Does Philosophy for Children Improve Primary School Attainment?

The research article "Can Philosophy for Children Improve Primary School Attainment?" by Gorard, Siddiqui, and See explores the effect of Philosophy for Children (P4C) on the attainment and cognitive development of primary school pupils in England. Their large-scale, independent evaluation was motivated by ongoing debates within formal education about balancing the teaching of factual knowledge with the cultivation of reasoning and critical thinking skills. In many primary schools, time for developing such skills is often limited by an intense focus on basic literacy and numeracy. The researchers sought to determine what happens when curriculum time is set aside specifically to enhance young children’s reasoning abilities and collaborative skills, and whether such an approach can also deliver improvements in core academic outcomes.

The study involved a randomised controlled trial across 48 schools, none of which had prior experience with P4C. Twenty-two schools implemented the intervention, while twenty-six served as controls for a one-year period. The intervention aimed to help children become more willing and able to question, reason, construct arguments, and work collaboratively. Across the participating schools, more than 3,100 pupils in Years 4 and 5 were involved, with results measured through Cognitive Abilities Tests (CAT) and Key Stage 2 attainment scores in reading, writing, and maths. The intervention followed the established SAPERE model of P4C, with weekly sessions in which pupils engaged in structured dialogue, posed and selected philosophical questions, and explored these questions through collaborative enquiry, guided by trained teachers.

Results from the study indicate that P4C produces small but positive effects on academic attainment, especially in reading and maths. Specifically, the P4C group saw effect sizes of +0.12 in reading and +0.10 in maths, roughly equivalent to two months’ extra progress after just over a year of weekly sessions. Improvements in writing (+0.03) and CAT scores (+0.07) were negligible overall, which is unsurprising given that P4C activities do not directly involve extended writing practice. However, for pupils eligible for free school meals—a proxy for socioeconomic disadvantage—larger effect sizes were observed: +0.29 for reading, +0.17 for writing, and +0.20 for maths. This suggests that P4C may be especially beneficial for disadvantaged pupils, potentially helping to reduce the poverty gradient in educational attainment. In contrast, no benefit was found for this group in CAT scores, which measure more general cognitive ability.

The research also reviewed the implementation of P4C, noting that teachers found it both enjoyable and beneficial for classroom relationships and pupil confidence. Teachers and pupils alike reported that P4C improved children’s willingness to listen, to articulate their ideas, and to engage with each other in a respectful and thoughtful way. The open and inclusive nature of the enquiry process allowed quieter and lower-achieving pupils to gain confidence and participate more fully in lessons. Observations suggested that classrooms practising P4C saw more student-led dialogue, less dominance by the teacher, and more responsibility for reasoning and questioning taken by pupils themselves. However, challenges were also identified, notably in fitting P4C into crowded timetables and adapting it to existing school routines and subject requirements. Some teachers expressed concerns about preparation time, and there were occasional issues with fairness in the selection of questions or in ensuring that all voices were heard during discussions.

Beyond the specific results of this evaluation, the article places its findings in the context of previous research on P4C. Early studies by Lipman and others in the United States reported significant gains in logical reasoning and reading, with some long-term persistence of these benefits. Subsequent systematic reviews and UK-based studies have generally found moderate positive effects on reasoning, reading, and critical thinking, although the measurement of outcomes has often varied. Some studies have also reported positive effects on confidence, emotional intelligence, and classroom behaviour. The present trial is notable for its large scale, its use of randomisation at the school level, and its careful monitoring of implementation.

For educators, the findings of this study offer several key implications. First, they suggest that using curriculum time to develop children’s reasoning skills through structured dialogue and philosophical enquiry does not harm attainment in core subjects; indeed, it may offer a modest boost, particularly for disadvantaged pupils. This is an important reassurance for schools concerned about diverting time from literacy and numeracy. Second, while the immediate academic gains from P4C are relatively small, there is some evidence that longer and more sustained engagement may yield larger benefits, especially in cognitive and critical thinking domains. Third, successful implementation of P4C requires careful preparation, training, and ongoing support for teachers. It also demands a commitment from school leadership to integrate this approach into the culture of the school, rather than treating it as a one-off intervention.

More broadly, the study reinforces the idea that educational outcomes are not limited to test scores and grades. The wider benefits of P4C—in terms of confidence, classroom relationships, and collaborative skills—are valued by teachers and pupils, even if they are harder to quantify. The approach appears particularly promising as a way of addressing educational disadvantage, given its stronger impact for pupils eligible for free school meals. For schools and policymakers interested in both academic success and the broader development of children as thinkers and citizens, this evaluation provides strong evidence that P4C is a worthwhile and appropriate educational approach.

While P4C may not be the single most effective way to raise attainment in the short term, it does no harm and may offer small but meaningful academic benefits, especially for disadvantaged pupils. The greater value of P4C may lie in its contribution to children’s confidence, reasoning, and engagement with learning—outcomes that are not always captured by test scores, but which are crucial for lifelong learning and active participation in society. For those who believe that reasoning and critical dialogue are essential parts of education, this study demonstrates that P4C can be integrated into primary schooling without risk, and with the potential for significant long-term benefits.