For starters, have you made your “awesome” lists yet? If not, you’d better get right on that.
Now, for today’s “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” question, submitted anonymously through Formspring.
You seem to be kind of anti-waldorf (correct me if I’m wrong!). Do you feel it’s one of those methods that doesn’t work for you but is fine for others, or do you feel about it how you feel about unschooling? Why?
I really don’t think that Waldorf and unschooling are quite analogous. Waldorf education tends to be done in a structured environment, with text books and a curriculum. It’s a methodology that is applied in multiple settings, from private Waldorf schools to public schools (though the method’s application in public schools has been a subject of controversy) to homeschooling. Some unschoolers even espouse a “Waldorf philosophy,” though by that, I think they mean a focus on nature, open-ended play, etc. more than an implementation of Waldorf methodology. My problems with unschooling lies in the lack of formal/structured education, while my issues with Waldorf education lie in the philosophy and implementation. Either could result in a well-rounded, well-educated child. Either could result in a child who is educationally short-changed. Neither strike me as the ideal education for all or most children.
I like the Waldorf-inspired toys, I like the wide array of art forms Waldorf schools teach to their students, I like that nature is valued, and I like the cool way they paint their walls…and that’s about where my “like” of this methodology ends. I feel that Waldorf can probably work for some children (just like unschooling can work for some children), and some Waldorf schools may not embody all the unpleasant aspects of Waldorf philosophy, but on the whole, I don’t see the Waldorf method as a means of imparting a thorough education in a child. In fact, in confirming some of the things I’d heard and read about Waldorf education, I have actually found some downright frightening aspects to it. I don’t think parents who choose the Waldorf method are being neglectful or have negative/harmful attitudes or intentions, but I also think that many of them don’t explore the roots of Waldorf or consider the greater implications of some of the philosophies and methodologies.
Waldorf education does have some specific aspects that greatly put me off, such as:
No technology — Sorry, folks. I’m a believer in the written word, both the hand-written word and the printed paper book, as much as the next bibliophile, but technology is absolutely ingrained in our society…and much of it with good reason. Technological literacy is as much a necessity as reading literacy at this point, perhaps even more so. Labeling all technology as evil or harmful is absurd. Technology is neutral, on the whole; what you do with it is what gives it weight. Rather than “protecting” children from the supposed dangerous influences of technology, I feel it is important to introduce children to responsible uses of technology in education.
Technology provides an incomparable fount of research and resources, far beyond a library’s physical (and financial) capabilities to hold. Technology provides a means for a child whose brain works faster than his hands or who has certain learning disabilities to get the words out without frustration. This “fearing technology just because” mentality makes no sense — electric lights were a technological advance, the printing press was technological advance, the eyeglasses or contact lenses you wear were a technological advance. What makes them acceptable and not other technology? Because of the newness? Because someone has arbitrarily decided certain technologies are acceptable, but others are not? I don’t think computers necessary need to be in every classroom or used all the time, but there’s an expectation in many Waldorf schools that computing should not be done by students at all, television watched at all, technology from their disapproved list used at all. It’s one of many ways in which Waldorf education attempts to extend its sphere of influence beyond the classroom.
The downplaying of the importance of technology is also one of my biggest qualms with classical education, come to think of it. Come on, guys. I don’t think classical education is a perfect methodology, either.
Intentionally delaying reading — The Waldorf method discourages “early” reading, which they classify as reading before at least 2nd grade. They don’t just mean “don’t push reading.” They actually mean “try to delay it.” Independent reading is discouraged, because apparently reading is somehow damaging to a child. Y’all know how I feel about the importance of reading.
While some Waldorf parents (and some Waldorf schools) may simply not encourage (or in their words, “push”) reading before second grade, some do, in fact, outright discourage “early” reading. The wording “discourage early reading” is used throughout multiple pro-Waldorf information sites. This isn’t just a matter of not teaching or not encouraging reading, but of actively thwarting the learning process if possible, in order to protect the “development of the etheric body.” Rudolph Steiner himself said, “A child who cannot write properly at thirteen or fourteen (I can speak out of my own experience because I could not do it at that age) is not so hindered for later spiritual development as one who early, at seven or eight years can already read and write perfectly.” This is not an education method that loves or values literacy.
Claiming to encourage artistic qualities and creativities, while really controlling the artistic process — The “no black crayons” thing is a great example of this. Elementary school students aren’t allowed to use black crayons in many Waldorf schools. I heard this one directly from my future sister-in-law (who went through Waldorf education) and thought that surely it must have been her school only! Since then, I have had it confirmed in multiple places. Black crayons might lead to horrible things like drawing outlines and black is a “dead color,” apparently. Scroll down to “About Black Crayons at Waldorf” to learn more about that.
Of course, if you have black hair or very dark skin, you’re out of luck. My future-SIL said that her school encouraged substitution of the color blue for black when coloring hair. A commenter in this thread (whose children were enrolled in Waldorf education) expresses quite well why I find this anti-black(and sometimes even brown!) crayon sentiment to be so damaging:
There is no way to express or comprehend how an oriental or African American child must feel being unable to draw their own hair or the hair of their family members. And while there may seem like a stretch to make a racial connection with this, we hear time and time again of children who have tried to draw angels with dark skin or hair and are corrected by the teacher and told angels must have light skin and golden hair.
Waldorf schools often tend to discourage the use of pencils, markers, or anything else that can draw a crisp line. Children are typically given block crayons that can only make wide swaths of color and discouraged from detailed face drawings. Much of their art is “wet on wet” watercolor art, which doesn’t allow for much detail work. There also seems to be a heavy emphasis on copying other artwork examples or art under specific direction, at least early on, rather than truly creative artistic expression.
It’s more than a little bit cultish — I was unaware of how much of Waldorf education is wrapped up in anthroposophy. They call it a “spiritual science,” a term I have difficulty even dignifying, as there is absolutely no evidence for their supposed scientific claims. What teachers are taught to teach is sometimes just plain bizarre. The more I read, the more cult-like Steiner’s foundations of Waldorf education seem. The fixation with “demons” (like Lucifer and especially this “Ahriman”), the strange melding of eastern philosophies with European mythologies in order to create a magical world that–of course–only a Waldorf-education person could contact and understand, the encouragement of Waldorf families to associate with only other Waldorf families (I’ve seen this one first-hand), Steiner’s beliefs about racial superiority. Though Steiner’s defenders like to claim his quotes are taken out of context, I’m not sure what context, exactly, would justify statements like, “If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is independent of blondness.”
While blatant racism may not be tolerated in Waldorf schools, Waldorf education’s roots are planted in questionable soil and I have found plenty of examples of Waldorf schools subtly and not-so-subtly presenting white as right. By devaluing the colors black and (sometimes) brown and by insisting that angels must be drawn as blonde-haired and fair-skinned, Waldorf schools may be sending dangerous messages about race.
Downplaying the importance of the study of history. — The Waldorf method seems to present history and mythology as essentially same thing, especially in the early years. While I’m not as history-centric as some classical (or neo-classical, as I’m starting to think of myself) educators, the idea of dismissing history as a separate subject entirely or presenting it solely or primarily through myths and legends is troubling and I have a hard time believing that a thorough historical education could be had through such means. Myths have an important role to play within the context of history, but when you remove them from their historical context, you essentially boil the entirety of the human experience down to fairy tales.
What I have written here is my own set of concerns regarding Waldorf education. I have tried to, by and large, use only pro-Waldorf links in my examples above, though in the area of racism/anthroposophy, I have linked to experiences and examples on sites with a negative view of the Waldorf method. I haven’t address Waldorf as it applies to homeschooling, because I honestly have no idea how much of the Waldorf method could be applied at home (as Waldorf method teachers seem to require a goodly amount of specialized training in the methodology/philosophy), outside of the more benign art-and-nature-focused aspects of it. The former Waldorf students I know have been taught in traditional Waldorf method schools, not at home, and their experiences and accounts have had the most significant influence on my perception of Waldorf education.
If you’re interested in reading more about concerns and pitfalls of Waldorf education, you can find quite a few sites out there that actively explore and deconstruct the philosophies and practices of the Waldorf method, including those site I linked in the section on anthroposophy and racism. Mothering.com’s forums have multiple discussion threads about negative experiences with Waldorf or with specific aspects of the method. Other parents have had experiences like this blogger’s and written about it. You can also find many sites and accounts that praise the method, including those I have linked in most of the above post.
To answer my anonymous questioner, no, I don’t feel that the Waldorf method is one that “doesn’t work for [me] but is fine for others” in a larger sense. Like with unschooling, I feel there are people and circumstances that can probably do it very well and very right, with the result of a well-educated and thoroughly delightful student. As with unschooling, I think it has merits that can make it seem quite appealing. I don’t think those merits and the slim possibility of the stars aligning for a perfect education are strong enough to consider Waldorf education a good call for most families. Your mileage may vary. If you are a Waldorf family, I sincerely hope your mileage does vary, because (as with unschooling, believe it or not) I’d like to be wrong on this one.
Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com or ask me anonymously on Formspring.
-
[...] @thetismercurio I found this blog post. I think it brings up several important criticisms of waldorf education, including one of my pet [...]
Very interesting… I’ve briefly and superficially looked at Waldorf method; this is a much more in-depth look. I appreciate your thoroughness in answering (even though it wasn’t my question
).
~h
I looked at it, too, because I love the toys and the focus on nature. I didn’t expect to find the sort of ugliness below the surface of the rainbow-colored waters of waldorf.
I think you’ve articulated my issues with Waldorf-style education quite well. We bought Kindergarten from Oak Meadow because we thought it would suit us. The reality is that Ben is reading at 5. He was bored out of his tree by their curriculum and I ended up having to adopt an entirely different approach in order to make my child happy.
Waldorf really seemed on the surface to be something up my hippie, New Age alley, but in reality, it’s just SO far from what I feel to be acceptable, thorough education.
I really wanted to like Waldorf when I thought it was all just nature study and cute dolls. The more I learned the more incompatible my family was with almost every aspect of Waldorf and I now gently steer people away.
You are spot on.
Totally in agreement with this. When I was teaching, on a couple of occasions, kids from Waldorf backgrounds (once even a kid who had been Waldorf homeschooled) applied to come to our school. In both cases, one of the things that strongly struck me was how incredibly formulaic and downright regurgitated all their writing samples were. It was the same when I’ve seen other Waldorf writings. Kids have to write in these specific books and make illustrations for their work. Like the art that you talk about, they’re encouraged to essentially copy instead of creating their own content.
I’ve heard people talk about Waldorf books as these wonderful items. On the surface, they do *sound* great – a kid, instead of being handed a textbook, must make their own beautifully illustrated and written book. And when I say makes their own, they make the book itself too. But when so much is so formulaic and copied, then what’s the real lesson there? To me, while it’s done in a totally different way, it’s a complete focus on education as product instead of process. In public schools, the product that proves they’re learning is those empty standardized tests. In Waldorf schools, it’s those, also empty, books they create. I don’t find either of them compelling evidence.
Interesting. I didn’t realize the writing was so formulaic as well.
Have you done a post on Montessori education? I considered getting my Master’s in it (and applied to a program in Nashville) but found enough of it off-putting to change my mind. I would love to hear what you have to say. I know it didn’t work for your family.
I don’t think I ever did a full-scale post about it. I should, though. Thanks for the idea!
Thank you for putting this all together. I had come to the same conclusions, but haven’t ever found a good resource that had all the objections in one place, without tons and tons of other material to wade through. I’ll definitely be pointing people here when they ask me about Waldorf.
Glad to help. It was helpful for me, too, because I had a lot of thoughts about it, but wasn’t sure how much was based around one or two people’s experiences and how much was more universally applied. I tried to read through all the sites as neutrally as possible.
I am in agreement with most of the points you have made; your concerns are among those that prompted us to choose home education over Waldorf school (we actually had places reserved for our first two children).
I totally concur regarding the delaying of reading and also the deliberate stifling of other learning. Some friends of ours withdrew their child from the Waldorf school because they were under pressure to prevent her from learning things. Apart from wanting to read, this child was learning botanical names for plants and fungi; the teachers said this was inappropriate because at her age, she should be in a “dreamy” state and learning about fairies and gnomes! Likewise, I agree re the history/mythology thing, and the art. I love one picture by a Waldorf educated child, because it’s bright and gentle and lovely looking. However, twenty such pictures I find creepy, because they will all be virtually identical. It’s the same with their writing. I was impressed with their foreign language curriculum until I took a closer look at the workbooks from one class, and found that there were about twenty copies of the same paragraph in German, complete with twenty identical errors. The whole extent of the cookie cutter mentality really bothered us. It’s not so much the assumption that second grade is the right time for some children to learn reading, but the assumption that all children must learn reading at the same time, that we objected to. The school would like to portray itself as a nurturing environment for the individual child, but in reality its methodology relies on a more restrictive learning path than public school, which at least usually do some kind of streaming according to ability, whereas in Waldorf school a child who has been reading since age 3 would be expected to sit with the rest of the 7yos and spend an hour or so drawing a snake and marveling that it’s shaped like an S.
Which brings me to my biggest objection to the Waldorf approach: that it seems to be dishonest in the way it is represented. Take a quick look and you see: a homelike environment, attractive natural materials to work and play with, dedicated teachers, a holistic approach that values art, music, gardening, cooking and and handcrafts as well as the traditional academics, de-emphasizing of competition, etc etc. But look deeper and you find the weird pedagogical theories that have no evidence to back them up, and the bizarre religious ideas on which it’s all based. I get the impression that this is deliberately hidden. It’s only when you’re sucked in that you discover how rigid it all is, and how no dissent is allowable.
Thank you! This was eye opening. While I hate the push to get kids reading before they can even form sentences I think forcing them to wait is crazy. James learned to read all on his own just by being around reading and books. I feel like that means it was HIS right time to learn it.
I’d also love a post on Montessori. I’ve not really looked into many of these methods of schooling with any depth because they’re just not what we’re going to do, but I am very curious.
As a mother of three children at a Waldorf School (one of whom has black hair like me!) I’d like to caution you to be careful of your criticisms of an entire educational movement — particularly since you have the potential to reach so many people.
We are thrilled at our Waldorf School. We are not a cult, and the whole black crayone thing is quite overstated. I mean, REALLY!! We have people of all colors, religions, ethnicities at our school. I feel many of your comments are coming from a fear-based mentality. The truth about Waldorf education is that it is grounded in a true understanding of human development. The founder of Waldorf education was himself a scientist, and there is plenty of science to back up the curriculum and educational approach. In fact, current neuroscience research validates what Steiner knew almost 100 years ago. See The Magic Onion blog for more information about this, or visit whywaldlorfworks on the internet. Please, be careful of your words. To make these negative statements about discouraging reading and having children make the same artwork is, I feel, irresponsible. Have you spoken to many Waldorf graduates about their experiences at their schools? If so, you’ll find that many of them are creative, curious and happy individuals who did not feel that their Waldorf school squelched their curiosity or their thirst for learning. In fact, it is quite the opposite. There is sound science behind the ‘methods’ used at a Waldorf school and they really do make sense. And to say that Waldorf schools do not value literacy is a complete untruth –again, I urge you to please choose your words more carefully. Thank you.
I did choose my words carefully and I stand by them. I’m sorry they’re not the words you want to read, but they are, in fact, the words I absolutely intended to choose and I am not speaking from fear. Funny how your comments seem to parrot the exact responses I have found on the Waldorf sites — that someone who disagrees with Waldorf is either fearful or simply doesn’t understand it. I do understand it. I just also happen to dislike it and mistrust it with, I believe, good reason.
I have, in fact, spoken to Waldorf graduates. My (future) sister-in-law is one. Her educational experiences are such that she and my brother adamantly refuse to enroll their children in a Waldorf education. I found that to be exceptionally telling. I have also been quite uncomfortable with the stories I have heard about her sisters’ (different from the one she attended) Waldorf school — stories I have heard from their mother as examples of why Waldorf is supposedly so positive have been some of the greatest turn-offs about this method.
Interesting thing. A cursory google of Rudolf Steiner provides the following:
Rudolf Joseph Lorenz Steiner (25 or 27 February 1861 – 30 March 1925) was an Austrian philosopher, social thinker, architect and esotericist. He gained initial recognition as a literary critic and cultural philosopher. At the beginning of the twentieth century, he founded a new spiritual movement, Anthroposophy, as an esoteric philosophy growing out of European transcendentalism and with links to Theosophy.
Funny, not a bit of “scientist” in there…
Of course if you look at pro-Waldorf sites they refer to Anthroposophy as “spiritual science”, though I’m not sure what that means.
It means nothing at all. There’s no such thing.
I know, I know! I guess as long as you fancy yourself a scientist then you get to name it whatever gobbledygook you want. There will always be those that will believe.
So-called ‘empirical’ scientists – whom we usually just call “scientists” – use their physical senses (sight, touch, smell) and physical tools (telescopes, “double-blind” studies)to study how things we can actually see and touch work and what they’re made of. This kind of science has recently also been called “reductionist” science because it’s aim is to reduce so-called ‘ineffable’ mysteries to their basic component parts.
There’s kind of a gray area for empirical science (“prove-it” science) when it comes to invisible forces like magnetism, gravity, ‘life’, and such like. We cannot see them, we only see experience their effect.
Steiner invented the term ’spiritual’ (think “invisible”) science to describe the procedure of using an invisible tool – the human mind’s ability to think – in order to investigate invisible phenomena. You do a form of this every day when, instead of reacting and jumping to conclusions, you use your invisible thoughts in order to “get” another person so that you can interact in a constructive way with them. You cannot see or touch the essence of them that you “discover” and no one can see your thoughts rising as steam from your head ‘proving’ that you are thinking. You can’t cut up a person to find out if they love you. You have to know it in other, invisible, ways.
Steiner took this one step further by asserting that, with effort and daily practice of mental focus that every human being can develop their thinking capacity to the point where they can “know” the nature of invisible reality. What made him unique is his view that the days of “belief, faith and spiritual revelation” are behind us and that today we need a “satisfying explanation” for what makes us and life tick and that this will only happen through developing our frontal cortex and powers of imagination, inspiration and intuition. To read the mind of creation we have to become the mind of creation.
In regular science, material things are explained. In spiritual science material things are both explained and the door to knowing even more about them.
So, “Spiritual Imagination” would be a better term.
Steiner’s closest brush with “science” was categorizing Goethe’s scientific works. Steiner did no scientific “research” – other than “thinking” of course.
An even better term for Steiner’s “science” was the term that was the title of his book for many years – “Occult Science”.
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/11/lefthandedness-by-rudolf-steiner.html
Smrt Mama – I don’t doubt your research was objective or that people have unsatisfactory experiences in Waldorf education. And, since Waldorf education is not going away and instead growing, please consider a long-range view that may explain the disparity between unhappy and happy Waldorf experiences. A true Waldorf education is a K-12 Waldorf education. In European countries where Waldorf education is well established – key aspects of Waldorf pedagogy inform Finland’s stunning PISA test score miracle, for example – most kids in Waldorf go from K-12 because it is readily available and largely paid for by the state. They are know for their rigor and success with all kinds of learners. In Great Britain, for example, a Waldorf student got the highest score ever on their high school exit exam and he had never taken a test before in his life. In the U.S., by contrast, schools had to be private because parental tuition was needed to pay for them. This kept most of the schools at the K-8 or below level. Also, being ‘private’ there was the tendency for the schools to serve better-off students who were mostly white. The oldest and well established K-12 Waldorf schools in the U.S. such as Highland Hall in Los Angeles, the Chicago Waldorf School, the Steiner School in Manhattan, etc. tended to have more seasoned and less airy fairy teachers – and years of history of graduates who attend and succeed at prestigious universities and who stand out in their subsequent careers and lives.
Today – or as of the 90’s – new private Waldorf schools are hardly opening and those that do tend to serve younger ages or be out in the country. So the days of the slightly icky and overly precious days of private Waldorf education are the sunset days.
The dawn is with public Waldorf education and, as I said in one of my earlier responses, somehow the cognitive-science affirmation of the developmental Waldorf pedagogy and the public school requirement of writing a charter of what you will and won’t be doing has brought about the start of a real ‘American’ style of Waldorf education.
M Hanan, why is it that you present yourself as only a mother of waldorf students when it seems, if you are the person I believe you are, that you work — or have worked — as a ‘community relations associate’ for a waldorf school? I read:
‘As a part time addition to the administrative staff, [...] will provide general support for the Director of Development. Specifically, the community relations associate works with the Director of Development and the Director of Enrollment and Marketing to plan and write publications as needed. She is also responsible for planning of events that educate both the internal community and the community at large.’ http://www.princetonwaldorf.org/willow/willow_20081001_final_merged.pdf
If this is actually your job, then your lack of knowledge — or, shall we say, deliberate attempt to mislead — is even more staggering.
You have some anthropsophy training yourself I think. The use of the words “fear based” gives you away…the morning prayer for the students talks about that, and a number of the anthroposophy prayers mention fear to be overcome. Steiner was not a scientist, and in fact the Waldorf teaching has almost no congruence with recent scientific developmental findings. The Swedish school system has to make continual exceptions for the Waldorf students who are routinely one to two years behind their peers in all measurements throughout their schooling. Same in England where there is some public payment for some Waldorf schools, so they test them. The Waldorf movement has many defenders, and you are surely one of them. A universal complaint is that Waldorf has many secrets about its system, which it does not tell the parents prior to admitting their children to the school. A former chancellor to the Waldorf college of teachers was fired for publicly saying just that. “We are a religious school” he said, “and we should tell people that we are.” The religion is anthroposophy.
Isabel said:
Take a quick look and you see: a homelike environment, attractive natural materials to work and play with, dedicated teachers, a holistic approach that values art, music, gardening, cooking and and handcrafts as well as the traditional academics, de-emphasizing of competition, etc etc.
I absolutely admit this is what drew me to Waldorf. Completely and without reservation. I was coming at it from a different place, though – I wanted something like this, but I also wanted to start early. I “knew” that no matter what I did, I would likely have to recreate about half the curriculum myself, and Waldorf seemed to be a good jumping off point. Besides, if I designed the bugger myself, I could leave out the creepy and the cultish, and go from there, right?
So, I picked up a kindy curriculum. I figured, it was $80 for the year, with complete email support from the author. I can handle that, and if nothing else, it gives me time to get my day on the ‘right’ track schedule-wise, and start building the skills that would be necessary for starting kindy. I had the first two months printed (it was a pdf curriculum), and started flipping through it. I was shocked, to say the least, at the size of the overarching themes. There was, I believe, one theme to the two months (fall, as I printed October and November), split into Harvest for October and Thanksgiving for November. There were activities and such, but… The basic expectation is that children will sit quietly and receive knowledge. IN KINDY?!? There was no counting, no ABCs, no letter or number identification. There was no need to learn address, no need to really color, no need to really learn anything. The stories were all very much old (like, old enough to be purple-print old), and there were no illustrations at all. There were no instructions for making the beautiful toys that were expected to be in the ‘classroom,’ and most of the projects were lifted straight from websites I’d been to multiple times before. As this was one of the ‘higher end’ curricula from a ‘reputable’ source (as per a Waldorf-ing friend), I was heavily disappointed. It was, essentially, a guide to boring the bejeezus out of your kids for a year – if you didn’t cover the whole year in the first quarter – and at one cooking craft per month? It sure looked like something we would do.
It was $80 that was very well-spent, though. It made me realize that the laid-back approach might be well and good, but this was so laid back it was flat, and I was going to go stir-crazy if I tried to teach it. Now, I admit, I have been trained as an elementary school teacher, so this colors my perceptions. But WOW. If I wanted to actually teach Waldorf, my son would be six and through the materials in their 12th grade. At two, he’s fully capable of most tasks given in the K curriculum. Yes, this would most likely BORE MY TODDLER, and it is being marketed as a wonderful curriculum for FIVE YEAR OLDS. Insanity. Just insanity.
For a program that seems to praise creativity, it does seem awfully mindless.
Wow…I never realized there was more beneath the surface. My mother always wanted to send us to a Waldorf school. I wanted to send my girls there, though there isn’t one nearby. The technology-phobia concerned me slightly, but I liked that they covered mythology, etc…The disallowing of reading at young ages puts the kibosh on my ever allowing any of my kids to go there. DD4 wants to learn everything right now.
I think I will forward this on to my mother for her to read.
Thank you.
It’s pretty creepy how controlling the program is. I’m reading through the student handbook for one program and a lot of the language is SO controlling and dismissive of the child’s actual needs/desires. Stuff like forcing kids to dress “warmly” whether they feel cold or not, and “controlling your child’s sleeping and waking, meals, amount of play, and stimulation during the day [to help] create a rhythmic life pattern.”
Funny, I’d dismissed Waldorf as a possibility when researching between 1st & 2nd grades (we started homeschooling then) because my daughter had been reading solo since just after her fourth birthday. Now I can’t even begin to imagine my free-wheeling artist and tech junkie ever thriving with this.
Yes. It was attractive to me, because of the physical learning environment and my daughter attended a year at a Steiner kindy. There was a lot of pressure to conform to many Steiner practices. I removed her when told I should stop breastfeeding my 18month old – I can’t remember why! but it was some strange ’spiritual’ reason – and I realised the school was incompatible with our lifestyle. We still use a lot of Steiner craft resources though. Interesting post.
The school does seem extremely controlling of every aspect of (non-school) lifestyle.
I’m in my fifth year of homeschooling and *still* not sure how to define myself. Not an unschooler, not a Waldorfer, not a Charlotter. Classical, maybe, but in a really lazy, take-the-general-idea-of-it kind of way.
I’d be interested to see you do a post about why you think you’re a neo-classical sort.
Intentionally delaying reading? UGH.
I should definitely write about my whole “neo-classical” thing. I think I’ll do that in the near future.
M Hanan: ‘The founder of Waldorf education was himself a scientist, and there is plenty of science to back up the curriculum and educational approach.’
No, Rudolf Steiner wasn’t a scientist. And, no, there isn’t ‘plenty’ of science behind waldorf education, I’m sorry to say. If you think there is, you have been misled, or you’re coming here to consciously mislead others about waldorf education (it’s not a rare habit among waldorf proponents, sadly).
As far as the black crayons are concerned, it is, in fact, common practice in waldorf schools to ban the use of black crayons and pencils. This was certainly the case in the waldorf school I attended, and I know of people all over the world who share this experience. While it is pleasing to hear that in your particular waldorf school, the use of black colour is allowed or even encouraged, this is very far from the rule in waldorf education around the world.
‘To make these negative statements about discouraging reading and having children make the same artwork is, I feel, irresponsible. Have you spoken to many Waldorf graduates about their experiences at their schools?’
Many, many waldorf kids are discouraged from reading and writing. Many, many waldorf kids spend years copying their work, including art, from the teachers. It’s not irresponsible to say this: it is the truth. It’s what education in a waldorf school looks like, more or less. The situation as it is reported in the blog post is certainly in alignment with my experience as a waldorf student.
‘If so, you’ll find that many of them are creative, curious and happy individuals who did not feel that their Waldorf school squelched their curiosity or their thirst for learning. In fact, it is quite the opposite.’
And there are many of us who think that waldorf did its best to squelch our thirst for learning, our curiosity, our creativity (and probably many parents who think waldorf did this for their children). Not to mention the most important thing of all: waldorf made us unhappy, because being stifled, being bored and being held back — intellectually and creatively — caused major unhappiness.
Brilliant article, thank you.
I find M Hanan’s tone quite threatening, though this is not unusual amongst Waldorf defenders – the Swedish Steiner Waldorf Federation employ someone to monitor the net for any negative press:
http://zooey.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/supervising-the-attacks/
I also found it on the threatening side, but what’s s/he going to do? Make the Waldorf folks not like me? Keep me from ever enrolling my kids in Waldorf? Attack me with anthroposophic medicine wuju?
Extended breastfeeding is thought to unduly impose the maternal hereditary forces upon the developing infant-I am a Waldorf Mom of three and I breastfed my youngest until he was four-often in parent meetings, lectures, study groups, and school functions.
Extended breastfeeding is thought to unduly impose the maternal hereditary forces upon the developing infant
That’s horrifying. The more I hear about this education method, the more difficult it is to distinguish it from a cult. The most convincing arguments in that direction are actually coming from the pro-Waldorf side.
‘The most convincing arguments in that direction are actually coming from the pro-Waldorf side.’
Isn’t that fascinating!? In particular when considering that the waldorf movement in general tries its best to appear appealing and hide its worst aspects from prospective parents and the public. (Valerie is a bit too honest to please the waldorf PR folks, I would imagine.)
The way Waldorf parents defend the schools and philosophies is interesting, but doesn’t make any headway towards convincing me the methodology isn’t as harmful as I interpret it as being. The statements made by the pro-Waldorf camp are almost identical to those made in the past by my future-SIL’s mother about Waldorf, to the point that I checked IP addresses to see if she might be posting on my blog under a different name (see, now they’ve made me paranoid!).
Valerie Walsh is part of the AWSNA (Association of Waldorf Schools of North America).
Their media guide (her name appears on page 2) is a hoot:
http://www.whywaldorfworks.org/11_EffPractices/pdfs/MediaGuide0605.pdf
Her answers seem reasonable and intelligent, so I’m glad at least one Waldorf advocate isn’t writing only in the pre-approved sound bites.
I’m glad you appreciated AWSNA’s Media guide, I think it’s better than nothing which is what it replaced though last time I read it-it still contained a typo or two I am a Waldorf Mom-I do still have a child enrolled in a WS-and since the school is a member and I pay tuition to the school then I guess you are correct that I am, indeed, part of the AWSNA.
Perhaps “M Hanan” needs to read this media guide. S/he seems to be confusing the instruction for the media relations person to make only positive statements with a need to tell me that I’m only allowed to make positive statements.
For Anthroposophists, terminating breast-feeding is a spiritual issue, not a health or developmental issue. Spiritual concepts override common sense in Waldorf – to the point of child abuse in some cases (my case).
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html
I just read with great interest your post on Waldorf. From my point of view you have enumerated many myths that are popular but are contradicted with my experience. My wife has been a Waldorf teacher for many years, and has often spoken directly to the issues you raise. Please check out her blog at lorikran.blogspot.com. She expects to post a lecture that she gave on last Tuesdaynnight, about the academic approach of waldorf and the alignment of the method with much current research.
I’m glad those aren’t your wife’s experiences, but they are clearly not “myths,” considering the number of people who have had those experiences. Calling them myths doesn’t negate the fact that many people have had that experience at different schools, at different times, and reported these experiences independently of each other. Calling them myths doesn’t actually make them so.
You said it yerself, Smrt Mama, “The Waldorf method seems to present history and mythology as essentially same thing”
That is true. We perceive these peoples experiences as history (since they, you know, actually happened) and Waldorf, once again, presents the history as indistinguishable from the myth.
Yes, thanks for the reply. But your post is written from the point of view of what the “Waldorf Method” is and is not. And because someone has an experience of some kind does not make it part of the “method”. That is what I am calling myth, not the experience.
My wife for example would never say Waldorf method discourages or intentionally delays early reading. Retelling stories, with imagery, and proper sequencing are considered primary in early years. Here is an interesting post lifted from a comment from a parent of a 1st grader on my wife’s blog, that makes the point better than I can.
“I recently bought Phoenix a new book. I thought, in my naivety, that it was a little beyond his level. I thought that it would take him a while to read it, if he wanted to at all. How wrong I was! Within minutes he was pouring over the pages, engrossed deeply in the imagery, story, and language itself. Later, I asked him about the book–and he retold (in his own beautiful words) the entire story, animating it with movement and using his soft toys as puppets.
Despite knowing quite a lot about Waldorf education, I was still shocked and amazed by my son’s passion and ability. He has since reread the book–each time becoming absorbed. I remember when I first read about the Waldorf system of learning. I loved everything about it except the philosophy towards reading. I wanted my son to be a proficient and passionate reader. However, one thing is for certain–I have changed MY philosophy to reading thanks to the CWS and my amazing child!!!”
August 26, 2010 7:56 PM
If a large number of people have the same experience in the same setting, I’d say it’s accurate to call that part of the methodology.
One gifted child learning to read on his own, despite being discouraged from doing so, doesn’t negate the number of children who have had difficulty learning (or who had learning difficulties that were never addressed) due to Waldorf. Stories of Waldorf-taught students struggling in college because of huge gaps in their education are not unusual enough for you to dismiss them out of have.
I thought it was interesting that this comment was from a first grade parent. I could say roughly the same thing (sans puppets) except that none of my children began reading until 7th grade. That’s 7th grade, Fred.
I couldn’t have stood my children not reading until 7th grade, not if they didn’t have some sort of developmental reason why they couldn’t do it. Reading is a huge part of our lives. My oldest taught himself to read when he was 2. My second son isn’t ready to read yet at 4.5, but he wants to read, because we read constantly. By 7th grade, I’d read so many works of classic literature, which I think shaped my language and moral development in exceptionally positive ways.
I’d also like to point out that you were my 2,500th comment!
Begging the question, was it worth the wait!
It was part of an intelligent and (hopefully) productive discussion, so I’d definitely prefer that to it being something like “I agree!” or “Your kids are so adorable!”
My kids are adorable, of course, but I already know that.
I agree, Fred.
I’ll briefly highlight how I see each of these concerns differently.
Technology
“Rather than “protecting” children from the supposed dangerous influences of technology, I feel it is important to introduce children to responsible uses of technology in education.”
—Waldorf educators agree with your basic argument. However, its a question of WHEN this technology is introduced to the child. High school students and, to a lesser extent, middle school students engage with technology for both work and play but only after they have worked and played without the benefit of these devices. This is done so that they may appreciate their appropriate use for themselves and begin to come to their own conclusions about what technology will mean for their life.
No Black Crayons
While I do think that different teachers handle the “VERBOTEN black crayons” issue differently, I won’t deny that some teachers keep them out of their students sets. And, yes, this is to help steer the children away from line drawing. Another way to think about this whole issue is to remember how the teachers are showing the children how to draw—by making circular movements and by shading. As we all know, shading and sketching allows for more self-correction. If you make a fine line, you better damn well be able to erase (something you can’t do with crayons) or you may have to re-start your image. Anyone who has seen a child trying really, really hard to draw has seen how the image they have in their mind never ever lives up to what they are able to accomplish artistically and from a fine-motor skills perspective. Circular movements and shading address this perennial problem and prevents the class from disintegrating into a heap of self-pity! Its a great lesson in “STAY CALM & CARRY ON!” Finally, as to the ridiculous allegations that this is all racist, dark hair colors and dark skin colors can be achieved through the shading and blending of the shades of brown in the Stockmar sets and this is something the children have learned to do since the early grades in their lessons about how colors are created. I personally have seen lesson books with a story about a Native American and none of the children’s drawings were of a blond, blue-eyed character. Let’s get real people and finally put this fixation with the black crayons to rest!
Cultish & Racist
“Spiritual Science” = Steiner’s own particular take on Geisteswissenschaft. He was not alone in arguing that since the Enlightenment the rhythms of pre-modern life that have so sustained human beings have been lost and this has been experienced as a kind of “crisis.” He offered a suggestion as to how we might move forward without reverting to the past. Not exactly my cup of tea for various reasons I won’t enumerate but not as scary as many people make it out to be.
” What teachers are taught to teach is sometimes just plain bizarre.” Like what? Anthroposophy (ie all that stuff about Atlantis, for example) is not taught in schools.
“The encouragement of Waldorf families to associate with only other Waldorf families.” I don’t know where this comes from. The only reason I can say why this might happen is because of the media thing. Kids consume a lot of media today. How many hours a day do the studies say? Frankly, its just easier to play with other Waldorf kids because you don’t have to risk calling another families parenting style into question or make “demands” for a lousy 2 hour playdate. And, you don’t have to explain yourself and assure them that no, you are not closet Amish or in some weird kind of cult!
My kids play with non-Waldorf kids and I don’t freak out if they end up watching TV for the last hour of the playdate. However, I really try to avoid it and its a huge pain in my neck to then have to deal with my kids whining about TV for the next week and “how come I am such a mean mommmy that I don’t let them watch TV and play videogames when all of the other kids are doing it.”
“Steiner’s beliefs about racial superiority.” Steiner had no beliefs about racial superiority. He was explicit (and before his time) in stating that race was not a meaningful category for people to dwell upon as they tried to become enlightened modern souls. I’ve seen that quote offered before but I have never seen it in context or in the original German. (I’m not denying that the quote exists in some form, just that it is being used polemically for its apparent “self-evident” rhetorical quality.) Maybe someone could help me out because I have been meaning to get to the bottom of that one.
History & Mythology
I sort of get this complaint. In the later grades, however, I think what happens is that children have a genuine sense of the “weltanschauung” of the different cultures they have studied. This is an immense gift because later when they are seriously studying a nation-state or a period of history they have an innate sense of what kinds of questions they should ask about what was happening culturally (broadly defined) at that moment. The finest histories are written in such a way and it takes those authors years and years of study to come up with the kind of unorthodox views that help us see the world in new and interesting ways. Of course I am not suggesting that Waldorf students by nature of their education are automatically on par with such scholars. I am merely suggesting that they are on the inside track to the kind of thinking that is required to say something truly interesting (and maybe new) about the “dead” past. I do agree with you that there is a critical moment when myth and story must become grounded and real. I do know that teachers take childrens’ need to know if something is true & “real” seriously, especially around 6th grade. How well each individual teacher handles this task is, of course, open for debate and I am sure there are cases of this being handled poorly.
Well, that’s my (brief) take on what what contained in the blog. (ha ha) Actually, I could have written more such is my passion not for Steiner or anthroposophy but for the possibilities it contains for children today. As an aside, I’m not sure how Waldorf would work in a home schooling environment unless perhaps there are 2 or 3 siblings near in age and being educated together.
Thanks for giving me space to respond. – Keizie
Oops, I meant to say “I could have written more such is my passion not for Steiner or anthroposophy but for the possibilities Waldorf education contains for children today.”
I’m laughing at your entire section on technology, truly. “Begin to come to their own conclusions about what technology will mean for their life.” By sheltering them from it until high school, when they suddenly have access to it at the one age where they’re most likely to make irrational decisions? I think a reasonable approach is to introduce it in controlled settings from a young age and making technological safety part of the entire personal safety continuum.
I also fail to see the benefit of denying children such “scary” technologies as slide projectors and cameras.
“Another way to think about this whole issue is to remember how the teachers are showing the children how to draw—by making circular movements and by shading. As we all know, shading and sketching allows for more self-correction. If you make a fine line, you better damn well be able to erase (something you can’t do with crayons) or you may have to re-start your image. Anyone who has seen a child trying really, really hard to draw has seen how the image they have in their mind never ever lives up to what they are able to accomplish artistically and from a fine-motor skills perspective. Circular movements and shading address this perennial problem and prevents the class from disintegrating into a heap of self-pity!”
Hogwash. You’re claiming the goal is to protect children from frustration of not getting right the first time? Really? A more valuable and humanistic pursuit might be to give the child the black crayon so that s/he can actually represent all the colors of nature and humanity and then, should the child become frustrated (because you’re making an awful assumption about children as a whole to think they cannot be mutable enough to change their ideas mid-drawing), then you can work on concepts of there being no “right” or “wrong” in art.
“Frankly, its just easier to play with other Waldorf kids because you don’t have to risk calling another families parenting style into question or make “demands” for a lousy 2 hour playdate.”
Also makes it really easy to perpetuate the cult-like Waldorf mentalities. Two birds with one stone, innit?
Oh wait, you can’t do that, because Steiner/Waldorf method does believe there is right/wrong in art. Silly me.
Re: Technology
“By sheltering them from it until high school, when they suddenly have access to it at the one age where they’re most likely to make irrational decisions?”
Look closer at your perspective and mine. They look like two sides of the same coin rather than opposing views. You advocate doling out experiences over time so that there isn’t a “floodgates are open” experience when a teenager is prone to making irrational decisions. I don’t, in principle, think there is anything wrong with this perspective. However, how successful are most parents in making conscious explicit decisions about how these technologies are used. Some parents, to their credit, do this well. For others it is very difficult. So here is my view: by focusing on imaginative play and human-to-human interaction as the form in which education unfolds allows the child to experience this world well before it becomes mediated by technology. It allows the older child to better make decisions about how and when rather than not problematizing the role of technology in how they are living their lives. Note I am not saying that technology is a problem. Rather unexamined use of technology is a problem that I believe all adults in the modern world should consider. It seems that we disagree on the appropriate time for this analysis to happen. You seem to claim that it can be ongoing. I argue that it is more likely to happen when critical thinking is more advanced and more successful if children have had sustained experiences of the world not mediated by technology in which to draw upon when they are thinking about such issues. These are the true issues at the heart of the technology issue, not that Waldorf people think slide projectors are “scary.” I am frustrated that this level of dialogue is skipped over in favor of using the discouragement of technology as evidence that Waldorf people are crazy and cultish.
Re: Art. I can’t tell by your comment if you get the argument about line drawing. Its about line drawing, not color. You can make a line drawing with red or blue as much as you can with black. Through experience, though, some teachers feel that black seems to inspire children towards line drawing (such that they see in the world all around them.) You suggest that when a child is frustrated that a teacher could work on the concept of there being no right or wrong in art. A Waldorf teacher would counter that a better way to address a child’s frustration is not to counter their felt experience with conceptual thinking (ie “a lot of words”) that an upset child might not be able to “hear” at that moment. An alternative approach is to design exercises that are self-correcting and already contain the notion that not only is there no right or wrong in art but that this is an idea that children can discover themselves and act on right away.
Re: Play. I don’t really understand your comment about killing 2 birds with one stone. Certainly if a group of like-minded people tend to socialize within their own group it ends up reinforcing their already agreed upon ideas. However, to imply that this is prescribed and recommended from some source on high rather than a voluntary expression of friendship is crazy. Who would stand for that? Since Waldorf education is private in the US it is highly unlikely that someone’s extended family, neighbors, friends from before children are also Waldorf. Do you really think that these relationships are abandoned? I know it is not in my case. This Christmas my kids will probably get a healthy dose of Sponge Bob Square Pants because my sister is raising her kids differently. I really can’t imagine a scenario in which someone could or would cut out such people from their lives because they go to a Waldorf school. The cult accusations should fall away upon further inspection.
Implying that someone doesn’t “get” your argument because they do not agree with you is a lovely way to shut down conversation. I “get” what you were saying; I disagree with it. Is that a difficult concept for you?
I never said that you didn’t get my argument. I put forth the idea that our two perspectives on introducing technology and dealing with frustration in the artistic process are in actuality two different ways of achieving the same ends. I suggested these approaches are equal in their merits. You disagree.
“I can’t tell by your comment if you get the argument about line drawing.”
What I don’t get is this: what exactly is wrong with line drawing?
Thanks,great article !!
I can confirm my daughter spent hours doing ‘veiling’ paintings,layers of watercolour which I thought looked rather nice,she informed me she had done it ‘wrong’ . I didn’t know it was an excercise to help her soul !! I watched her painstakingly rub out pencil lines and replace them with orange as she wasn’t allowed to leave black lines. Decorations on her book had a note written by the teacher saying ‘be careful how you decorate ‘ she had done some nice black and white checks. A cloud with a smiley face got a similar note !
Everything is copied from the board,Steiner’s curriculum so its very old fashioned.No CD’s played ,to learn music from around the world-the teacher sings it,gospel for goodness sake from a white English bloke who didn’t go to Pentecostle church,how could he sing Gospel-try showing the class a Youtube clip !
25% off the class left in the two years we were there-the poor kids had three teacher’s in that time !
Maimuna
Thank you for your comment. So interesting that the pro-Waldorf camp is so eager to dismiss you and your child’s experiences as perpetuating “myths” about Waldorf. I’m sorry you had to deal with the frustration. I hope you’ve found a methodology that is better for your daughter!
Why keep interpreting the “myths” comment vis a vis people’s personal experiences with Waldorf? Its more likely that the myths being referred to are regarding “scary-bad media,” “isolationist cult”"racist” and “anti-reading/anti-intellectual”, no?
As someone who has read many, many sites those are the myths/criticisms that repeatedly stand out to me.
BTW this is my first time commenting on a Waldorf discussion. I’ve got some pent-up feelings from all that time staying silent. Sorry to take it out on your blog. Its not personal.
Why keep interpreting it that way? Because you and other Waldorf supporters keep trying to dismiss shared experience regarding those very topics — media, isolationism, racism, and reading — as individual negative experiences rather than something intrinsic to Waldorf as a whole or on a widespread level. Saying “that’s not part of the philosophy, that was just your bad experience,” doesn’t make it true.. Is your head in the sand?
The things I have said on this blog have never discounted anyone’s personal experience. I think it is very important to listen to people’s experiences because that is the only place positive change and growth within something as complex as education can occur. (i.e. Bottom up rather than top down.) However, I think it is important to be clear about what are people’s experiences and what is part of the instructional method if constructive criticism is to occur. Should coinciding anecdotes constitute “evidence” of very broad claims that Waldorf is against technology and intellect and for racism and social separatism? Or, are they potentially indicative of a problem with how the philosophy “hits the ground.”
What frustrates me is that Waldorf critics take internet “vents” and then attempt to then trace these truths back to some “essence” of the education rather than treating them as experiences in and of themselves. In the case of an early reader, for example, I would want to know if the teacher explicitly told parents to take books away from the child so as to slow the child down? That, in my view, would be an example of a rogue dogmatic teacher and should be treated as evidence that the Waldorf School was not training and supporting its teachers appropriately, not as evidence that the educational system is designed to stifle a young child’s love of reading until some pre-defined time. As a parent I would be very concerned if I knew of a situation in which a teacher was purposefully pulling back educational gains that a child had made on their own. (As an aside, there has yet to be a definitive scientific statement of how children learn to read.) Its a combination of factors and these logically come together at different points across children. IMO education systems that address this spectrum within the context of a sound developmental theory (ie not expecting that the process starts, on average, at 4) teach reading well. Waldorf is such a system (especially with its emphasis on pre-literacy activities) although I might concede that it handles the lower and upper bounds of “average” less well than other approaches. However, there is no scientific evidence to support a claim in either way.
The bottom line might be that parents should continue to advocate for their children if their needs are not being met. Not reading by 7th grade is a problem. In terms of Waldorf philosophy the child should be shifting into critical thinking and that can’t happen if the reading skills aren’t there. Again, such an experience should properly indicate a problem with the parents and teachers for not addressing the issue (ie maybe there was a learning disability), not that the overeall approach to reading is flawed.
While it is true that you can’t prove or disprove an individual’s experience, you can look at shared experiences as a watermark for validity of claims based on those experiences. Many families have shared the negative experiences that you seem vested in waving off as isolated incidents, as “anecdotes” without particular merit and that provide no means of judging the whole methodology. You have discounted those shared experiences as being aberrant to the overall Waldorf method, but when the volume of similar (in some cases, nearly identical) stories are occurring amongst families in multiple areas, with multiple schools, you can’t say they are matters of “rogue dogmatic teachers.” Those are systemic flaws.
I agree that shared negative experiences are a legitimate basis from which to watermark the validity of claims about Waldorf education. What I believe needs to be done, though, is to problematize them as anecdotal evidence that must be compared with other forms of evidence in a systematic and replicable way.
This might be the bottom line-might also be neglecters in the mix! I don’t know what this means-that it “should properly indicate” a problem with the parents and teachers and why you would assume that the problem had not been addressed. I think it would be fair to say that it could indicate a problem with the child, the parents, the teachers and/or the school system itself. And BTW, I never said or intended to indicate that I find anything flawed about the overall approach to reading.
I admit that I’m a little astounded that someone whose children did not read until 7th grade would be pleased with that particular approach to reading.
And I must admit that I have never heard that a shift into critical thinking can’t happen unless reading skills are there. I would guess there’s some kind of connection or positive correlation between the two.
I think I should have been more careful about the way I said things in this thread. I wasn’t trying to suggest that your child’s critical thinking was stunted by not reading. I don’t know if literacy is a necessary condition for higher-level verbal reasoning. I was more saying that literacy surely helps a lot in developing those skills. And, I agree with Smrt Mama. You sure were patient and open-minded!
http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/sts-ct-art-close-reading-p1.cfm
Conclusion
To read well, we must understand reading as requiring intellectual skills
Not the other way around!!!
Thank you so much for this post. During the process of deciding to homeschool Waldorf was something I looked into. I came away with many of the concerns you discuss here. Despite that I’ve had a hard time expressing those concerns to a friend when the Waldorf method came up.
I’m glad I could be helpful. There was no way to approach this subject neutrally, because I really do feel the methodologies and philosophies are harmful, but I tried to focus on my specific objections. I’m glad that has come across in a useful way.
As a Waldorf parent I am very concerned about the misinformation that circulates as fact on the internet and of the overall impression that prospective parents walk away with. Unfortunately, mountains of information is available at the click of a button but how many Americans can read German (and an obtuse one at that!) How many people are familiar with European philosophies in general in order to put Steiner in context? How many people have access to original sources about this period of history and to peer-reviewed papers on esotericism, cutting-edge neuroscience and developmental theory? Very few, I am afraid, very few. This whole “researching Waldorf” thing that people think they are doing is actually not as straightforward as most people assume.
With all due respect to the educated and well-meaning parents out there, a Google search, a visit to one school and/or a chat with someone who was involved with Waldorf education at one time does not an expert make. There are a lot of opinions out there but there has not been a lot of balanced, critical thinking on the place of Waldorf in the education of today’s child. The state of knowledge right now is that you have to create it yourself and very few prospective parents are qualified to do that. (The “why waldorf works” page is a good start but doesn’t engage with enough, IMO.)
Just in case anyone would like to know, I send my children to a Waldorf school in a large American city. We are not anthroposophists and have no “sway” over the standard-bearers of the school or movement whatsoever. We would be the first to admit that Waldorf is not for everyone, especially children who are intrinsically academically inclined from a very early age. On the other hand, research indicates that early readers tend not to hold onto their advantage. Personally, if I had a child who was really jazzed about reading at 3 years old I would run with it until it fizzled out (if at all). At that time, I would think about what the child may have missed out on while they were focused on reading (i.e.., in terms of socialization, handwork, balance/coordination) and think about how to work more heavily on that at their present developmental stage.
I think the beauty of Steiner’s pedagogy is that it is phenomenological. The adults in the child’s life are encouraged to observe the child as a unique being and discern try how the child is asking them to guide them towards becoming an educated human being.
I’m not sure you realize how condescending your comment comes across, so I’m going to assume that you aren’t intentionally insulting me or the other very well read, well research readers who have participated in this discussion. If the condescension is intentional, you can take it elsewhere, as it is both misapplied and unacceptable here. The “no one can understand Waldorf except Waldorf” attitude is one of the very issues many of my readers have with the method. You’re perpetuating that with this comment. Was that your goal or merely an unfortunately by-product?
If you were at all familiar with the movement questioning Waldorf/Steiner methodology, you would know that these sites do address Steiner’s original German works, involve contributers throughout both Europe and the United States (including, amazingly enough, German anti-Waldorf contributors), and are exceptionally researched, cited, and cross-referenced.
When you say parents aren’t “qualified to do it,” are you speaking about the “state of knowledge?” If that’s your song and dance, you’ve come to the wrong audience, as I am of the opinion that the parent is the single most qualified person to educate his or her own child. No one knows the child like the parent. An indoctrinated teacher and a bunch of colorful toys can’t adequately substitute for the intimacy and interconnectedness of the parent-child relationship — though it seems that Waldorf education certainly does try to be that substitute, by hook or by crook.
I didn’t mean to be condescending. I’ll try again. I’m not a “no one can understand Waldorf except Waldof” person because my understanding of it comes from outside of anthroposophy.
Yes, I am “at all familiar with the movement” questioning Steiner. I know that he is often discussed in German. Some critics are “exceptionally researched, cited, and cross-referenced.” Many are not. Some only appear so. Few are peer-reviewed.
I have no qualms with your contention that “parents are the single most qualified person to educate his or her own child.” What I was trying to call into question is the content and form of your average parent’s research on Waldorf education. Can looking at a variety of sites both “pro” and “con” qualify as balanced research? If something gets repeated enough can it be considered a fact? Who really tracks down sources and verifies context?
In short, my point is that there are many, many aspects to this debate and the average parent doesn’t have all of the tools at their disposal to make an informed assessment because it involves bringing together a wide array of knowledge, much of which has to already exist in the parent’s educational background before they commence a Google search. IMO, people get tired and walk away saying “well, something is up with that….I may not know what it is but it looks pretty bad.” I think that would be a shame not only for the thousands of children/families who are being implicitly maligned as wacky racist cultists but the people who might otherwise find something that they were looking for.
Is peer review really your standard for excellence? If so, who do you judged to be the peers qualified to review Steiner/Waldorf?
In terms of documents that attempt to be “exceptionally researched, cited, and cross-referenced” I do think the standard of excellence is peer review. Peer-reviewed articles are generally evaluated by 3-4 others who possess special knowledge expertise and advanced degrees in the area in question. For a Steiner/Waldorf paper this might be educational research, European Philosophy, Religion, German Studies and other scientific disciplines such as neuroscience or psychology. Then, the paper would be reviewed by an editorial board of a journal or press that doesn’t exist merely to advance a particular agenda.
Of course, that is the gold standard. I am not saying that everything else out there is automatically suspect. What I am saying is that most of what is out there requires an ability to perform some of the analysis that those 3-4 reviewers and the editorial board provide before something is published. This puts your average parent at a disadvantage, especially when some of the criticisms look so legitimate and echo things said by real people in blogs, etc. It is possible that connections are made and dots are connected where it is unwarranted.
Again, I find your position to be incredibly condescending.
Sorry, this is where I wanted to post this and thought I was but it went to the end of the messages. Can it be deleted since it’s out of context? Personally, I had a child who was jazzed for reading at 3, and at 4, and at 5. We kept telling her she would learn to read when she went to school. She came home from her first day in K mighty, mighty put out that they had not taught her how to read! She picked up reading in middle school.
No problem. Deleted there, approved here.
I think it is very good that information regarding Steiner Waldorf schools is now accessible to parents and policy makers as opposed to some jumped up self-development programme via the School of Spiritual Science.
Regarding he child being seen as a unique being, the teacher will be viewing your child through Steiner’s four temperaments. If you still regard this as misinformation, I recommend you ask your child’s school for their reading list and teacher training materials.
http://www.openwaldorf.com/temperaments.html
Hmm…reading more of these replies makes me want to talk to one of DH’s cousins. She use to be a teacher at a Waldorf school. This back-and-forth makes me curious as to why she quit. I think I’m going to have to call MIL to get her email address. Or I could wait until Christmas when we’re out there.
Thank you for your post. I currently have family involved with Waldorf education. All of the information you give is accurate about this methodology. Mr. Steiner was the creator of a religion – he had no formal education nor training in child development.
I am an AMS certified Montessori teacher preschool – K. My pet peeve is when people lump Montessori education in with Waldorf. Their is no common thread here.
Steiner was the author of his religion, Anthroposophy.
DR. Montessori was a DOCTOR! She crafted her educational methodology through scientific evidence, child development and observation.
Thanks!
Margaret,
While it is true that Maria Montessori was a medical doctor and that may be superior training for working with children, Rudolf Steiner did have a “formal education” as a doctor of philosophy. His education exposed him to human development theories (such as they were at that time). Both Steiner and Montessori were especially gifted in the art of observation, which accounts for the success of their unique pedagogies that have stood the test of time. Only recently have these approaches been backed by scientific evidence because neuroscience and educational research (using causal or experimental research design) needed to catch up!
I once read an article by a Montessori teacher about the commonalities of spirit between Waldorf and Montessori. I seem to remember something about Maria Montessori’s concerns towards the end of her life. Do you want me to get the link for you if I can find it?
Best, K.
Steiner’s PhD was in philosophy. That doesn’t give him the credentials to establish an education system or work with children.
True by today’s standards. However, other possible routes were not available at the time because applicable fields didn’t exist. Think about the state of psychology at the time. Learned people were generally educated in theology/moral philosophy, languages, history, political economy, law and medicine. Education theories as such grew out of the other disciplines. Someone with a PhD who published on Goethe was considered to be credentialed in a meaningful way.
I think this is one of those – don’t argue about politics or religion moments!
WOW I am so impressed with your blog and your responses -smart mama you are!
Have you ever noticed that the BIG Waldorf Buzz word is ‘reverence’ for the child? Nothing could be further from the truth.
The bottom line is that Waldorf methodology does not honor the physical, emotional or intellectual path of the child. It addresses only the Anthropological approach of how the teacher ‘thinks/knows’ the child should grow according to this rigid/ particular religious system.
I tend to believe Waldorf education is more for the parent’s need for community and belonging rather than for the child’s good.
I mean ‘it addresses the Anthroposophy approach of how the teacher ‘thinks/knows..etc…
Hi Margaret,
I’m one of those in-between people – interested in quintessential questions and disinterested in ’spirituality’, religion, atheism or any other club or label that limits better and better questions.
So in the interest of being factual, I invite you to consider looking at Dr. Steiner’s view of life and existence as more of a philosophy instead of a religion. The belief, that Steiner’s worldview, which is called “anthroposophy”, is a religion has been refuted in courts of law both in Europe and the US. The reason the courts have given anthroposophy a clean bill of health is that they found in anthroposophy (1) there is no creed or dogma or so-called holy book, (2) there are not priests or ministers or ordination ceremonies or practices of ministry such as one finds in a religion (3) there are no places of worship or religious ceremonies associated with anthroposophy. You can find the full argument here: http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Declaration-of-Douglas-Sloan.pdf.
Please also reconsider your estimation of Dr. Steiner’s level of academic attainment. A brief visit to Wikipedia affirms that he did his undergraduate studies at the Vienna Institute of Technology and received a PhD in Philosophy at the University of Rostock, Germany. He then spent the next 15 years of his youth editing the scientific writings of Goethe – an accomplishment which is appreciated by mainstream scientists today like, for example, Seattle University’s Director of the Environmental Studies Program, Gordon L. Miller. In his recent book, published by MIT Press, The Metamorphosis of Plants’, Miller acknowledges Steiner’s scientific chops: “For authoritative discussions of Goethe’s science in relation to mainstream science, see … Rudolf Steiner’s insightful ‘Goethe’s World View’”.
So, although he was not a medical doctor, he was a recognized scientist and practiced in the art of observation when he took it upon himself to tutor the child of his landlady who had severe learning difficulties. It was in years of work with this actual child and observing his progress that he first developed the rudiments of his pedagogy. Although Montessori and Steiner arrived at different methodologies, it’s ironic that they both began their journey with the love and observation of the special education child.
After many years in and around Waldorf education and Waldorf educators it is not lost on me that – like in most affinity groups – there is the lunatic fringe – the 20% who dogmatically follow and quote and dote. Steiner did not encourage this and called such behavior “gossip”. He said, “I don’t teach. I describe what I myself have experienced.”
Before you write off Waldorf education entirely, if you ever get a chance to check out a *public* charter school ‘inspired by Waldorf education*, you may be pleasantly surprised that the granola aspect of Waldorf and the bureaucratic aspect of public education balance each other out for a blend that actually works.
If you got this far, thanks!
Joan
Again, I say that a knowledge, on no matter how expert a level, of philosophy and Goethe does not make one qualified to develop an educational methodology for children.
True. And it doesn’t prevent it either.
I was very interested to read this article as our home school includes a Waldorf component. I see different methods and curricula as a smorgasbord — I pick and choose bits and pieces from whatever is out there and leave the rest. There’s much that I like about Waldorf, but I think one needs to diversify beyond “pure Waldorf.” Regarding the “no reading before second grade” or “before cutting the first tooth,” I think what is really meant is that children should not be directly instructed in academics before the age of six or seven. A language-rich environment for young children is recommended in which they should be allowed a great deal of free play and should be guided by their “inner wisdom,” rather than by a curriculum. Two of my children read at a very early age without being taught (I think they picked it up from being read to.) This is considered just fine with Waldorf because they learned “naturally.” It’s the idea of forcing children into academics before they are developmentally ready that is at issue. Perhaps some Waldorf schools and teachers may be too rigid in their definitions of “developmental readiness”? What I like about the Waldorf courses we’ve used is that they are holistic — the child’s senses and imagination are drawn into the learning process. I don’t think they’re necessarily the most academically efficient materials, but they’re fun, light, and playful. I think they add some gravy to the meat and potatoes of my children’s rather dry online schools. Nothing I’ve seen suggests that reading is discouraged by Waldorf. Through Waldorf courses, my kids have been introduced to Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, to Russian literature, and to the Kalevala and the Ramayana. I don’t think we’d have discovered this literature on our own. I never force my children to do anything they don’t want to do, so I wouldn’t make them copy a poem or an artwork, but they can, if they wish, follow the recommended procedure or use it as a basis for what they’re doing. Beyond discouraging too much TV or video game time, I don’t agree at all with the anti-technology approach. My suggestion with Waldorf, as with every other curriculum, is to take what, if anything, works for your children and leave the rest. Steiner’s philosophy has much in common with that of Aurobindo Ghose and Inayat Khan, as well as with the teachings of Maria Montessori. I enjoyed the “Common Vision” by David Marshak, which discusses some of the similarities between these methods.
M. Hanan said:
————————-
“The truth about Waldorf education is that it is grounded in a true understanding of human development. The founder of Waldorf education was himself a scientist, and there is plenty of science to back up the curriculum and educational approach.”
————————-
Dear M. Hanan,
As an anthroposophist for 34 years and a former Waldorf HS teacher in both NY and LA, I can appreciate your confidence and optimism above. But I have found that it is crucially important to acknowledge and then test everything Rudolf Steiner said about his understanding of human development, no matter how strange or frightening his claims may be.
Therefore, I offer you this excerpt of my own translation of Steiner’s German words spoken to the teachers at the first Waldorf school founded in Stuttgart, Germany in 1919. The setting is a faculty “child study” of a first grade girl made during a conference with teachers which took place on July 3, 1923 at the school in Stuttgart.
I wonder if you have come across any such children at your school. Also, do you believe this evaluation of Steiner might still be valid today? And do you agree that such principles of human development need to be kept away from public scrutiny as Rudolf Steiner insists here?
===================================
DR. STEINER: About that little girl, L.K. in the first grade — there is some kind of terribly sinister obstruction of her whole inner being. And there’s not much we can do about it at all. Such cases are becoming more and more prevalent today — where children are born and they do appear with a human form — but they are not really human beings in regard to their Highest Self; instead, they are chock full of entities that cannot be classified as human.
Since the decade of the 1890’s, a vast number of egoless people have been born without actually being reincarnated — instead, their human form is crammed full with some species of natural or Nature demon. That means there are now quite a large number of adults walking around who are really not human beings, but whose essence is that of a natural or nature spirit; and they are “human beings” only with respect to their outer appearance. But we are not about to set up a school for demons.
A TEACHER: How is that possible?
DR. STEINER: In principle, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Cosmos does make mistakes. It was determined long ago that individuals descending [into earthly life] were all meant to be together. Also, there are whole generations where individuals have no desire at all to come down and take on a physical body, or else they bail out right at the beginning of the process. When this happens, other entities are able to replace them….
We are very reluctant to discuss these things since we are frequently attacked anyway, even without discussing them. Just think what people would say if they ever heard what we are explaining here — that there exist human beings who are not actually human beings. But these are actual facts.
We would not be experiencing such a decadence of our culture if people would only develop a keen sense for the fact that there are numerous people walking around today who are utterly ruthless — precisely because they have turned into something that is not an authentic human being, but instead they are demons masquerading as human beings.
However, we don’t want to broadcast any of this out into the world. The antagonism against us is already big enough as it is. Such things shock people to their foundations. I once caused an unbelievable shock when I was compelled to say that a very famous university professor, a person with an enormous reputation, had been reincarnated — after a very short time between death and rebirth — as a Negro doing research. But we just don’t want to advertise these things to the outside world.
=============================
You can find the entire text in a different translation on pages 649-650 here
http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/faculty_meetings/faculty_meetings.pdf
Thank you.
Tom Mellett
Los Angeles, CA
The subtext of this lengthy rebuttal to M. Hanan is basically “do you call THIS a true theory of human development?” and “has science backed THIS up?” As such, you’re not really being fair. What M. Hanan was arguing is that the educational system is grounded in an understanding of human development, something that can’t be said of what passes for public education these days! Its similar to Piaget (minus the reincarnation aspects of course!) Finally, M. Hanan was also saying that the pedagogy is backed up by cutting-edge ed reform and psych research and that is also true.
So what is your point? Throw the baby out with the bathwater or not? Steiner really, really believed in his reincarnation of souls stuff. While I can personally soften to the idea of reincarnation, his system of how it all works is a bit much for me. I’m not a fan and thus not an anthroposophist. How is it that you can be an anthroposophist?
But the Waldorf schools are not “grounded in an understanding of human development.” They are not grounded in science at all. “Spiritual science” is not a science. It is not a scientific discipline. You can’t just tack “science” onto a word and suddenly, voila, it means something. Steiner’s understanding of human development was wrapped up in his unprovable notions of multiple spiritual bodies and celestial beings. He seemed willing to dismiss someone’s potential for growth based on these inane ideas. I also do not see a single shred of evidence, produced you M Hanan, you, or any other Steiner-supporter, that backs this claim you are asserting, that neurological, pedagogical, or psychiatric research support any of these ideas. Again, saying it doesn’t make it true. I challenge you to provide evidence that the “four temperaments” actually impact learning or that they are linked to body type.
When people say “grounded in an understanding of human development” people mean “grounded in an understanding of human development” not “grounded in a theory of human development that is currently being researched and supported by leading scholars in the field.” What can I say? It is what it is. Steiner wrote about 100 years ago when the 4 temperaments was the prevailing wisdom on personality. It no longer is. That is not to say that the essence of Waldorf pedagogy is bunk. To the contrary. First, it lies in contrast to current public education in that it does offer an understanding of childhood stages (not unlike Piaget) and what methods should be pursued as a result. Offering instruction in reading to young children may be possible but it is not developmentally appropriate. It exists more because of the needs of the state and earlier studies that had suggested that late reading is not easily overcome. However, the skill of reading is not the same as what might be more broadly defined as language arts. Understanding the sound and meaning of words and the structure of narrative are all things children need to know deeply in order to become avid readers and good critical thinkers later on. These are things that can be accomplished through story telling, rhyme/poetry and experience with foreign languages.
“Spiritual Science” is translated from “geisteswissenschaft” which includes the word “geist” which is more accurately understood as including ideas of ethics, morality and the human impulse (especially at that time in the context in which they were writing vis a vis natural science). The word “spirit” in English tends to merely imply “Casper the Friendly Ghost” or the Holy Trinity. It is to my profound dismay that Steiner’s beliefs on the spiritual/celestial crowd out this other meaning of geist which he certainly intended. It is incorrect to think of it as something akin to “Ghostbuster Science.” Rather it is an attempt to elevate, codify and make use of that which is left out of “naturwissenschaft.”
Clearly you believe Steiner and his methodologies are above reproach. I don’t see any ground for continued discourse here. You’re setting up straw men (in this example, public education, which neither my post nor the Waldorf critics are addressing with their complains about the Waldorf method), making multiple unsupported claims, and flip-flopping on the importance of methodologies being “proved” or evidence-based. You expect that Waldorf critics should ignore a large portion of Steiner’s questionable philosophies because…why, exactly? Because you say so? Because the power of Waldorf is so amazing that we should turn a blind eye to the toxic roots?
*Sigh*
I thought we were getting somewhere.
1) I do not believe Steiner and his methodologies are above reproach. I am not sure what made you jump that broad conclusion after I have been meticulously going through different aspects of the concerns you raise, providing an alternative interpretation and conceding points.
2) You claim that I am setting up straw men, offering unsupported claims and flipping on the importance of methodologies being “proved” or science-based.
–Straw men. I was not arguing that because Waldorf manages to be better than public education it rocks. Rather, I was providing an example of how it is possible to have an education system that does not purposefully make an attempt to ground itself in an explicit theory of development and implying what the potential pitfalls might be. Waldorf is not the only educational system that grounds itself in a child development theory, of course. The point is that this and all other pedagogies that work from a theory of development theory have something unique to offer.
–Unsupported claims. I would be happy to provide further clarification and support for anything I have said.
—Flip-flopping on the importance of methodologies being proven or evidence-based.
I am not following you there. I believe in this day and age it is possible to provide empirical and even causal-based evidence of the merits and drawbacks of any pedagogy. In fact, I think that the Waldorf movement should put evidence-based outcomes on the front burner but this requires money and expertise of the sort that is hard for a set of private schools to leverage. In the meantime, Waldorf schools are relying on research that is being done in neuroscience, and ed psych to illuminate the desired goals of a Waldorf education.
This, coincidentally, brings me to where I believe our dispute lies: the design and goals of a Waldorf education and what it actually accomplishes. On one side, there are people who experience a high correspondence between the aims and the outcomes. There are others who do not. I had hoped that my participation here would work towards highlighting the fact that Waldorf as a pedagogy and Waldorf as a practice must be examined as two different things when the purpose is to evaluate outcomes. Flaws in practice, no matter how hurtful or seemingly widespread are not the same thing as the pedagogy, which is the codification of what these practices are supposed to engender. I’m all for questioning how well the pedagogy is practiced but not for calling them the same things because they are two parts of a whole. Further, I’m willing to concede that Waldorf, as a movement, exhibits a poor feed-back loop for issues that rise to the level of critical mass. I think that is why you see these boards so active. Schools, on the other hand, have better mechanisms for dealing with these issues which is why you get so many families who are very happy with their education. I believe the failures happen as a result of poor handling of issues at the school level and the poor feedback loop I previously mentioned.
“you expect that waldorf critics should ignore a large portion of Steiner’s questionable philosophies”
–I do not expect people to ignore things they don’t like about him. He’s totally fair game on many grounds. What I do expect is that critics make an effort to avoid painting with large brushes because the “roots” as so “toxic” as you say. A more honest form of critique would involve taking anecdotal evidence (note: I am not dismissing experiences as anecdotes but qualifying them as a type of evidence) and quantifying and categorizing it based on its internal event structure, scope and breadth. Then, this evidence should be assayed against other kinds of evidence such as statistical evidence and textual evidence (for example). Each type of evidence is problematic in its own way and has its own kind of limitations which should be identified upfront so as to allow for replication and review.
We’ve got to be honest. The state of criticism right now is polemical because many people find the “roots” of Waldorf education to be “toxic.” As hard as it may be for you to believe, I am here because I would like to push for a criticism that engenders better student-level outcomes and a better overall feedback loop for the times when larger issues arise. These cannot be achieved with broad-brush treatments that culminate in “its a cult” or “its racist.” IMO, such claims do the ultimate disservice to a family that has chosen Waldorf and has had a bad experience. Its like saying, “oh dear, don’t worry about it. they are nuts and what you experienced was a run-in with a cult. how silly of you for not noticing earlier” NO! How about “you got a poorly trained and supported teacher” or “there was no appropriate mechanism for your concerns to be anticipated and heard”. Placing the “blame” on specific people operating in specific contexts is the more empowering—although less comforting— way to look at what happened. This is because people can change. Institutions can change but resistance is futile with a century-old faceless racist cultic dogma.
There is this great concept about organizations called “exit, voice or loyalty” which I suppose should be self-explanatory. The current state of waldorf criticism implies that there is only exit or loyalty. But there is an opportunity for voice. We just need to be more careful about how we leverage various forms of evidence in constructing our criticisms.
Actually, I’m placing the blame on a deeply flawed and harmful system, not on the families. I’m also not dismissing their experiences as isolated incidences.
Exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect. Voice can be constructive or confrontational.
Or to put it another way, there are the exiters, the voicers, the loyalists, and the negligent. Theoretically.
Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect.
by Michael J. Withey , William H. Cooper
This paper reports the results of two longitudinal studies we conducted to find out when dissastisfied employees will respond to their dissatisfaction with exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect. We found consistent evidence that exiters were affected by the costs and the efficacy of their responses as well as the attractiveness of their employing organization. Loyalists were primarily affected by the efficacy of their responses, although, unexpectedly, loyalty resembled entrapment in the organization more than it did supportive allegiance to the organization. Neglecters were primarily affected by the costs and the efficacy of their responses, and voicers were very difficult to predict. We conclude by arguing that we need a much better understanding of voice and loyalty in order to predict better how employees will respond to dissatisfaction.
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=D0C6A35AEFA016B77B801CA5E35CEC5D.inst2_2a?docId=5000115866
So glad you’ve written this measured and open piece. I share all the concerns you have. As Maragaret and others have said- Steiner wasn’t scientist or a Doctor. He tried to make a science out “clairvoyance”.
What is important is that parents are aware that these school are led by anthroposophic belief, even though they will play this down. Children and teachers are immersed in it, and even if teachers aren’t fully fledged anthroposophists, they are expected to be on a spiritual path of self development, and their teacher training is anthroposophical. Although there may be talk of “free will” and personal ideas etc, in reality, it would be very difficult to present the Steiner curriculum as he set it out, without belief (from the start) in the reality of spirit beings and worlds, reincarnation and karma. But I guess the idea is to get the parents, children (and teachers) into the schools with the hope they will accept these beliefs as law once they’re there. It certainly seems this is the method, because nothing is clearly stated as to why certain things are done the way they are in Steiner Waldorf. People waft about in a sing song way, never giving definitive answers to questions.
This is Rudolf Steiner College teacher training
http://www.steinercollege.edu/?q=node/122
Karma & Reincarnation for Teachers – a useful 20028 document for teachers when faced with problems about the law of karma or understanding the devil & satan.
For a Montessori teacher’s take on Steiner Waldorf, this is a good article
http://www.montessorianswers.com/my-experiences-with-waldorf.html
http://taruna.ac.nz/docs/karma_and_reincarnation_for_teachers.pdf
‘Belief’ or ‘dis-belief’ are not the only ways one can respond to information. I’m reading Jung’s ‘Red Book’ at the moment. I see the pictures he drew and the conclusions about the soul that he arrived at from the experiences he had. I don’t have to immediately believe Jung or immediately be skeptical. I can enjoy the ideas, try them out to see if they resonate as truthful to me over time. I can take the ideas in and live with them and find what in them works for me and the rest will fall away of its own accord. Steiner’s ideas are no different. There’s no requirement or need to profess anything. Steiner did not, as you say, “try to make a science out of clairvoyance”. He made a science out of his clairvoyant *findings* which he described in detail in his writings – his travelogue if you will. He organized the world of energetic forces that he experienced into a coherent field that he could describe as corresponding in every detail to its counterpart in the physical world that we see and experience with our senses.
The thing that makes Steiner relevant today is that he applied the results of these findings in practical and helpful ways to society’s problems – medicine, agriculture, education, social development, you name it. No one has to believe anything he said and the fact that so many did hang onto his every word contributed to the exhaustion that led to his death at 62. “Know it for yourself. Don’t believe it!”
If you insist, I guess you could say that Steiner tried to “make a science out of clairvoyance” in that he gave quite a bit of specific and detailed instruction on meditative practice to achieve “knowing”. The pre-requisite in his formula for knowing? Empathy for others and reverence for all of life.
Yes, if you want to be a ‘Waldorf’ teacher you will be exposed to the knowledge that Steiner described based on his experiences. You are not asked to believe his descriptions or share them as though they are the truth – since they are not your experiences and so you cannot possibly speak of them as being true.
A principle, or moral value, of Waldorf pedagogy is “there is no such thing as a defective child”. One can arrive at that conclusion from a loving and compassionate heart or from the perspective of more than one earthly life. As long as there is compassion and real help going on, what does it actually matter? But it’s not a ‘teaching’ or a ‘truth’ or a ‘belief’. It’s just a thought to try out, an outfit to dance in. It’s the dance that matters.
I came to my self, a giddy and pitiful figure. My I! I didn’t want this fellow as my companion. I found myself with him. I’d prefer a bad woman or a wayward hound, but one’s own I–this horrifies me.
An opus is needed, that one can squander decades on, and do it out of necessity. I must catch up with a piece of the Middle Ages–within myself. We have only finished the Middle Ages of–others. I must begin early in that period when the hermits died out. Asceticism, inquisition, torture are close at hand and impose themselves. The barbarian requires barbaric means of education. My I, you are a barbarian. I want to live with you, therefore I will carry you through an utterly medieval Hell, until you are capable of making living with you bearable. You should be the vessel and womb of life, therefore I shall purify you.
The touchstone is being alone with oneself.
This is the way.
C. G. Jung
Joan said: “Yes, if you want to be a ‘Waldorf’ teacher you will be exposed to the knowledge that Steiner described based on his experiences. You are not asked to believe his descriptions or share them as though they are the truth – since they are not your experiences and so you cannot possibly speak of them as being true. ”
That is not true. All Waldorf teachers are REQUIRED to use Steiner’s knowledge in dealing with children… NOT their own knowledge. If teachers could use their own knowledge, then public school teachers with equally relevant and valuable knowledge about children could be Waldorf teachers. They can’t. They need to have Steiner’s knowledge to become Waldorf teachers. You can argue whether they “believe” his “knowledge” or not – but they certainly MUST work through Steiner’s ideas about pedagogy.
Joan also said:
“A principle, or moral value, of Waldorf pedagogy is “there is no such thing as a defective child”. ”
That’s exactly THE OPPOSITE of what Steiner taught – and what Waldorf teachers are required to read. Steiner taught that children may indeed be defective – possessed by demons even. Steiner founded an entire educational movement (Waldorf) on identifying imaginary defects in normal children… large heads, small heads, left-handedness… don’t get me started with the temperaments… Identifying imaginary defects in children is what Waldorf is all about!
PK
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/2010/11/lefthandedness-by-rudolf-steiner.html
A great article, thank you. One of our first inklings that there was more going on than immediately apparent at our local Steiner school was a weekend class for parents on Anthroposophical medicine. Not that it was advertised as such, of course. Whatever your feelings on alternative medicine, I don’t feel it’s appropriate for schools to promote it.
Our not-quite two year old is just starting to ‘read’ books out loud for himself, largely getting the gist of a familiar story in his own words, presumably from memory. Slightly less endearingly, he also loves his toy laptop. (Just like Daddy.) I think we made the right choice in deciding against a Steiner education for him.
Dear Keizei,
I started this post yesterday before I read your reply to mine, but then I read your statements about Steiner and racism. Since this posting combines both Steiner’s actual brain research and his views on race, I think it’s important to have its own thread here.
Tom
===========================
M.Hanan wrote:
———————————
“. . . there is plenty of science to back up the curriculum and educational approach. In fact, current neuroscience research validates what Steiner knew almost 100 years ago. See The Magic Onion blog for more information about this . . . “
——————————–
Dear M. Hanan,
I just came across that Magic Onion site last week and was very excited to see the possibilities open up for modern brain research of Rudolf Steiner’s indications, especially since he did a lot of his own brain research. Here is the article
http://www.ecswe.org/downloads/Brain-research-and-Why-Waldorf-Works.pdf
Why Waldorf Works: From a Neuroscientific Perspective
By Dr. Regalena “Reggie” Melrose
Now I would like to post for you here a link to a diagram that appeared in a lecture given by Rudolf Steiner on March 3, 1923 in Dornach, Switzerland, where the Goetheanum is located. This particular lecture is entitled: “Color and the Human Races,” where Steiner describes the differentiation of the races from a spiritual perspective.
http://tinyurl.com/ynw9vd
You’ll notice 3 figures standing there: the one on the left is a Negro, the one in the middle is an Asian, and the one on the right is a Causasian.
And here is the English translation of the German labels in the figures
NEGRO FIGURE———ASIAN FIGURE———CAUCASIAN FIGURE
Hind-Brain————Mid-Brain————Fore-Brain
——————————————-Thinking Life
———————-Feeling Life
Instinctual Life
(or Willing Life)
Black——————-Yellow—————-White
Copper-Red————–Brown
===============================================
(The “copper-red” is a reference to the race of American Indians, and the “brown” refers to the Malay race of SE Asia and the Pacific Islanders.)
But for this thread, notice the references to the different parts of the brain that are more well-developed according to race:
Caucasian – Vorderhirn, — Forebrain – cerebral cortex
Asian – Mittelhirn — Mid-brain — thalamus, hypothalamus, amygdala
Negro — Hinterhirn — Hind-brain — occipital lobes/cerebellum/medulla
Now that we have the technology to test these ideas, I wonder if MRI brain scans could detect the differentiations that Steiner makes among the brains of blacks, Asians and whites.
For example, here is a specific area of the human brain that can be easily investigated today:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I now translate the excerpt of the lecture where Steiner explains what goes on within the especially well-developed “Hind-brain” brain of a Negro.
—————————————————-
“First of all, let us consider the blacks in Africa. These blacks in Africa possess a unique characteristic in that they “suck up” or absorb all light and all warmth from [outer] cosmic space. They take it in. And this light and warmth from [outer] cosmic space cannot pass through or permeate the whole body, because, well, a human is always a
human, even if he is black. (…)
Now there has to be something present to compensate him for this process. OK, let’s look at just what helps him with this process,namely, his Hind-brain. In the Negro, the Hind-brain is especially well-developed. And all of that goes right through the medulla into the spinal cord. And that is what can process all that is inside the
human being as light and warmth. As a result, with the Negro, everything connected with the [physical] body and the metabolism is vigorously cultivated. He has, as we say, an intense appetite [drive] for life. An instinctual, [impulsive] life. Thus the Negro exhibits a passionate desire life.
And because he actually retains the sun-light and the sun-warmth right there on the surface of his skin, then his entire metabolism operates as if he were actually being “cooked” ["simmered"] inside by the sun! That is the source of his instinctive life [of urges]. In the Negro, then, he is literally and continuously being “cooked” ["simmering"] inside. And what is it that stokes this fire? The Hind-brain.
Sometimes the human constitution shows us certain secondary [spin-off] processes as well. That can really be seen in the Negro. You see, the Negro not only exhibits this “cooking” ["simmering"] within his organism, but he also exhibits terribly cunning and wary eyes. He looks shifty-eyed and gazes intently. Now you could accept this as a contradiction. But here’s the truth: (See Sketch on pg. 56) Since the optic nerve is located in the front, then the nerves go right back into the Hind-brain; and they cross each other there [optic chiasma]. Thus the optic nerve goes right into the Hind-brain.
And because the Negro’s Hind-brain is so well-developed, then that’s why he peers out [shifty-eyed], so slyly [so furtively]. Therefore, he is such a sly [cagey] observer of the world around him. If we begin to understand this, then everything becomes clear. But contemporary science does not take such matters, as we are again formulating, into consideration at all.”
=====================================================
But now contemporary science can, but of course maybe they won’t!
Tom Mellett
Los Angeles, CA
I have no idea how anyone can read that and not see racism. Staggering.
Yes, it does take the racial issue out of the vague and abstract and brings it right into clear focus.
Yes. Me, being the person that I am in 2010 can call this nothing other than racist. But do you have a sense for how racist or pseudo-scientific it would have been considered in 1923? What actions were to be taken as a result of such “knowledge?” Finally, do you know if there is any connection between the contents of this lecture and the contents of Waldorf teacher training today such that this is considered to be true and useful?
I am sure you have heard this objection before. In order to justify the proposition that Waldorf education is racist (not just that Steiner gave pseudo-scientific lectures on race) one must show how these ideas (which are abhorrent to the contemporary person) are influential today.
One has shown how these ideas are influential today, through color bias in Waldorf schools (children not allowed to use colors that actually represent them and their family), through having their pictures of angels “corrected” to blonde hair and fair skin.
Keizei,
I brought your above questions to the Waldorf Critics Yahoo list, and there Dr. Peter Staudenmaier, a professional historian, who recently received his PhD in history from Cornell, went into much detail answering them.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15862
I would urge you to join that forum because you have a good objective attitude about this whole issue of racism.
Also, Peter’s PhD dissertation was on anthroposophy in Germany and Italy during the Nazi era. You can receive a PDF copy of the dissertation if you like.
I need to do some further reading about anthroposophic responses to these particular lectures. If anyone has links to Detlef Hardorp’s comments on the 1923 lecture, please forward. I am already well acquainted with the history of racial theories (thus the genesis of my rhetorical question) but at present I do not have a nuanced interpretation of what was “mainstream” at that particular moment in order to put Steiner into context. I’ll read up but I’m willing to take any input.
I’m also not settled on whether or not anthroposophy has adequately addressed this past. For me, the issue is not with the existence of these statements as much as with their treatment by the standard-bearers after WW II. (Please don’t take that to mean I condone these viewpoints as part of my personal worldview.) I seem to remember a good paper published in an anthroposophical publication by a 3rd party scholar who addressed questions of racism in anthroposophy? Does anyone have that handy? At the time I read it I thought it was well done.
Before I sign off I’d like to reiterate my last point: “In order to justify the proposition that Waldorf education is racist (not just that Steiner gave pseudo-scientific lectures on race) one must show how these ideas (which are abhorrent to the contemporary person) are influential today.”
I’m frustrated that critics don’t seem to take seriously the standard of evidence that should be required to make such a large claim about the pedagogy and how it is practiced. After all, even critics will concede that the various anthroposophical movements are largely made up of left-leaning people who claim to be against such things as racism. If it were me and I were a compatriot in at least that regard I would be very uneasy maligning thousands of families as racists by virtue of their willing participation in what I believed to be a racist endeavor.
Honestly, Keizie, the racism of that passage I quoted is so obvious and blatant, you really don’t need any further context for it — (although Steiner sets his own context for the lecture at the outset which I will post at the end.)
However, since you do ask for context and you do mention Detlef Hardorp, then I need to give some context about him. Detlef Hardorp is the primary public relations figure for Waldorf schools in Germany, so it is his mission to make sure the Waldorf “brand” is kept clean and shiny and spotless in its presentation to the public. (in a word: whitewash)
But Detlef’s father was also a past president of Weleda in Germany and so Detlef has an even greater interest in protecting the Weleda brand from any bad publicity. If you were to Google “Detlef + Hardorp + Dachau + Weleda” you would be able to read a spirited discussion about the role Weleda played in supplying the Nazi medical doctors with substances they needed for their experiments. You see, there was a bio-dynamic plantation at Dachau Concentration Camp outside Munich and it was overseen by Franz Lippert, who was an anthroposophist and SS officer and former head gardener at Weleda. Of course Detlef portrays Lippert as a “guardian angel” who saved a lot of inmates, and perhaps he did, but also many other inmates died under very harsh conditions working the plantation.
I really don’t think it’s appropriate to carry on this discussion on Smrt Mama’s blog here, especially when it involves the complicity and accommodation of many anthroposophists and Waldorf school figures to the Nazi regime. I fear we may already be “wearing out our welcome” here — kind of like guests who stay too late at a party and don’t know when to leave. So I encourage you and others to come over to the Waldorf Critics Yahoo group, whose archives are open to the public, so you don’t even have to join.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/
And Keizie, I know of no better website than this WC list for coming to terms with the past of anthroposophy and Waldorf. You just need to do some word-searching and digging through the archives, but it’s all there waiting.
Finally, I am now going to quote from the very opening of the lecture Steiner gave on March 3, 1923 entitled “Color and the Human Races.” Here he sets the context for the study of races as important to one’s individual spiritual development.
——————
“Good morning! Now, gentlemen, in regard to the last question concerning colors, of course, I have not answered it entirely. We wish to pursue it further — even bring it to a conclusion. The first thing we will consider today is something of the greatest interest for us, namely, human color itself. Now it is obvious to everyone that, all over the earth, human beings manifest different colors. As for Europeans, to which group we belong, we can say that we represent the white race. Now, it’s also obvious to you that Europeans are not completely healthy, if they are “[pale] cheesy white,” but they are healthy when they show a fresher, more natural color, which they produce on the inside, and which shows itself outwardly as white.
But now, in addition to this European skin color, we also have four other major skin colors. And we want to investigate that today a little bit, because, in reality, we may only understand all of history and the entire [past] social life — as well as today’s social life — only if we can really delve into the racial characteristics of human beings. And only then will we be able understand everything spiritual in the true sense [of that word], if we occupy ourselves first [and foremost] with how this spiritual essence in human beings functions precisely through skin color itself.”
——————————–
Keizie,
You’re in luck. I posted your above comment to the WC list and Peter Staudenmaier has answered you, including both German and English links to the document you were asking for — Detlef Hardorp commenting on this 1923 human skin color lecture.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/15874
Feel free to continue the discussion there.
Smrt Mama,
Because, your’e tight, one can only read sentences like these as racist, about 20 years ago, the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America(AWSNA)was called to take up the mandate of studying the current impact Steiner’s statements on race may still be having in today’s Waldorf schools (based on evidence described in the first paper, below. They published and circulated a paper rejecting these views as patently wrong and actually in conflict with the major thrust of Steiner’s views on human worth and the dignity and promise of the individual. Today Waldorf educators explicitly ban the inclusion of such thought in Waldorf teacher professional development.
(1) “Racism and Waldorf Education”
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB1201.pdf
(2) “Reflections on the Evolution of Consciousness
Inspired by Ray McDermott’s “Racism and Waldorf Education”
Douglas Sloan
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB1202.pdf
Likewise the European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education abides by the following anti-discrimination principles:
(1) http://www.steinerwaldorfeurope.org/downloads/statements/ecswe_discriminationstatement.pdf
I realize you can and likely will still have the view that these 21st Century anti-discrimination measures are a whitewash and ploy to attract students. But at least, I hope, you no longer hold the view that 21st Century Waldorf educators are “staggeringly” unaware and passive about Steiner’s racist statements.
While the people on this discussion can and will think what they wish, I did want you to know that the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America (AWSNA) undertook a study of exactly what Steiner said that either is or could be construed to be racist and declared Steiner as flat-out wrong on those statements. The two documents describing the sequence of events are here in case anyone has interest to read them. My wish, as someone working to move public Waldorf education for people who wish it for their children, is for people who don’t choose it for whatever reason to at least not have a demonic view of it as appears to be the consensus on this page. Also that there is a community of Waldorf educators who are working on factors for accrediting Waldorf schools, updating the science curriculum, blending in a developmental approach to technology, etc. in order address the all-over-the-map experience many of you describe.
(1) “Racism and Waldorf Education”
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB1201.pdf
(2) “Reflections on the Evolution of Consciousness
Inspired by Ray McDermott’s “Racism and Waldorf Education”
Douglas Sloan
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB1202.pdf
Leaving a comment on my comment.
I meant to end by saying thank you for reading and for an interesting discussion.
Joan
Firstly, Joan,
If these studies were conducted by AWSNA, then why are they still being touted as “independent” studies by Waldorf Educators? Can you please describe the circumstances by which AWSNA “undertook” the study? AWSNA perhaps “accepted” the findings – as they weren’t so bad – considering McDermott and Oberman are both Anthrophists…
Here’s the problem with what you are suggesting here (that racism has been removed from Waldorf)… you still require Waldorf teachers, TODAY, to read Steiner’s racist comments about skin color – AND to APPLY those ideas to children through the concept ALL Waldorf teachers apply to children… the Temperaments! The temperaments were Steiner’s way of dividing children by body type. The temperaments are used TODAY to divide Waldorf children – by BODY TYPE – for the Greek Olympic games (pentathlon) in the 5th grade. Why Joan? If Waldorf has addressed racism, why are children divided by temperaments, why are teachers instructed to read Steiner’s VERY DUMB ideas about body types (even Steiner’s own Anthroposophical doctors couldn’t distinguish “small-headed” children from “large-headed” children). It’s one of many distinctions Waldorf teachers use to separate children from each other.
Secondly, speaking of accreditation… How does that work exactly? I know the AWSNA accreditation committee asked Highland Hall to supply computers and update their science department IN 1998!!! They have “passed” several “inspections” since then… but still no science equipment and no computer equipment. So what EXACTLY does the accreditation committee do when schools simply don’t comply with their recommendations?
Thanks Joan.
http://petekaraiskos.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=4
Excellent points all around, Pete! Thanks!
Here’s AWSNA’s OFFICIAL statement or “racism” – it’s not about racist ideas being taught or applied to children – it’s really about racial discrimination for admitting students into Waldorf schools.
“Waldorf Schools are independent schools committed to developing the human
potential of each child to its fullest. Admission to the schools is open to everyone, without regard to race, sex, creed, religion, national origin, or ethnicity. In company with many other tuition-based independent schools, Waldorf schools are actively seeking ways to increase the economic and ethnic diversity of their student populations.
It is a fundamental goal of our education to bring students to an
understanding and experience of the common humanity of all the world’s
peoples, transcending the stereotypes, prejudices, and divisive barriers of classification by sex, race, and nationality.
We most emphatically reject racism in all its forms, and embrace the
principles of common humanity expressed by the founder of Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner:
“(We) must cast aside the division into races. (We) must seek to
unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions
and differences between various groups of people.”
– The Universal Human, Lecture 1″
I can understand why they would have to publish such disclaimers – the Waldorf school in Harlem, for example, has (had) no black students at all. Kinda makes you wonder…
But the statement does NOT address racism in Waldorf.
The quote AWSNA uses from Steiner – above is out of context BTW. The entire lecture can be found here: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/UniHuman/19091204p02.html
Here’s the whole three sentences around AWSNA’s quote:
“Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement, which is to prepare the sixth period, must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people. The old point of view of race has a physical character, but what will prevail in the future will have a more spiritual character.”
Steiner is talking about casting aside the divisions of races and treating humans as individuals IN THE NEXT EPOCH, NOT this one. So, in 1000 years, Waldorf schools will stop teaching children in accordance with their race. But for now, they will continue to deceive us – even using Steiner’s own words out of context – in order to bring children to Anthroposophy.
Here are the next few paragraphs after AWSNA’s quote – from Steiner:
“That is why it is absolutely essential to understand that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual one. It looks to the spirit and overcomes the effects of physical differences through the force of being a spiritual movement. Of course, any movement has its childhood illnesses, so to speak. Consequently, in the beginning of the theosophical movement the earth was divided into seven periods of time, one for each of the seven root races, and each of these root races was divided into seven sub-races. These seven periods were said to repeat in a cycle so that one could always speak of seven races and seven sub-races. However, we must get beyond the illnesses of childhood and understand clearly that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time.
Humanity is becoming evermore individual, and this has further implications for human individuality. It is important that this individuality develop in the right way. The anthroposophical movement is to help people become individualities, or personalities, in the right sense. How can it accomplish this? Here we must look to the most striking new quality of the human soul that is being prepared. People often ask why we do not remember our former incarnations. I have often answered this question, which is like saying that because a four-year-old child cannot do arithmetic, human beings cannot do arithmetic. When the child reaches ten, he or she will be able to multiply with ease. It is the same with the soul. If it cannot remember our former incarnations today, the time will come when it will be able to do so. Then it will possess the same capacity initiates have.
This new development is happening today. There are numerous souls nowadays who are so far advanced that they are close to the moment of remembering their former incarnations, or at least the last one. A number of people are at the threshold of comprehensive memory, embracing life between birth and death as well as previous incarnations. Many people will remember their present incarnation when they are reborn in their next life. It is simply a question of how they remember. The anthroposophical movement is to help and guide people to remember in the right way.”
rather than trying to persuade parents about waldorf’s racism either way, it’s better to empower parents with questions so they can discover if waldorf philosophy is aligned with their own values. while some families will be deeply troubled by steiner’s views on race, other parents might not care as much. and for some, steiner’s views on race are attractive. it’s a matter of preference between parents and the school.
when our family entered waldorf we did waldorf a huge disservice by not asking critical questions that would have helped us all clarify each other’s values around education, leading to a mismatch. by not asking about racism, the role of anthroposophy in curriculum development, etc., we did not give waldorf a fair shake at presenting some of the most meaningful elements of waldorf education.
for example, we didn’t ask anything about why Steiner said it was bad for children to read because it would damage their reincarnating souls. that is an extremely bold and significant educational insight, yet we failed to explore it. while steiner might be right about the role of education in helping a reincarnating child, our family had different educational ideas about education, so waldorf turned out not to be a good fit for us. we really should have asked a lot more about how waldorf’s theory of reincarnation relates to child development and education. in retrospect, we were stupid not to ask that, when it plays such an important role in the curriculum development.
other parents and teachers are different. steiner’s racist comments about jews, blacks, mongols etc. don’t bother them. some believe steiner was wrong about it. after all, steiner was wrong about a lot of things, so, why not discard his racist ideals? and, sadly, there may be some crazy parents and teachers who believe steiner was right about race, or try to apologize for his racism. these are typically the people who also believe that steiner was a uniquely spiritual guru and they believe a lot of his other unorthodox stuff that’s in the waldorf teacher training, like using your kid’s body type to describe their spiritual temperament, etc.
here are some questions parents could ask to better understand if they are aligned with waldorf’s approach to race and diversity:
1. steiner said, “On one side we find the black race, which is earthly at most. If it moves to the West, it becomes extinct. We also have the yellow race, which is in the middle between earth and the cosmos. If it moves to the East, it becomes brown, attaches itself too much to the cosmos, and becomes extinct. The white race is the future, the race that is spiritually creative.” and “The white race is the future, the race that is creating spirit.”
was steiner wrong? (listen for more than a “yes” or “no” answer). what else was steiner wrong about?
2. in plays, do you have minorities play traditionally “white” roles? e.g. do black kids ever play michael? can i see pictures? How else do you promote diversity in curriculum, not just admissions?
3. what do you teach children about martin luther king, jr, the civil rights movement? What age do you start teaching this? what other black heroes to children learn about, and when?
4. how has the school handled issues around race that pop up at school?
5. what is the right age to start actively teaching children that though we all look different on the outside, we are the same on the inside? that the both the little black boy sitting next to my little white daughter, at that moment in time, are equally evolved as humans? may i see some curriculum examples?
even waldorf would agree that they do not formally and proactively educate on diversity the way you would find it in public schools. because our family is liberal and progressive, waldorf was clearly the wrong fit. we needed a school that actively taught the values about race that were part of our family. i can see how if you were more of a conservative/republican type who thinks diversity education is a crock, waldorf’s approach to race and diversity might be a better fit for your family.
the question is NOT: “is waldorf right or wrong?” the question IS: “is waldorf right for my family?” there’s no need to get excited and demonize waldorf. just put on your thinking cap and ask the critical questions.
that’s why it is so important for parents to educate themselves about waldorf and anthroposophy when they consider waldorf education for their child. many waldorf parents make the mistake of believing waldorf knows what’s best for their child. that’s as ridiculous as saying public schools know what’s best for your child.
waldorf education deserves a close look. closer than most parents give it. if you are reading this and considering waldorf, out of fairness, here are key issues to consider:
o racism/diversity
o history world view (waldorf’s is eurocentric. then again, so is my daughter’s in public school)
o learn the anthroposophy that teacher’s learn. skim through the chapter titles of the teacher training texts and read the index.
o art – waldorf art is pretty rigid. why can’t kids draw lines? why can’t kids use black? when do they learn japanese brush painting? (what a fun project for YOUNG children!)
o science – (do you take young classes on field trips to science museums?, when do they learn the theory of evolution?)
potential parents should give waldorf a fair shake. of all the suggestions above, the most important is that you OWE it to waldorf to look at the teacher training texts. read steiner say, “Just as we try to understand a child’s soul with regard to its outer life conditions by examining the child’s surroundings, so must we ask what the environment of the higher self is. Spiritual science gives us insight into the worlds in which our higher self lives by its accounts of the evolution of Saturn and all its secrets, of the Moon and Earth evolution, of reincarnation and karma, of devachan and kamaloka, and so on. This is the only way we can learn about our higher self, about that self that extends beyond the physical plane.”
don’t be embarrassed to ask about these things, even if they sound silly to you. keep in mind that the waldorf teacher training texts are nearly sacred to them, so be as respectful as you would be talking to people about any article of faith.
this really is a life skill: critical research into any serious decision is extremely valuable.
finally, in my opinion every school sucks relative to your aspirations to your child. if you think a single school can mostly satisfy what you want for your kid, you’re a bad parent. all environments have SERIOUS pros and SERIOUS cons. if you haven’t identified things about waldorf you don’t like, you haven’t finished your homework.
i leave with a steiner quote:
“I discussed the importance of being flexible enough to consider what is said not only for, but also against, an issue to be able, as it were, to see both sides of a problem. Generally, people see only one side, but there is really no problem in life that should be treated this way. Pros and cons are never lacking. We would do well to acquire the habit of always adducing the pros as well as the cons in a case. Being what they are, human vanity and egoism usually favor what one wants to do. Therefore, it is also good to list the reasons against.”
For those who try to disregard Steiner’s racist views as a mistake made by a man who was a product of his time, I would like to point out that he was a self-proclaimed clairvoyant. Shouldn’t he have been able to see past the prejudices of his time? I would also point out that Steiner advocated for the individual to make observations and come to their own conclusions about the world around them (at least this is what I gathered from all of that spiritual science mumbo jumbo that is so damn thick to wade through it makes me sick). Again, shouldn’t he have arrived at a non-racist phiolosphy instead of one that is based ont he idea that the whiter your skin the smarter you are? Given that he was a racist and made some pretty appalling claims about Jews and Africans, how can anyone believe he was clairvoyant or that he even followed his own teachings? And if you take those two things away from him then it seems that his whole philosophy was a big hoax, and if that is true than the Waldorf method is also a scam.
Steiner did not use science to develop his method, he used people’s gullibility. And I cannot fathom how so many people still fall for it.
Hi,
My beef is, why is Waldorf/Steier being using almost interchangeably with unschooling? I thought these were separate ideologies.