We must make value judgments every day, and it’s easy to make decisions for the wrong reasons because they’re based on flawed logic. Unfortunately, even the basic principles underlying these daily decisions are not standard curriculum in pre-college education. Restricting the focused teaching of logic and critical thinking to the college level, attended only by 28 percent of American adults, and much less worldwide, does not equip citizens with the proper tools to assess their peers and their society. As a result, most of us don’t know how to develop valid reasons for our decisions, from everyday disputes to choosing a political candidate.
Although concepts of problem solving, value judgments and ethical concerns are aspects of current pre-college curricula, they are not structured or taught as disciplines unto themselves. They are instead propped up against other subjects such as English, mathematics and social studies. Although supporting claims with evidence and assessing a person’s argument rather than his or her character are supposed to be the foundations for every decision, they’re given secondary priority to the accumulation of facts. A 1986 article from the Oxford Review of Education stated that while developing “reasoning skills in children through discussion is generally acknowledged by curriculum aims. There is, however, a lack of any definite teaching strategy to fulfill this need.”
Although the article is almost 30 years old, it emphasizes the transparent respect educators give critical thinking. The term is now used, in the words of professor Bruce W. Davidson, as a “buzzword” that is “chanted like a mantra without much attention to its meaning or practicality.”
With such scant reinforcement of the concepts of critical and logical thinking, it shouldn’t surprise us when voters elect the president they’d prefer to have a beer with. I’m constantly disheartened by high school graduates who sincerely believe that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, or that President Bush is clearly intelligent because he attended an Ivy League school.
Almost 30 years ago, Maryann Ayim wrote an article published in the Canadian Journal of Education emphasizing the connection between logical thinking and reading comprehension, as well as “the inseparability of value issues from most secondary school subject areas.” Ayim argued for some kind of formal philosophical teaching in Canadian elementary and secondary schools, citing a 1977 report identifying, among other impressive feats, fifth graders advancing their reading comprehension by 16 months after a four-month course.
In that article, Ayim noted that Canada’s curriculum was significantly behind the U.S., the home of the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) based at Montclair State University in New Jersey. The IAPC has devised a set of reading and discussion sessions based on philosophical concepts appropriate to the age level of the students. It encourages teaching reasoning and ethics, not by discussing Descartes or Voltaire, but emphasizing deductive inquiry into children’s real philosophical concerns — the meaning of fairness, love and the universe.
The position is not without detractors, and a response to Ayim was published that same year in the journal. Unfortunately for the authors, their arguments were made up of the logical fallacies Ayim’s proposition would hopefully prevent: “Almost since its inception, there has been a tradition in Western thinking of viewing philosophy as suited only for the most mature and informed minds. Plato’s ‘Republic’ does not recommend the study of philosophy much before the age of 40, and then only for the select few.”
They go on to quote similar statements from philosophers Aristotle, Rousseau and Dewey.
Although a 1991 report to the American Philosophical Association indicated more than 40 countries implemented some type of the IAPC’s Philosophy for Children program, the study of philosophy before college is still incredibly rare. Too many go through the entire educational system, if not their whole lives, defending their beliefs with illogical statements. Our flawed education system allows for ill-informed citizens to make decisions based on dishonest corporate marketing campaigns and politicians’ half-truths. Their opinions might count for less, but their votes won’t.
God bless America.
Drew Robert Winter is a State News columnist and an English senior. Reach him at winterdr@msu.edu.
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Problem-solving skills imperative” on social media.
