Comments on: On The Meaning Of High School Philosophy Instruction

By: Mark Anderson

Mark Anderson — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:29:00 +0000

I love the way you have centered your curriculum upon rich and complex texts. This approach demonstrates the spirit of what the Common Core Standards are supposed to be about. I hope more teachers begin to approach literacy in this manner — as professors and facilitators of academic discussion and exploration, rather than as skill and strategy peons.

By: Diana Senechal

Diana Senechal — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:36:00 +0000

Thank you for giving credit where it is due. Indeed, the philosophy program has a five-year history. The current high school philosophy curriculum departs from the previous program: it is strongly grounded in philosophical texts, whereas the argument/inquiry program focused on students’ own arguments about contemporary issues. But there’s also a difference between middle and high school; I teach at the high school level. The argument/inquiry program was based in middle school.
In any case, it is thanks to the original program that the school offers philosophy now—so yes, I am grateful. I am also grateful to my philosophy and literature teachers in high school and onward. No curriculum comes out of a void.

By: Executivedirector

Executivedirector — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:41:00 +0000

.The Philosophy program at CSS has a long history since its founding in 2006 which predates both the current principal tenure and Prof. Senechal’s recent contributions. Both Dr. Thomson (resident philosopher and author of three philosophy for children textbooks), and Dr. Deanna Kuhn (professor of cognitive psychology at Columbia U and the author of several major books on teaching inquiry and argument) and a team of graduate students from Teachers College and CU played key roles in its development. Several research papers, book chapters and education journal articles have shown the powerful effects of philosophy for children programs developed at CSS. I mention this to recognize and give credit where it is due, and as the founding principal of CSS, who fought dearly with a resistant NYCDOE and little funding, to support CSS unique philosophy program in its first 4 years of highly successful history.

By: Diana Senechal

Diana Senechal — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:58:00 +0000

Thank you, Proteach and The Assailed Teacher, for your comments. I think many lessons have complementary goals: to help students understand something concrete about a subject (or work), and to bring them into its uncertainties, open questions, and beauty. To accomplish both in a single lesson is difficult, but over a series of lessons, it can be done–especially when one is not under pressure to get quick results all the time.

I am fortunate to have the freedom to teach these courses. It helps that I teach part-time. If I had a full-time schedule, there would be much less time for mulling over the philosophical works and the lessons. Of course, it’s difficult to make ends meet on a part-time salary; that’s the main drawback. Otherwise, I love this way of life.

By: The Assailed Teacher

The Assailed Teacher — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:05:00 +0000

I have been teaching philosophy as an elective on the high school level for years here in NYC. You seem to have some motivated, brilliant students and it is refreshing to know that they are getting some solid exposure to deep and critical thinking. I deal with the regular, inner-city NYC student. Due to budgetary and time constraints, I do not have the luxury of having them read the oftentimes vexing passages of philosophy books.

Here is my take on it if you or anyone else is interested:
http://theassailedteacher.com/2012/01/03/the-teaching-philosophy-of-teaching-philosophy/

Email me at theassailedteacher@gmail.com. I would love to exchange ideas with you about this.

By: Proteach

Proteach — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 01:48:00 +0000

Teaching critical thinking! Great. In my English class, back in the 1990′s, we read Book of Job and Ecclesiastes in 10th grade. Followed that with a unit on existentialism and read The Stranger by Camus and Waiting for Godot by Beckett.

I can’t say that I understood it at the time, but I can say that the purpose was to think and to think deeply.

No rote. No daily exit slips. No bubbles. I’m sorry for bringing this back to ed deform, but it is almost a reflexive reaction. Good luck!