIC.
Topping KJ & Trickey, S (2007a) Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school
children: Cognitive gains at two-year follow-up. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77(4), pp. 787-796.
Topping, KJ & Trickey, S (2007b) impact of philosophical enquiry on school students’
interactive behaviour. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), pp. 73-84.
Topping, KJ & Trickey, S (2007c) collaborative philosophical enquiry for school
children: Cognitive effects at 10–12 years. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77(2), pp. 271–288.
The need for philosophy in promoting democracy Journal of Philosophy in Schools 4(2)
58
Trickey, S & Topping, KJ (2004) Philosophy for children: A systematic review.
Research Papers in Education, 19(3), pp. 365-380.
Trickey, S & Topping, KJ (2006) Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school
children: Socio-emotional effects at 10–12 Years. School Psychology International,
27(5), pp. 599-614.
Trickey, S & Topping, KJ (2007) Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school
children: Participant evaluation at 11–12 years. Thinking: The Journal of
Philosophy for Children, 18(3). pp. 23-34.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2007) Philosophy:
A school of freedom, teaching philosophy and learning to philosophize: Status and
prospects. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Weinstein, M (1991) Critical thinking and education for democracy. Resource publication,
Series 4, No. 2. Institute for Critical Thinking, Upper Montclair, NJ.
Wringe, C (1984) Democracy, schooling and political education. Routledge, London.
