Philosophy for children (Lipman)

1. Introduction

Version followed: the Lipman–Sharp community of philosophical inquiry (Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, IAPC, Montclair) as its historians and current exponents describe it, with session steps taken from the ten-stage UK SAPERE enquiry structure as described in the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) evaluation and a UK trainer's published 10-step model. The p4c Hawai'i variant (Jackson) and the picture-book approach (Wartenberg, Prindle Institute) are named where their procedures are used.

Philosophy for Children (P4C) is an educational programme, not a psychotherapy. Matthew Lipman began writing philosophical novels for children in 1968, ran his first classroom trial in 1970–71, moved to Montclair State College in 1972, and co-founded the IAPC there with Ann Margaret Sharp in 1974 [source: VAPS narrative history, adapted from Gregory, Haynes and Murris (eds.) 2016]. The original curriculum was a series of novels for children and teenagers (beginning with Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery), each with a teacher's manual of conceptual explanations, exercises and activities; Jackson counts seven novels and seven manuals [source: VAPS; Jackson, "Home Grown"]. Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery is commonly dated 1974 [uncertain: not verified].

Core idea of how change happens: children read or meet a shared stimulus, raise their own questions, choose one, and reason it through together as a "community of inquiry" whose discussion is self-correcting; repeated practice is meant to strengthen reasonableness and judgment, which Lipman analyses as the integration of critical, creative and caring thinking [source: Lipman, Thinking in Education, 2nd ed., 2003, ch. 9 abstract and contents]. Lipman also proposed the community of inquiry as an approach to reducing violence in schools and to educating at-risk children [source: Thinking in Education, Introduction and ch. 5 contents]. Any change in a child's emotional life is not a stated therapeutic aim of the programme; where a psychotherapist uses P4C procedures for clinical goals, that use is [synthesis].

What the psychotherapist does with it: (a) facilitates P4C-style inquiry with children or families where trained (SAPERE and IAPC both run facilitator training); (b) borrows its procedures (question-generation, reason-giving, procedural questioning) inside child, family or group therapy [synthesis]; (c) consults with parents and schools about a child who is struggling in P4C sessions or whose difficulties surface there; (d) handles safeguarding concerns that arise in enquiry; (e) works with a client's own formative experience of philosophical schooling [synthesis]. P4C is not a treatment for any mental disorder and should never be presented as one [synthesis].

2. Framework

P4C has no phases of treatment. Its structure is (i) a training pathway for facilitators and (ii) a repeated session format.

Facilitator training. SAPERE Level 1 (Foundation) is a two-day course with six modules: experience, theorise, plan, facilitate, evaluate and apply P4C; outcomes include taking part in a community of philosophical enquiry, facilitating with procedural questions, planning simple enquiries and evaluating one's own thinking [source: SIL listing of SAPERE Level 1]. An Advanced Level 2 exists [source: SIL listing title]. In the EEF trial, all staff had two days of Level 1 and schools then had up to nine in-school support days over two years; SAPERE recommends advanced training for some teachers [source: EEF 2015]. IAPC offers its own graduate-level and workshop training at Montclair [uncertain: not verified]. In p4c Hawai'i, a philosopher-facilitator joins the class weekly as a partner to the teacher, not an expert over a novice [source: Jackson].

Session format. In the EEF trial schools usually ran one session a week, often in place of a literacy lesson [source: EEF 2015]. The sources fix no session length. The ten SAPERE stages [source: EEF 2015; Dialogue Works 10-step model]:

Lipman's original format was simpler: children read aloud a passage of a novel in turns, raise questions, choose one, and inquire with a facilitator, drawing on the manual's discussion plans and exercises [source: Jackson]. The picture-book version runs read-aloud, questions, choice of one question, dialogue, closing reflection [source: Prindle Institute].

In therapy. No source gives a course length for clinical use. A therapist using inquiry with a child or family sets the number of meetings by the clinical formulation [synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

• Community of inquiry. The group, not the adult, owns the inquiry. Practical meaning: the facilitator asks more than tells and redirects questions to peers [source: EEF 2015; Prindle].
• Children can philosophise. P4C rests on children's natural ability to wonder and question (Lipman; Matthews documented children's philosophical questions). Practical meaning: take the child's question seriously as a real question [source: Tes briefing; Prindle].
• Questions come from the children. Practical meaning: the facilitator may prepare possible questions but does not impose them [source: Prindle; EEF 2015].
• Fallibilism and self-correction. Lipman frames the community's knowledge as "reflective equilibrium" that is constantly revised. Practical meaning: model changing your mind and invite revisions [source: Thinking in Education, ch. 9 abstract].
• Critical, creative and caring thinking. Lipman's three dimensions of thinking. Practical meaning: value precision and reasons, fresh alternatives, and care for others and for what matters, all at once [source: Thinking in Education, chs. 9–12]. SAPERE's "4Cs" (adding collaborative thinking) [uncertain: not verified].
• Judgment over drill. Lipman lists drill in thinking skills as a misconception. Practical meaning: practise skills inside real dialogue, not as worksheets [source: Thinking in Education, ch. 3 contents].
• Intellectual safety. In p4c Hawai'i, the intellectually safe community comes first. Practical meaning: no put-downs; any idea can be voiced and examined [source: Jackson].
• Facilitator as conductor and participant. Practical meaning: guide the flow of voices without dominating content; admit not knowing [source: Prindle].
• Disagreement is welcome when respectful; opinions need reasons. Practical meaning: ask for reasons every time a view is offered [source: Prindle norms].
• Partnership, not hierarchy. Practical meaning: a visiting facilitator and a teacher learn from each other [source: Jackson].
• Education, not indoctrination. Lipman's heading for his violence-reduction chapter. Practical meaning: the adult does not steer children to a pre-set moral answer [source: Thinking in Education, ch. 5 contents].
• Clinical boundary. Practical meaning: P4C is education; when a therapist uses it, clinical duties (assessment, safeguarding, confidentiality limits, consent) stay in force [synthesis].
• Child's assent as well as parental consent. Practical meaning: a child may decline to speak or to take part in a therapy group run on inquiry lines without penalty [synthesis].
• Multiple relationships. A therapist who is also the child's teacher or school facilitator should weigh the risks under APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 (Multiple Relationships) [source: APA Ethics Code, https://www.apa.org/ethics/code].

4. Intervention inventory

The sources describe the session stages and facilitator moves (items 3–15) and the original curriculum materials (16–18); the clinician-side procedures (1–2 and 19–24) are therapist work added around the programme and are marked [synthesis] where no source supports them.

4.1 Screening a child's fit for an inquiry group or for inquiry-based work

• Purpose / when: before a therapist runs a P4C-style group, or before recommending P4C-style dialogue in family work. [synthesis]
• Steps: (1) Gather developmental, language, hearing and attention history from parents and school. (2) Check for social anxiety, selective mutism, trauma triggers likely to be touched by common P4C themes (fairness, friendship, death, families, fear). (3) Ask about current safeguarding concerns and recent losses. (4) Decide whether group, individual, or no inquiry work fits, and what adjustments (visual supports, written replies, a passing option) are needed. [synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative): "In these groups children talk about big questions like what makes something fair. Are there topics that might be hard for her right now?"
• Watch for: a child placed in a group mainly to fix behaviour; topics that mirror an active family crisis. Working: the child joins with adjustments agreed in advance. [synthesis]

4.2 Consent, assent and information for parents

• Purpose / when: before any therapy use of inquiry with under-18s. [synthesis]
• Steps: (1) Explain that this is a thinking-and-talking method drawn from an education programme, not a treatment. (2) Obtain parental consent per local law and the child's assent in age-appropriate words. (3) Explain confidentiality limits, including that safeguarding concerns will be acted on. (4) Tell the child they can pass, listen only, or stop. [synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative): "You never have to answer. You can say 'pass' and still be part of the circle."
• Watch for: a child who agrees only to please; parents expecting the child to be taught a particular view. [synthesis]

4.3 Setting up the circle and the group's guidelines

• Purpose / when: first session and whenever norms slip. P4C runs in a circle; Lipman's classes read in a circle [source: Jackson].
• Steps: (1) Seat everyone, adult included, in one circle. (2) Agree child-friendly norms; the Prindle list includes hands up, one speaker at a time, careful listening, no side talk, respect for others' opinions, reasons for opinions, respectful disagreement, enjoying thinking together. (3) Revisit and practise them often [source: Prindle]. (4) In p4c Hawai'i style, frame the circle as an intellectually safe community [source: Jackson].
• Example language (illustrative): "In this circle we can disagree with ideas, but we look after people. What rules would help us do that?"
• Watch for: rules imposed rather than agreed; norms used to silence. Working: children remind one another of the rules.

4.4 Preparation (getting set)

• Purpose / when: opening of every session; community-building early on, thinking-skills games later [source: Dialogue Works].
• Steps: (1) Run a short warm-up suited to the group's stage (community-building games early; reasoning or concept games later). (2) Occasionally revisit P4C's aims or guidelines. [source: Dialogue Works]
• Example language (illustrative): "Before we start: one word for how your thinking feels today."
• Watch for: warm-ups that become the whole session. Working: the group settles and attends.

4.5 Choosing and presenting a stimulus

• Purpose / when: stage 2. The stimulus should engage the group and contain "big" ideas that are common, central and contestable [source: Dialogue Works]. Stimuli include a book, a big question, an image or music [source: Tes]; Lipman's novels [source: Jackson]; picture books (Wartenberg) [source: Prindle]. SAPERE Level 1 teaches what makes a good stimulus [source: SIL].
• Steps: (1) Pick material with at least one contestable concept (fairness, friendship, truth, identity). (2) Screen it against what you know of the group's losses and stresses [synthesis]. (3) Read aloud slowly, pause on pictures and characters' feelings [source: Prindle]; in Lipman's format, children read aloud in turns [source: Jackson].
• Example language (illustrative): "Let's look at this picture for a moment before anyone speaks."
• Watch for: stimuli with a single obvious moral; stimuli that could be retraumatising in a clinical group [synthesis]. Working: questions arrive easily.

4.6 Thinking time (personal response)

• Purpose / when: stage 3; gives every child private time before talking [source: Dialogue Works].
• Steps: (1) Model silent thought; build the silence up over sessions. (2) Invite jotting or drawing ideas. [source: Dialogue Works]
• Example language (illustrative): "Quiet thinking first. Draw or write anything the story made you wonder."
• Watch for: discomfort with silence (in adult or children). Working: more children have something to offer.

4.7 Question-making in small groups

• Purpose / when: stage 4; children turn responses into open, discussible questions [source: Dialogue Works; EEF 2015].
• Steps: (1) Form groups of about three to five. (2) Each group shares responses, then writes one open question. (3) Collect them (often 6–10 in a class). [source: Dialogue Works]
• Example language (illustrative): "Which question could your group not answer just by looking it up?"
• Watch for: closed factual questions; one child writing for the group. Working: questions start with "why", "should", "what is". [synthesis on markers]

4.8 Question-airing

• Purpose / when: stage 5; celebrate, analyse and compare questions [source: Dialogue Works].
• Steps: (1) Display questions prominently, for example on the floor. (2) Ask authors to clarify ambiguity. (3) Point out links and significant differences. [source: Dialogue Works]
• Example language (illustrative): "These two questions both mention 'fair'. Are they asking the same thing?"
• Watch for: ridicule of a question; adult re-wording that takes ownership. Working: children start linking questions themselves.

4.9 Question-choosing

• Purpose / when: stage 6; agree one focus question, usually by vote, sometimes negotiated by the facilitator [source: Dialogue Works; EEF 2015].
• Steps: (1) Choose a voting method (single vote, multiple votes, eyes-closed vote). (2) Announce the result; acknowledge questions not chosen and keep them for later. [method options synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative): "We'll keep every question on the wall. Today we start with this one."
• Watch for: the same children's questions always winning; a distressing question chosen in a clinical group (pause and check in) [synthesis].

4.10 First words

• Purpose / when: stage 7; opening the enquiry [source: Dialogue Works].
• Steps: (1) Invite the authors to explain their question. (2) Or use think-pair-share, or ask for an initial proposal. (3) With experience, ask the group to name assumptions in the question, or use "write to reply" so first thoughts are written before spoken. [source: Dialogue Works]
• Example language (illustrative): "What made your group want to ask this?"
• Watch for: a single voice setting the frame. Working: several distinct positions appear.

4.11 Building (middle words) and the mid-point progress check

• Purpose / when: stage 8; build on each other toward a better understanding [source: Dialogue Works].
• Steps: (1) Ask children to say whom they agree or disagree with and why. (2) Connect ideas and highlight agreement and disagreement; summarise progress [source: Prindle]. (3) Pause midway and ask what progress has been made [source: Dialogue Works]. (4) Slow down when ideas tangle [source: Prindle].
• Example language (illustrative): "Let's stop. What do we understand now that we didn't at the start?"
• Watch for: turn-taking without building (a series of unconnected opinions). Working: children refer to each other's reasons by name.

4.12 Procedural questioning: the Good Thinker's Tool Kit (p4c Hawai'i)

• Purpose / when: throughout the dialogue; Jackson's kit of seven tools (WRAITEC) uses questions about meaning, reasons, assumptions, inferences, truth, and examples and counter-examples [source: Jackson]. The source does not set out the letter-to-tool mapping explicitly [uncertain]. SAPERE trains facilitators in procedural questions [source: SIL].
• Steps: (1) Introduce one tool at a time. (2) Post the tools visibly. (3) Invite children, not only the adult, to use them on each other.
• Example language: "What do you mean?" and "What are your reasons?" [source: Jackson, quoted]; "Can someone think of an example where that isn't true?" (illustrative)
• Watch for: questions used as a weapon against one child; mechanical use. Working: children ask for reasons unprompted.

4.13 Distributing voice: dominant and quiet speakers

• Purpose / when: whenever participation is lopsided [source: Prindle].
• Steps: (1) Redirect to peers rather than answering yourself. (2) Invite other views and make room for quieter children. (3) Manage dominant speakers while turning to other voices. [source: Prindle] (4) Offer non-verbal or written ways in (thumbs, cards, written replies) [synthesis].
• Example language: "Does anyone see it differently?" [source: Prindle, quoted]; "Let's hear from someone who hasn't spoken yet." (illustrative)
• Watch for: pressure on an anxious or selectively mute child to speak [synthesis]. Working: more children speak and reply to one another.

4.14 Last words

• Purpose / when: stage 9; final thoughts from everyone; quieter children often speak here [source: Dialogue Works].
• Steps: (1) Go round the circle; passing allowed. (2) Note different directions for further thought. [source: Dialogue Works]
• Example language (illustrative): "One last thought: has your thinking changed, stayed the same, or got more complicated?"
• Watch for: children repeating others to fit in. Working: final thoughts show movement or new questions.

4.15 Review ("what went well / even better if")

• Purpose / when: stage 10, after a break or at the end; mainly to plan the next enquiry [source: Dialogue Works]. SAPERE trains learners and educators to evaluate P4C [source: SIL]; closing reflection in the Prindle format asks what was discovered or whether thinking changed [source: Prindle].
• Steps: (1) Ask what went well and what would be even better. (2) Agree lines of further enquiry and a skill to practise. (3) Invite suggestions for the next stimulus. [source: Dialogue Works]
• Example language (illustrative): "What did we do well as thinkers today? What would make it even better next time?"
• Watch for: review used to praise or blame individuals. Working: the group sets its own next target.

4.16 Novel reading with manual exercises and discussion plans (Lipman's original curriculum)

• Purpose / when: IAPC-style delivery with Lipman's novels and manuals [source: Jackson; VAPS].
• Steps: (1) Children read a chapter aloud in turns. (2) They raise questions, which are recorded. (3) The group chooses one. (4) The facilitator draws on the manual's conceptual notes, exercises and discussion plans for the ideas in play. [source: Jackson; VAPS] Detailed structure of a discussion plan [uncertain: not verified].
• Example language (illustrative): "The manual has some questions about 'thinking about thinking'. Shall we try a few?"
• Watch for: manuals followed as scripts. Jackson reports the manuals as "unwieldy and difficult to use" and needing a separate class period [source: Jackson]. Working: exercises deepen the children's own question rather than replace it.

4.17 Building emotional vocabulary within inquiry

• Purpose / when: Lipman includes a chapter on the emotions in thinking, with a section on word clusters for building verbal fluency about emotions [source: Thinking in Education, ch. 6 contents]. The exercise content itself [uncertain: not verified].
• Steps (therapist adaptation) [synthesis]: (1) When an emotion word arises in dialogue, pause. (2) Ask the group for related words and how they differ (annoyed, angry, furious). (3) Ask what reasons a person might have for each feeling. (4) Return to the question.
• Example language (illustrative): "Is being jealous the same as being envious? How could we tell?"
• Watch for: a child's own feelings put on display; keep examples hypothetical in group [synthesis]. Working: richer, more precise emotion talk.

4.18 Inquiry on violence and justification

• Purpose / when: Lipman's community-of-inquiry approach to violence reduction, which compares appeals to adult experience, the child's own experience, persuasion and reason, and links judgment to cognitive work [source: Thinking in Education, ch. 5 contents]. Detailed procedure [uncertain: not verified].
• Steps (therapist adaptation) [synthesis]: (1) Choose a stimulus about conflict that is not about any group member. (2) Ask when, if ever, hurting is justified, and what reasons people give. (3) Test those reasons with examples and counter-examples. (4) Close with what the group thinks a fair response looks like.
• Example language (illustrative): "If someone hits back, is that the same as hitting first? What are your reasons?"
• Watch for: disclosures of violence at home (go to 4.21); justifications that excuse a current bully. Working: children give and weigh reasons rather than react.

4.19 Using inquiry inside individual or family therapy

• Purpose / when: a child or family who argues by assertion, a young person preoccupied with fairness, meaning or identity, or a family that cannot disagree safely. [synthesis]
• Steps: (1) Agree a shared stimulus (a story, picture, or family-chosen question). (2) Each member writes a question. (3) The family chooses one. (4) The therapist uses procedural questions (meaning, reasons, examples) and stays neutral on the answer. (5) Close with what each person heard from another. [synthesis, adapted from the stages in 4.5–4.15]
• Example language (illustrative): "Tonight we're not deciding who's right. We're finding out what each of us thinks 'respect' means."
• Watch for: a parent using the method to win; a child's distress beneath an abstract question. Working: family members cite one another's reasons accurately.

4.20 Consultation with parents and schools

• Purpose / when: a child struggles in P4C (silence, upset, conflict) or difficulties first show in enquiry; a school asks a therapist for advice on P4C with a child client. [synthesis]
• Steps: (1) With consent, ask the teacher what happens in sessions. (2) Separate fit with the method from wider difficulties (language, attention, anxiety, social communication). (3) Agree adjustments: thinking time, writing or drawing first, a pass option, a seat near the facilitator. (4) Review in agreed intervals. [synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative): "It sounds like the quiet thinking time helps him, but small-group question-making is hard. Could he write his question first?"
• Watch for: the class seeing P4C as therapy for one child. Working: the child takes part on their own terms.

4.21 Responding to disclosures and safeguarding concerns raised in enquiry

• Purpose / when: a child says something in a circle that suggests harm, neglect or risk. [synthesis]
• Steps: (1) Stay calm; do not probe in the group. (2) Gently move the discussion on and speak to the child privately soon after. (3) Follow the setting's safeguarding procedure and local mandatory-reporting law; record what was said in the child's words. (4) Consider whether the stimulus or topic needs changing for the group. [synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative): "Thank you for telling us. I'd like to talk with you about that just after the circle."
• Watch for: promising secrecy; other children repeating the disclosure. Working: the child is safe and the group's trust holds.

4.22 Assessment and referral when a setting's approach delays assessment

• Purpose / when: a school or parents attribute a child's difficulties (not joining in, misreading, impulsivity) to "not yet used to P4C", and learning or developmental needs (ADHD, autism, dyslexia, SEN) go unassessed. [synthesis]
• Steps: (1) Note specific observations across settings. (2) Discuss with parents why assessment matters regardless of teaching method. (3) Refer for psychological, educational, speech and language or paediatric assessment as indicated, or ask the school's SEN lead to start the local process. [synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative): "P4C may suit her well, but it can't tell us why reading is so hard for her. An assessment can."
• Watch for: framing P4C as a substitute for assessment or support. Working: an assessment is booked.

4.23 Referral both ways with philosophical practitioners

• Purpose / when: an adult or adolescent wants philosophical conversation about meaning, values or decisions; or a philosophical practitioner meets signs of mental disorder or risk. [synthesis]
• Steps: (1) Clarify scope. Philosophical counsellors are not licensed clinicians; a 1999 report on the American Philosophical Practitioners Association (APPA) says its counsellors needed a master's in philosophy and a brief training programme, did not prescribe or probe the past, and that a bid to have New York State license them had little support, while a former American Psychiatric Association president called it "practicing medicine without a license" [source: Cleveland Scene 1999]. APPA's founder is Lou Marinoff, and City College of New York ordered a halt to Marinoff's on-campus counselling (his own account dates the order to November 2000; a 2004 New York Times Magazine article reported it) [uncertain]. (2) Refer to a philosophical practitioner or P4C/community-of-inquiry programme only for non-clinical aims and while clinical care continues as needed. (3) Ask philosophical practitioners to refer back on any risk, symptoms of disorder or safeguarding concern. [synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative): "A philosophy group might be a good place to explore these questions. I'd still want us to keep meeting about the low mood."
• Watch for: philosophical counselling offered as treatment for depression or anxiety. Working: roles are clear to client and both practitioners.

4.24 Facilitator self-review and co-facilitation

• Purpose / when: keeping practice faithful to inquiry. Jackson's model pairs a philosopher-facilitator with the class teacher weekly, each learning from the other [source: Jackson]; SAPERE Level 1 includes evaluating one's own thinking [source: SIL].
• Steps: (1) After each session note: how many children spoke, how often children replied to each other, how often you supplied content. (2) Review with a co-facilitator or supervisor. (3) Set one change for next time. [steps synthesis]
• Example language (illustrative, to a co-facilitator): "I answered three questions I should have handed back. Can you flag it next time?"
• Watch for: the adult's views steering conclusions. Working: adult talk falls and peer exchanges rise.

5. Handling problems

The sources address dominant and quiet speakers, off-topic drift and tangled ideas (Prindle) and the difficulty of the original manuals (Jackson). Everything else below is [synthesis].

• Silence after the stimulus or question. Lengthen thinking time, use think-pair-share or "write to reply" before speaking [source: Dialogue Works]; offer a concrete sub-question ("Is it ever fair to treat people differently?") [synthesis].
• Dominant speakers. Redirect to peers and invite other views [source: Prindle]; use a talking object or a rule that you reply to someone before adding a new point [synthesis].
• Off-topic drift. Return to the chosen question, but stay with a promising new turn [source: Prindle]; name the drift and let the group decide whether to follow it [synthesis].
• Tangled, circular discussion. Slow the pace and summarise progress [source: Prindle]; run the mid-point check from 4.11 [source: Dialogue Works].
• "There's no right answer, so anything goes." Separate open questions from unreasoned answers; ask which reasons are stronger and why. Lipman's fallibilism means revising toward better judgments, not relativism [synthesis, drawing on Thinking in Education ch. 9 abstract].
• Children seeking the adult's answer. Hand the question back; say honestly when you don't know [source: Prindle]; give your own view, if at all, only at the end and as one view [synthesis].
• Ridicule or put-downs. Stop, restate the intellectual-safety agreement [source: Jackson on intellectual safety], speak privately with those involved; repeated harm means the group is not yet safe for open topics [synthesis].
• Distress or overwhelm triggered by a topic (death, divorce, pets dying, fairness at home). Pause, acknowledge feelings, offer a pass or a quiet space, check in privately afterwards; in a clinical group, review stimuli against members' histories in advance [synthesis].
• Disclosure of harm. Follow 4.21 and local safeguarding procedure; never investigate in the circle [synthesis].
• Selective mutism, social anxiety, language disorder, hearing loss. Never require speech; use written, drawn or gestured contributions; liaise with speech and language or clinical services [synthesis].
• Autistic or ADHD children. Make turn-taking rules visual, allow movement or fidget objects, prepare the stimulus beforehand, keep questions concrete at first; treat literal or unusual thinking as a valid contribution [synthesis].
• Non-adherence (school or family drops sessions). P4C benefits are said to come from regular use [source: Tes]; agree a realistic rhythm rather than abandon it; in therapy, link inquiry tasks to the client's own goals [synthesis].
• Parental or community objection to discussing values, religion or identity. Explain that the method does not teach a set answer (Lipman's "education, not indoctrination") [source: Thinking in Education ch. 5 contents]; respect family and religious commitments; offer the opt-out; use the Cultural Formulation Interview with its spirituality, religion and moral traditions module where a family's tradition is central [synthesis].
• Rupture with a child after being challenged in dialogue. Name it, apologise for any sense of being cornered, clarify that ideas, not the person, were being questioned; repair before the next group [synthesis].
• Multiple-relationship tension (therapist is also the class facilitator). Keep therapy content out of the classroom circle; agree with the child and parents what the school knows; weigh the arrangement under APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 [source: APA Ethics Code, https://www.apa.org/ethics/code]; hand over facilitation where roles blur [synthesis].
• Facilitator drifts into lecturing or scripted manuals. Jackson reports the original manuals as hard to use [source: Jackson]; use them as resources, not scripts, and review adult talk time with a co-facilitator (4.24) [synthesis].
• P4C being offered as treatment. Correct the framing; P4C and philosophical counselling are not treatments for mental disorder; make referrals for assessment and therapy (4.22, 4.23) [synthesis].
• Competence and training. Before running P4C as P4C, complete a recognised course (for example SAPERE Level 1, or IAPC training) [source: SIL; IAPC training detail uncertain]; check that professional liability cover extends to group educational work [synthesis].

Sources

• EEF Project Report: Philosophy for Children (Gorard, Siddiqui and See, 2015), Education Endowment Foundation — evidence line: about two months' additional progress in KS2 reading and maths (effect sizes +0.12 and +0.10), no clear effect on writing, "moderate" security.
• P4C 10 step model, Dialogue Works
• A Narrative History of the Philosophy for Children Movement, VAPS (adapted from Gregory, Haynes and Murris, eds., 2016)
• Jackson, T. E., "Home Grown", Educational Perspectives 44 (1–2), p4c Hawai'i
• Lipman, M., Thinking in Education, 2nd ed., ch. 9 "The Transactive Dimensions of Thinking", Cambridge University Press, 2003
• Lipman, M., Thinking in Education, 2nd ed., front matter and contents, Cambridge University Press, 2003
• Richardson, A. and Herman, J., Philosophy for Children: A Pedagogical Introduction, Prindle Institute for Ethics
• SAPERE Philosophy for Children (P4C) Foundation Level 1 Training, School Improvement Liverpool
• Wright, S., The 30-second briefing: What is 'philosophy for children'?, Tes, 2016
• Marino, J., Dr. Think Good, Cleveland Scene, 1999
• APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
• Books cited: Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Gregory, M. R., Haynes, J. and Murris, K. (eds.) (2016). The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophy for Children. Routledge (as cited by VAPS). Lipman, M. Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery [uncertain: publication details not verified].