What do you say? I mean it, what do you say? Comment below!
It happened again. A dinner with strangers, four couples at a round table in a big room. –And what do you do? –I’m co-founder, Faculty Chair, and a teacher at the Great Barrington Waldorf High School. –Oh. Great. Waldorf? What’s that?
And, as usual, I’m at a bit of a loss. I just don’t have an elevator speech. Depending on the noise level of the room and my assessment of the question, I say something about balancing academics, arts, physical activity, and social health. Or I say something about a non-denominational, non-sectarian approach to spiritual questions.
Sometimes I find myself in a meaty, fruitful conversation. Sometimes people’s eyes glaze over and I turn the conversation to another topic as soon as possible.
When I started looking into definitions and descriptions of Waldorf education, more than fifteen years ago, I believed it would be easy to find, say, a pithy paragraph in Rudolf Steiner’s work that would begin, “Waldorf education is…” But such a paragraph doesn’t exist. So I looked at the work of Henry Barnes, Jeffrey Kane, Eugene Schwartz, Steve Talbott, Douglas Sloan, and other very smart writers and thinkers about Waldorf education. All of them had lots of good things to say, but none had a synopsis that could fuel the elevator speech or the dinner table introduction.
So I’m putting it to those who read this blog: What do you say?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Labels
- administration (1)
- adolescence (5)
- advertising (1)
- alternatives (2)
- american (3)
- Aristotle (1)
- art (1)
- asses (1)
- Barfield (7)
- benjamin bloom (1)
- bloom's taxonomy (1)
- Bortoft (2)
- bureaucracy (1)
- charter schools (1)
- cheating (1)
- class size (1)
- cognition (2)
- cold war (1)
- Coleridge (1)
- college (1)
- computers (4)
- consciousness (3)
- consumerism (1)
- creativity (2)
- destiny (1)
- development (4)
- doodling (1)
- douglas gerwin (1)
- douglas sloan (2)
- drug abuse (1)
- early childhood (4)
- egypt (1)
- emerson (3)
- european (1)
- fish (1)
- freedom (2)
- funding (1)
- garden city (2)
- gardner (4)
- gatto (1)
- geometry (1)
- gladwell (1)
- goetz (1)
- governance (5)
- Gruber (2)
- harwood (3)
- henry james (1)
- high school (6)
- history (15)
- holistic education (1)
- homelessness (2)
- homeschooling (2)
- humanities (2)
- husserl (1)
- Internet (1)
- juergen habermas (1)
- karma (1)
- knowledge (2)
- l. ron hubbard (1)
- lawrence wright (1)
- Lewis (2)
- m. c. richards (3)
- math teaching (3)
- memory (2)
- Mencken (1)
- merleau-ponty (1)
- michael lipson (1)
- middle school (2)
- millennial child (1)
- milwaukee (1)
- Monke (1)
- morality (1)
- myrin (2)
- nancy parsons-whittaker (1)
- new age (1)
- new york steiner school (2)
- no child left behind (2)
- oakeshott (1)
- oberman (3)
- parents (2)
- paul haggis (1)
- peter curran (1)
- piaget (1)
- Plato (1)
- play (1)
- Polanyi (2)
- polarity (1)
- pop culture (1)
- powerpoint (1)
- psychology (3)
- public education (5)
- racism (1)
- reading (1)
- reform (3)
- relativism (1)
- rembrandt (1)
- research (2)
- ripley (1)
- rudolf steiner (15)
- salience (1)
- sartre (1)
- schwartz (4)
- scientology (1)
- small schools (4)
- spirit (3)
- sri rajneesh (1)
- stephen talbott (1)
- synesthesia (1)
- teacher education (5)
- teaching (14)
- television (1)
- testing (1)
- textbooks (1)
- values (1)
- variations (2)
- video games (1)
- vocation (1)
- waldorf education (42)
- will (1)
- Winnicott (1)
Followers
Posts
84 comments:
It's anthroposophical education. Anthroposophy is an esoteric religion founded by Rudolf Steiner.
Built around the musings of Rudolf Steiner, Waldorf education is what happens when communities of people come together in the belief that a barely-educated man can base an educational system entirely on his personal supernatural and clairvoyant powers. Oh, they're not about to tell you this... so ask ANY Waldorf representative what Waldorf Education is and you WILL indeed get elevator speech... guaranteed.
I'm a Waldorf parent and I have a hard time with this as well. There is a lot to say and so I usually listen for where the person is coming from and what the nature of their question is. The best answer is probably just to ask them to come and experience the kids and the school.
But here is my best explanation. Its the one I would offer if I could just say what I wanted to say without a concern for how useful it would be for my interlocutor.
"Waldorf education is an elementary and secondary school application of German bildung principles. It is a mix of classical education and early progressive educational reforms. Today, the Waldorf movement attempts to bring this philosophy of integrating the entire foundation of human knowledge (ie., science, literature, art, poetry, dance/movement, mathematics, ethics/moral reasoning, and language) to diverse contemporary contexts. In so doing, the contexts themselves influence the form the education takes at the local level. Another important aspect of Waldorf education is that it presumes the interconnectedness of all life. This resulted in environmental education being part of the curriculum way before it was fashionable elsewhere and the schools having a special focus on the social forms that support socio-emotional growth in children. To sum up, I would say if you know the pedagogical writings of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, von Humbolt and Frobel, and you try to enact them as a modern inspired by Goethe might, you’ll have a good idea of what Waldorf education is trying to do."
For those who don't know (although I suppose it's obvious), Pete K. and Diana Winters are "Waldorf critics." I plan a brief post arguing against Diana's comment soon. I've posted Pete's in the interest of a fair discussion and because I believe it hangs itself.
Thanks for posting my comment... with reservations... ;)
For those who don't know (although I suppose it's obvious), Pete K. and Diana Winters are "Waldorf critics."
Let's get it straight Steve - before you off-handedly discredit what we have to say. FIRST we were Waldorf PARENTS.
I've had over 20 years experience with Waldorf education - even chartered a Waldorf school. I had three kids in Waldorf - two through the 12th grade - one through the 8th. I was married to a Waldorf TEACHER, whose parents were both Waldorf TEACHERS. I studied Anthroposophy for over 15 years. I was first a Waldorf PARENT, then a Waldorf REFORMIST, then a Waldorf WHISTLE-BLOWER, and only then became a Waldorf Critic. Now, I'm an advocate for parents and children who have been harmed by this system.
There's no question it is an anthroposophical education (or education based on anthroposophy, whichever way you want it) -- and that's where the waldorf movement goes wrong, in my opinion. When it tries to argue waldorf is not anthroposophical! So I hope you're going to offer a pretty darn good argument, Steve! And, even better, one we haven't heard many times already ;-)
Yes, it will be interesting to see what the argument is against my statement that Waldorf is anthroposophical education, or that anthroposophy is an esoteric religion founded by Rudolf Steiner.
Presumably you don't intend to argue against those points; rather I'm guessing you'll argue against telling this to outsiders who don't know anything about Waldorf beforehand.
To clarify what I said... The movement goes wrong if/when trying to claim it's not anthroposophical (or denying the nature of anthroposophy). That it is anthroposophical is in itself not necessarily wrong -- though you could argue along that line too of course, I could, even though it wasn't what I meant to say (in case it came across that way). To argue it is not anthroposophical would be wrong. And I have never seen a good argument for it not being anthroposophical.
-alicia, who was a waldorf student before becoming a critic.
Pete--I don't see how identifying you as a Waldorf critic "offhandedly discredits you." But, then, I don't see how you can describe Steiner's work, like it or not, as the "musings" of "a barely-educated man." That's why I believe your comment "hangs itself." I do appreciate knowing more about your relationship to all this. Despite my work in Waldorf education, I try, here and elsewhere, to be open to the possibility that I'm wrong or have more to learn.
"Pete--I don't see how identifying you as a Waldorf critic 'offhandedly discredits you.'"
Why pigeonhole me for your readers then? My words speak for themselves (as do Steiner's). Why not address what I'm saying rather than who you believe me to be?
But, then, I don't see how you can describe Steiner's work, like it or not, as the "musings" of "a barely-educated man." That's why I believe your comment "hangs itself."
Really? What is Waldorf education based on, if not Steiner's belief system which he assembled as "Anthroposophy"? Steiner himself admitted he had no use for "intellectuals". His PhD was in philosophy... not education... and he didn't exactly graduate top of his class did he? Having failed at getting peer acknowledgement for his "academic" works, Steiner discovered a new audience and became a mystic around 1900. He lectured at the Theosophical society and soon became the head of (and basically usurped) the German branch... turning it into the Anthroposophical Society. Steiner had NO credentials as an educator - he tutored two small boys once - that's it!). He never wrote a scientific paper (he edited Goethe's works). Yet how many Waldorf school websites describe him as a "Scientist and educator"?
I notice you didn't post my comment about Waldorf mommy's statement... which had NO mention of Steiner or Anthroposophy in it? Do you find that acceptable Steve?
No, I don't think Waldorf Mommy needs to say anything she doesn't want to. I don't expect a history lesson on John Dewey (PhD in philosophy, not education) or Maria Montessori (MD, not PhD) when I visit a school operating today. And I see no need for crosstalk; let's stick to my post and my question on my blog.
Re: Waldorfmommy's comment, it is indeed interesting that when asked to give a quick blip on "what is Waldorf education," a person would feel it appropriate to mention Rousseau, Pestalozzi, von Humbolt Frobel, and Goethe - but not Rudolf Steiner.
OK, Steve... let's go back to your original post. You mention several people within the Waldorf movement who have given, in your view, an unsatisfactory overview of Waldorf. Let's have a look at what Eugene Schwarts, master Waldorf teacher had to say about what Waldorf education is: Here, in a lecture, he describes his daughter's educational experience:
"That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my daughter to a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience. So that she learns something about reverence. So that she learns something about respecting a higher being. If she didn't learn that, she'd be out the door in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school that calls itself Waldorf, and denies her a religious experience.
Somebody's gotta change their name! And I sure hope it isn't the Waldorf movement of independent schools. I think we owe it to our parents to let them know that the child is going to go through one religious experience after another. And if any of the teacher trainees in the room feel that I'm not saying that clearly enough to you, well, here it is, guys, if I haven't said it to you a hundred times already: when we deny that Waldorf schools are giving children religious experiences, we are denying the whole basis of Waldorf education."
Why do you find his description of Waldorf unacceptable? If anyone knows what they teach in Waldorf, it should be master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz... right?
"I don't think Waldorf Mommy needs to say anything she doesn't want to."
So much for "meaty, fruitful" discourse.
You can't seriously think that an "elevator speech" about Waldorf should mention Frobel etc. and not Rudolf Steiner. This is fatuous. But it shows what you want. You quickly rejected the notion that "anthroposophical" or "religious" belong in the "elevator speech," but your response to a proposal to list a long variety of educators who had nothing to do with Waldorf education and somehow omits Rudolf Steiner is "she can say what she wants."
This is why your movement has critics. Carry on.
I suspect we could omit the "religious" and just call it "anthroposophical education" and you wouldn't like that a lot better. My including the word "religion" gave you a distraction there. Everyone loves to debate whether anthroposophy is a religion.
So: how about if we changed it to: "It's anthroposophical education. Anthroposophy is an esoteric doctrine promulgated by Rudolf Steiner."
"And I see no need for crosstalk; let's stick to my post and my question on my blog."
What does this mean? I hope you aren't trying to say you don't like it that we would talk about your blog elsewhere.
Nope. Just that I'm not interested in hosting a (one-sided) conversation between Peter, a commenter, and Mommy, a commmenter.
I have not said at all that I agree or disagree with Mommy or what she said or how she said it. I asked readers to offer their take on a question, and I've posted all replies and lots more beside. Would I adopt your elevator speech? No. Mommy's? No.
Eugene's statements fall in the first definition--Whitehead's--of religion and education, I believe. And, believe it or not, there's actually lots of room for different views within the wacky world of Waldorf. I agree with Eugene on many things--maybe even the question of religion, if he and I found time to talk about it--but I also disagree with him, too. And that's okay.
Um, I do like it that Waldorf education is anthroposophical education; that's probably a better name for it, actually (than half the name of a defunct? cigarette factory). But that replaces one unknown term--Waldorf--in the elevator speech with an at least equally unknown and broader term--anthroposophical. And, clearly, you and I disagree on what anthroposophy actually is.
Anthroposophy is not a doctrine. I'm not sure what you mean by "esoteric," so I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with that adjective...
Steve, the point is you just don't want "anthroposophy" in the elevator speech. I don't think it would change things if we worked hard to find a word that didn't offend you to replace "religion" or "doctrine." We can call anthroposophy the ultimate truth as revealed to mankind, and you are not going to drop the word casually in the elevator. That's clear. I'm guessing the term "esoteric" isn't going to make the cut, either, so I won't bother proposing "karma and reincarnation" or "astral and etheric bodies," "change of teeth," "Lucifer and Ahriman" etc.
With all due respect, its my definition so I can do what I want. I support and respect others as they do the same. I'm interested in seeing more definitions instead of people pointing out flaws. That is relatively easy. Putting together something that covers a lot of ground quickly isn't.I'm happy with my response because I believe it fulfills that criteria.
Any definition has to begin from a common stock of knowledge so I assumed a reader with a background in pedagogy, the history of education and a broader understanding of the cultural contexts from which various educational initiatives emerged. I also implicitly assumed a general familiarity with how organizational forms will change over time and vary by local context. This is true of all organizational forms, with Waldorf Education being no exception.
To break this down even further, here are the main points and why I selected them. I'll have to split this response into two posts due to length.
1. A type of progressive education. As one kind of progressive educational reform, Waldorf Education takes a self-cultivation perspective on the purpose of education for individuals and for society. This leaves an observable pedagogical mark on the classroom just like Dewey's classrooms bore the mark of someone interested in developing democratic citizens.
2. Indicative of its socio-historical emergence. I thought it was important to situate Waldorf Education historically. Early and late progressive reforms have different qualities and many explicitly reject the components of a classical education. I think Waldorf Education is unique in how it blends these two approaches in content and in form. This will be a great deal of information for someone who already knows about alternative approaches.
3. Age-appropriate, process-oriented approach to knowledge. I think it is important to mention that Waldorf Education attempts to bring the entire foundation of human knowledge to students at every grade level. Poetry is not reserved until 6th grade. Movement is not an elective. Other perspectives take a more age-graded approach to entire subjects. The Waldorf curriculum puts it all in front of them from the beginning, working on the subjects bit by bit over time. This is a quality that is useful to know when trying to figure how this educational approach might differ from others.
continued...
4. Flexible and adaptable while still maintaining an identifiable and unique form. Although Waldorf Education has a clear form, I thought it was important to mention that it is not everywhere the same---nor designed to be so. If you compared the activities and curriculum across the world there would be some similarities but also important differences based on how schools try to meet their location and student population. Clearly, this process is not an easy one and there is undoubtedly friction when someone on the faculty insists that Waldorf Education can only be how they imagined it was in 1920 in Stuttgart, Germany. My point was that the schools naturally vary. How well any of this is done is another matter.
5. Holistic worldview. I do think that Anthroposophy is important to mention in the context of the schools. However, in an elevator speech, I am not sure how I could describe it without going on a long tangent. The Anthroposophical *aesthetic* is everywhere in the schools and I suppose that deserves mention because it is unique to the schools. In terms of curriculum and classroom experience, however, I think this issue of interconnectedness is most salient. I'm not sure where exactly I'd put Anthroposophy on a continuum of anthropocentric world views but it definitely falls somewhere. Since there is no agreed upon "proof" that the world is this way it must be identified as an ideological underpinning of the school. (Skepticism and Secular Humanism are ideologies too, in the way I am using the term here.) Interestingly, the idea of interconnectedness is also fundamental to Maria Montessori's notion of 'Cosmic Education'. From my experience with both approaches this idea, and what it implies for human ethical action, resonates on a soul level for some people. It poses problems for others. Both viewpoints can serve as the basis of a quality education. One is not better than the other but we should allow for room for both because they each have something valuable to offer.
6. Pestalozzi argued for a "head, hand, heart" education. The others on this short list have, in my view, a very clear influence on Waldorf Education that can be seen in the classroom if you know what to look for. Obviously, Steiner and the first teachers are the "moderns inspired by Goethe." The idea that Waldorf Education can somehow be reduced to the musings of a barely educated man is patently ridiculous. To make such an argument you would have to ignore the history of education up to that point and the cultural context in which Waldorf Education emerged. Waldorf Education did not spring forth fully formed from Rudolf Steiner's head. Whether you think Rudolf Steiner was a genius or a raving lunatic such simplistic view explains little even though it may be useful polemically.
A great discussion here. Since I am from the Montessori school and a supporter of public education let me just say that the Montessori method was not based on a religion that Dr. Montessori made up. Rather she based her method of education on her education, research and direct scientific observations of children over decades.
One of my biggest concerns about Waldorf is this:
Dr. Montessori would NEVER withhold reading from a 4 or 5 year old child that yearns to read. Waldorf insists on withholding reading and learning for the young child in general because of Anthroposophical beliefs that are founded on Steiner's religious principles. SO that does not make Waldorf education child centered ~ it makes it teacher centered. I have no problem with this but I do wish that parents who hold strong to Waldorf education would fully understand and embrace Steiner's Anthroposophy and ALL it stands for. Steiner was very clear about karma, clairvoyance, and temperaments. Waldorf Mommy may want to explore the fact that none of the early theorists that she mentions would have any commonality with Steiner. Nor would Piaget or, Erikson or the like. Please do your research. Not one of these theorists mentions karma or clairvoyance in describing child development.
Just call Waldorf education what it truly is, A method of education that is teacher centered and founded on Anthroposophy.
Margaret
'Anthroposophy is not a doctrine.'
I think Diana's suggestion was good. But we could also say, e g,
'It's anthroposophical education. Anthroposophy is Rudolf Steiner's esoteric/spiritual teachings.'
The point is to not leave out anthroposophy and Steiner, in my opinion (and it becomes silly to mention a whole lot of other people and leave out Steiner). It's not a religion, it's not a doctrine, and blah blah, but we've got to call it something. It's not a nothing that can be avoided.
Peter Staudenmaier has posted a lot of information on Steiner's marked disagreements with (really, denunciation of) many of the thinkers Waldorfmommy cites. Steiner had very little use for Froebel et al.:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21886
I'll add a brief version of what I just posted on the critics list.
Waldorf is full of "Waldorfmommy's" who believe that Waldorf is related to "progressive education," when in truth there are vast, I'd almost say cosmic, differences. Many Waldorf parents think Waldorf is "progressive" because 1) they don't know very much about what Steiner actually taught and 2) the teachers would like to keep it that way, and generally discourage parents from reading a lot of anthroposophy or, more importantly, observing in the classroom.
Steiner education is not child-centered at all, and it is not "creative" or "democratic." The methods are rigid and authoritarian. Children's critical thinking and free imaginative expression are not encouraged, except within a narrow, "anthroposophically correct" set of references, i.e., today we are all painting the sun, and we are all painting it exactly the way the teacher paints it. If you would like to paint a dinosaur, that is not particularly welcome here.
The most significant difference is in the discouragement of literacy at an early age. This is the opposite of progressive education.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21887http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21887
I agree that Steiner was not a fan of Froebel and others. This doesn’t mean that, given nearly a hundred years of perspective, we can’t see similarities despite his claims (we accept his claims when we agree with them and reject them when we disagree with them? Well, yes, I guess so, critics and Waldorfers alike…), or use others to situate him in a meaningful if not entirely accurate context—we’re talking about an elevator speech here.
“Progressive” is a term that may apply to the reactionary, isolationist Americanism of the early 20th century and also to child- or community-centered education. Historians have disputed the meaning of the term practically since its introduction. That Waldorf education is more teacher-centered (in the elementary years) than other so-called progressive methods does not mean that it wasn’t (or isn’t) progressive. Among other things, it was coeducational at a time when many schools were not, and it included a comprehensive curriculum in handwork that wasn’t even part of my public school education in the 1960s and 70s (we had “shop” and “industrial arts” for the boys and “home economics” for the girls). So it depends on history and how you define terms.
Speaking of the not entirely accurate, I disagree with Diana’s claims that Waldorf schools “discourage literacy.” Waldorf schools promote literacy: http://ssagarin.blogspot.com/2009/05/hey-waldorf-schools-do-say-do-dont-say.html. I also disagree that parents in Waldorf schools don’t know much about Steiner (especially since the spread of the Internet) and that teachers would like to keep it that way. I’ve taught at three Waldorf schools, each of which invites parents to study Steiner and each of which opens classrooms to parents. Visitors are welcome at my current school at any time, and classrooms are open. I believe Waldorf schools promote creativity in a healthy way—as Howard Gruber’s research showed, over and over, creativity begins in apprenticeship. And I don’t know why Diana brings democracy into the paragraphs above—I don’t believe Waldorf schools are or claim to be democratic schools. In this, they clearly differentiate themselves from Summerhill and the Sudbury School, for instance, which could be said to represent the very extremes of progressive education.
Clearly, Diana and I have different experiences of Waldorf education. Like Diana, I have encountered rigid and authoritarian Waldorf school teachers. For her, I believe, these are common and represent a tradition established by Rudolf Steiner. For me, with (perhaps) all good intentions, these teachers are relatively rare (and becoming rarer), and their work contradicts Steiner’s overarching promotion of insight, initiative, and freedom.
I trust that thoughtful readers will be able to negotiate two different points of view, evidence and interpretations, and decide for themselves.
It seems that my “elevator speech” has provoked some consternation. I really am interested in hearing other people’s “elevator speech” instead of further explaining mine. As to why the words "Steiner" and "Anthroposophy" don't appear in mine it is simply because most people don't know anything about them. In my view, answering the question "What is Waldorf" means talking about this type of education in the way all approaches to education are discussed. Steiner and Anthroposophy are obviously important aspects of this education but even they do not define "what it is" by mere mention alone.
I think a good response shows how Waldorf Education answers the following questions that all educational systems have to answer:
1. What is the purpose of education in society? For individuals?
2. How does this approach relate to pedagogical theories and methodologies that existed prior to it? In what way is it a critique? In what way does it incorporate previous approaches?
3. How do these positions structure the school day, the curriculum, in a way that is particular to schools that follow this model?
Maybe someone else would like to craft a Waldorf elevator speech that answers these questions from their perspective.
In reference to how I situated Waldorf Education's emergence, Margaret said “Not one of these theorists mentions karma or clairvoyance in describing child development.” This is true. But from this true statement she draws the conclusion that “none of the early theorists that she mentions would have any commonality with Steiner.” This conclusion presumes that the most important criteria for making the comparison between Steiner's pedagogy and these people's pedagogy is whether they mention Karma or clairvoyance. So here is the issue. I would argue that all new educational initiatives emerge as some kind of response to the theories and methodologies available at the time. Of the possible outcomes you might have: exact implementation of what was done before, outright rejection or most likely, a rejection of some things and an incorporation of new ones. I would also add that innovative practices also bear some relationship to previous practices. For people who can’t find any commonality between Waldorf education and the niche I described, where then did this new type of education come from? What were the pedagogical antecedents? Or can a case be made that there were none?
I can appreciate that people don't like this or that about Waldorf Education but if you have to explain what it really is (in terms of where it came from and what its trying to do) how do you make the case in a way that doesn't violate prevailing wisdom on how any new approach comes about?
Clearly, my ideal elevator speech will be informative and may also signal my approbation of what we have come to call Waldorf ed.; someone else's elevator speech should be equally informative, even if it signals disapprobation at the same time. Not to grant this is to engage in this discussion disingenuously, I believe.
A more careful review of how I attempted to periodize progressive education in my short elevator speech shows I am aware that most Americans think of Dewey/Parker/Ferrer/etc when they think of progressive education. Never did I say that Waldorf Education should be classified in its direct lineage and I agree that when you compare the later approaches (especially) there are significant differences. I have mentioned that here too. Please don't make my argument what you need it to be. I think Steve's comments about progressive education are on the money.
All that being said, Waldorf's peripheral relationship to the mainstream progressive (alternative?reform?) educational movement does not mean there are no valid comparisons to be made between Steiner and the same writers who influenced other early 20th century reformers.
Steiner criticized Froebel’s method. Ok. Why wouldn’t we expect to find criticisms of Froebel? If Steiner agreed with everything Froebel did, there would be no reason to come up with something different. For example, Steiner says “Froebel's system, as also others, have arisen from a true inner love for children, but they have failed to realize that although imitation is a part of the very nature of the child, he can only imitate that which is not yet permeated by an intellectual quality.” This statement is an acknowledgement of agreement on certain child development fundamentals---“imitation is a part of the very nature of the child”---but then a disagreement in how this quality should be addressed pedagogically. Steiner advocated kindergartens that were not completely “thought out” by adults.
This is exactly the kind of distinction that is useful to consider if you want provide a helpful explanation of “what is waldorf?” You can say: "Imitation is in the nature of the child. School environments for young children should support playful activity. This is a view that is widely shared by educators and child development specialists. Waldorf teachers are among them. However, these assertions represented a paradigmatic shift in thinking about early childhood at one time. Some people agreed. Others did not. Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Waldorf Education, was among those who agreed. He said so. He created a system that incorporated this idea. However, he offered an alternative to how it was being implemented in the kindergartens of his day. Here is what it looks like in practice."
In this way, Steiner can be discussed meaningfully in relation to Froebel. Its a reference to a early starting point as a way to describe differences that can be observed in educational environments today.
>Steiner advocated kindergartens that were not completely “thought out” by adults.
What are you talking about? Waldorf kindergartens are indeed completely thought out by adults. I assume you've seen one of these kindergartens?
I'm afraid what you say is pretty confused, Waldorfmommy. Steiner didn't just build on or update Froebel or come up with a modification of Froebel or a slight improvement. He denounced Froebel, he said Froebel was all wrong. It is pretty convoluted reasoning to claim he is somehow in direct succession to Froebel. By this goofy reasoning anybody is related to anybody, whether they agree with them in any way or not.
Hi Steve,
'I agree that Steiner was not a fan of Froebel and others. This doesn’t mean that, given nearly a hundred years of perspective, we can’t see similarities despite his claims (we accept his claims when we agree with them and reject them when we disagree with them?'
We weren't talking about whether we accept his claims, just trying to sort out what his claims are. Regarding Froebel, clearly we agree that Steiner would not have seen himself as heir to Froebel or as continuing in Froebel's tradition.
' “Progressive” is a term that may apply to the reactionary, isolationist Americanism of the early 20th century and also to child- or community-centered education. Historians have disputed the meaning of the term practically since its introduction. That Waldorf education is more teacher-centered (in the elementary years) than other so-called progressive methods does not mean that it wasn’t (or isn’t) progressive. Among other things, it was coeducational at a time when many schools were not, and it included a comprehensive curriculum in handwork that wasn’t even part of my public school education in the 1960s and 70s (we had “shop” and “industrial arts” for the boys and “home economics” for the girls). So it depends on history and how you define terms.'
I agree that coeducation and offering handwork for both genders were progressive elements in Steiner's vision. (The actual teaching of handwork, not really.) But those two things don't seem like enough to offset the many ways in which the pedagogy is directly, direly opposed to basic principles of progressive education, which include a firm emphasis on literacy and critical thinking, two things Waldorf discourages as long as possible.
'Speaking of the not entirely accurate, I disagree with Diana’s claims that Waldorf schools “discourage literacy.” Waldorf schools promote literacy: http://ssagarin.blogspot.com/2009/05/hey-waldorf-schools-do-say-do-dont-say.html.'
Your blog does not serve to document that Waldorf schools promote literacy. They all say that, when parents inquire. What school is going to openly eschew literacy? Claims are claims, reality is different. All Waldorf schools delay reading longer than is the norm in actual "progressive" schools, and many Waldorf teachers give children the clear message that reading is not a particularly desirable or wholesome activity, compared to, say, gardening or handwork or painting.
(part 2)
'I also disagree that parents in Waldorf schools don’t know much about Steiner (especially since the spread of the Internet) and that teachers would like to keep it that way. I’ve taught at three Waldorf schools, each of which invites parents to study Steiner and each of which opens classrooms to parents.'
Again, easy to say, but words are words. Of course your school "invites parents to study Steiner." So did ours. Which parents? All of them? How easy and hassle-free do they make it to get to crucial information about Steiner's teachings, the ones that really matter in terms of classroom reality and underlying philosophy of the school? That's a different matter, isn't it? Sure, a few parents, deemed spiritually "ready" or "receptive," might be invited, cautiously, into anthroposophical study. The great majority, however, are usually discouraged from even considering that anthroposophy might be deeply relevant to their child's education.
Every Steiner school makes some claim to educate parents about what Steiner taught, but often the "difficult" Steiner is avoided in favor of popular quotes about love and light and creativity. This is hardly all there is to Steiner's vision.
'Visitors are welcome at my current school at any time, and classrooms are open.'
Again, our school would certainly claim the same, yet it was not true. What does "visitors are welcome" mean? Every school welcomes visitors, but perhaps only on open days or on special tours or at festivals (best-foot-forward events, not necessarily reflective of classroom realities).
What does "classrooms are open" mean? Those are words that could mean a wide range of things in practice. Can a visitor observe a class in progress on request? Any class? Can a parent pop in to see what is going on in their child's class any time he/she wants? Or does he/she have to make an appointment weeks in advance? Does the teacher first try to discourage this, trying to get the parent to attend meetings instead of actually coming into the classroom? Do ALL teachers welcome parents in the classroom, or are first-year teachers excepted from this?
Or are classrooms "open" only on back to school night, or open houses, or special events?
What school would claim parents AREN'T welcome? It's pointless to claim this, the question is what exactly is done to MAKE parents welcome.
'Clearly, Diana and I have different experiences of Waldorf education. Like Diana, I have encountered rigid and authoritarian Waldorf school teachers. For her, I believe, these are common and represent a tradition established by Rudolf Steiner.'
Not "for her" as if I've made this up; I've read Rudolf Steiner.
'For me, with (perhaps) all good intentions, these teachers are relatively rare (and becoming rarer), and their work contradicts Steiner’s overarching promotion of insight, initiative, and freedom.'
"Their work" (mean teachers, basically) might be seen as contradicting certain elements in Steiner's thought (there is indeed lots of rhetoric about "freedom"), but it resoundingly confirms others. Steiner was very clear that young children are to "reverence" the teacher and believe that the teacher knows what is true and right, and young children are to be discouraged from exercising their intellect, questioning the teacher, or expressing their own thoughts or forming their own opinions. This is a formula for a rigid and authoritarian classroom environment. These supposedly rare teachers read Steiner and understood him.
'I trust that thoughtful readers will be able to negotiate two different points of view, evidence and interpretations, and decide for themselves.'
Better yet, the thoughtful readers who haven't observed first hand the inner workings on a Waldorf classroom need to get inside and observe one - if they're allowed.
Open means open. Any person can visit our school, sit in the back of any of our classes, join us in our morning meeting (where we say the morning verse), at any time. I don't know how to make this clearer: Any visitor, any class, any time. Ditto with encouraging parents to read Steiner. Not just some, all. Any Steiner. Even the racist bits.
Steve wrote: "Open means open. Any person can visit our school, sit in the back of any of our classes, join us in our morning meeting (where we say the morning verse), at any time. I don't know how to make this clearer: Any visitor, any class, any time."
OK, so not just parents... PROSPECTIVE parents can come in at any time and visit a Waldorf classroom in action. This is FANTASTIC! Are you suggesting ANY Waldorf school would permit this? That's not my experience I'm afraid. I know LOTS of prospective parents who would LOVE to do this but have been denied this opportunity by their local Waldorf school. Could you please identify your school so that parents can visit a Waldorf classroom?
"Ditto with encouraging parents to read Steiner. Not just some, all. Any Steiner. Even the racist bits."
I assume that would apply to PROSPECTIVE parents as well? So when Waldorf schools don't even mention Steiner or Anthroposophy on their website, are they the oddball? How do prospective parents encounter Steiner if the schools won't even mention him?
BTW, the "racist bits" were taught to my child as "science"... Should I mention that some Waldorf schools teach racism while we're in the elevator?
My school is well identified on my blog. I know that lots of Waldorf schools are not so open, but I believe they should be. I'm not sure I would ever send my children (now grown) to a school that didn't allow me to visit a class when I was a prospective parent... and I'm talking about a regular school day, not just an open house or something. And it's your elevator speech, so you get to say what you like.
Very good! So you would recommend parents avoid ANY school that does not allow them to observe a classroom in session. I fully support that!
Maybe your elevator speech should just be "What is Waldorf? I think if you really want to know, you should visit your local Waldorf school and sit in on a class or two."
That will make very good sense, and you should add "If your local Waldorf school doesn't permit this, you should find another school." It's essentially what you're saying, right?
How would that be Steve? You could make that elevator speech very effectively - and without complaints from Waldorf critics. Waldorf critics aren't against Waldorf - they just want parents to know EXACTLY what they are getting when the sign their kids up for Waldorf. It's in everybody's best interest, don't you agree? And what better way to learn about Waldorf than to actually sit in on Waldorf classrooms? PERFECT!
I don't know if that should be anyone's elevator speech, but I would be highly suspicious of any school, Waldorf or otherwise, that wouldn't let parents quietly, respectfully observe classes in session. When my wife and I moved to Massachusetts we wanted to enroll our children in a Waldorf school (because of my experience and my past involvement), but not just in any old Waldorf school--we wanted to meet the teachers, see the classes, and make a determination based on evidence or data. We also visited the local country day school and public school. We chose the Waldorf school in the end, but not before reassuring ourselves that we believed it was the better choice for us.
"Any visitor, any class, any time. Ditto with encouraging parents to read Steiner. Not just some, all. Any Steiner."
In that case, this is commendable.
But what then is your hesitation telling someone in an elevator that Waldorf schools are anthroposophical? The person is going to say anthro-what how? So you spell out a-n-t-h-r-o-p-o-s-o-p-h-y and they go home and google it. That's Rudolf Steiner. Who? Steiner, Rudolf. Seems like the perfect elevator speech to me. That's how they get to the most basic information, the starting point for learning more about Waldorf.
Head heart hands, "balancing social and physical" "nonsectarian" - that is all bullshit. "Steiner/anthroposophy" are the two words you need to be sure your elevator buddy hears before the doors open and he/she debarks.
"I would be highly suspicious of any school, Waldorf or otherwise, that wouldn't let parents quietly, respectfully observe classes in session."
Hear, hear!
Diana has written a lot of interesting things. I’d be happy to continue addressing certain points but I wonder to what end? This stuff is what makes her speech "Its Anthroposophical Education" mean one thing to her and quite another to me. It looks to me that Diana and I actually agree that an informative answer addresses "What is Anthroposophy" to some degree. However, defining "Anthroposophy" in this context is only useful if you can distinguish it from "the Waldorf method." They are not one in the same.
With regard to how open Waldorf schools are, I've got to tell you that I am there all the time!! I have found many opportunities for both formal and informal evaluation of our school. For example, the class teachers give written summaries of what the students do each week along with the poems, songs or verses. There are many books that have been written about the Waldorf curriculum and several academic papers and dissertations. There are parent nights that explore the curriculum in more depth. Since my fellow parents are public school teachers, professors, scientists, physicians, child psychologists, musicians, artists, etc., the questions they ask in these meetings are informative. There is usually a performance or festival every 3-4 weeks. Staggered drop off and pick up times mean that you can observe how teachers interact with students and how the kids relate to each other when they think no one is watching. Same thing goes for every time one of your kids forgets their lunch or you have to drop off crafts in the building while classes are in session. One of the most glorious sounds in the world is hearing multiple classrooms beginning their day in verse or song! Students bring home their work. The chalkboards detail classroom activities as well. Birthdays are another opportunity to spend time in the classroom. In the kindergarten, a parent will usually experience free play, snack and story. There are visiting speakers and collaborative programs with the community-at-large. Parents serve on essential committees (not just fundraising). There are overnight class trips. There are sports competitions. There are after school clubs that parents help run. And last but not least, parents discuss the school. A LOT.
Diana is correct that grade school teachers are not looking for parents to be there during the morning lesson. I suppose if someone pushed the issue, they might be able to sit in on a class or two. I guess it would depend on the nature of their concern and the age of the students. Bringing these issues directly into the classroom setting and potentially disrupting the children is probably not the best way to deal with the parent’s issue. As a fellow parent, I would be concerned about another parent who felt they needed to monitor the classroom through their own presence.
To my knowledge, most schools have prospective *students* visit the school while it is in session. I hope you can agree that it would be incredibly disruptive to have groups of adults walking through a class while elementary students are trying to work. Do other private schools allow this? My children visited on a regular school day and while I do not know what they did in the classroom, I do know they looked engaged and happy when they emerged from their visit. They already had a nice rapport with the teacher. Their response to my question, “Would you like to go to this school?” was “Yes, mommy!”
What can I say? My kids are thriving there and I feel as if I have both the capacity to evaluate the school and the opportunities to do so. I am sorry you didn’t have the same experience. It must have been difficult for you.
I'm not sure if I failed to comment (I meant to), or if it just hasn't appeared yet, but if this is what your school really does, then bravo. Please help spread the word to other schools. Openness is the way forward. You may lose some people, the same way some people in the elevator who hear "anthroposophical education" will think "wacko" and hurry away relieved when the elevator doors open ... but you will also have a more stable school, with long-term satisfied customers, rather than periodic crises and mass exoduses. The people who *don't* back slowly away at the first whiff of anthroposophy are your true clientele.
"As a fellow parent, I would be concerned about another parent who felt they needed to monitor the classroom through their own presence. "
WHY? It's not only their right, it's their responsibility to see what they are putting their child into. Again, Waldorf, as we have seen, is neither forthcoming about their teaching methods nor their curriculum (Yes, it's all written down, but not accurate AT ALL). When parents see their students are learning "chemistry" they will (quite naturally) assume it's similar to - or at least based on facts similar to chemistry in public school. That isn't the case in Waldorf. Don't even get me stared on "physiology"...
EVERY PARENT owes it to their child to visit a Waldorf classroom (YES, Main lesson) and see what they are teaching these kids. You absolutely MUST be on-board with their teachings if you choose Waldorf. If they were honest about what they teach, it wouldn't be necessary to "disrupt" the classroom by seeing it first-hand - but they're not completely honest about what they teach are they? That's especially true in elevators - where there just isn't enough time to go into the details of what Waldorf is about. You can't learn about Waldorf in a sound-bite. VISIT YOUR LOCAL WALDORF SCHOOL CLASSROOM.
Pete--Don't generalize so much. It undermines your arguments. "As we have seen." Better, "as I and others who agree with me have seen." Schools and teachers vary far more widely in my experience than in yours, it seems. Also, your rhetorical questions: "they're not completely honest, are they?" If you're interested in a conversation, that's great. If you're interested in posting polemics, we'll stop now.
Whew. A lotta words to distract from the fact that parents are NOT welcome to sit in on any class, any time.
Steve’s school, apparently, has got this right. Waldorf mommy’s, like many, does not.
>With regard to how open Waldorf schools are, I've got to tell you that I am there all the time!!
I don't doubt it. Many Waldorf parents practically live at the school. But that’s not the same thing as being welcome in the classrooms, is it? Glimpsing the classroom at pick-up time for 5 minutes is not being welcome in the classroom. I know all about the festivals and the “informative meetings” and the open nights and the committees. The gist of your post is here:
>Diana is correct that grade school teachers are not looking for parents to be there during the morning lesson. I suppose if someone pushed the issue, they might be able to sit in on a class or two.
No parent should have to “push the issue” to be able to gain immediate access to observe what is going on in their child’s classroom. This is not some favor the school is doing for you, this is a basic parental right and responsibility. There is nothing to "push," it should be automatic.
Lack of free access to classrooms is a huge red flag at any school, and parents should not tolerate it. I would not look further at a school that did not allow it.
>I guess it would depend on the nature of their concern and the age of the students.
Nope, it doesn’t depend on the "nature of my concern" and it has nothing to do with the child's age. Your child, your right to observe his or her classroom.
>Bringing these issues directly into the classroom setting and potentially disrupting the children is probably not the best way to deal with the parent’s issue.
This is the classic stuff Waldorf teachers say to dissuade parents from trying to come in. A parent who wants to observe his child’s classroom is not “bringing in issues” and is not “disrupting” anything. THIS IS YOUR MINOR CHILD, don’t tolerate anyone accusing you of being “disruptive” if you want to see what is going on in his or her classroom!
>As a fellow parent, I would be concerned about another parent who felt they needed to monitor the classroom through their own presence.
They have encouraged you to to blame your fellow parents when the school labels them "disruptive." As a fellow parent, I am concerned about other parents who would so willingly forfeit a basic parental right, without protest. This is an unhealthy situation for all the children.
>I hope you can agree that it would be incredibly disruptive to have groups of adults walking through a class while elementary students are trying to work.
No, I definitely don’t agree. All of the schools my son attended, except for the Waldorf school, welcomed parents in the classrooms. In the Quaker schools parents do indeed practically swarm the classrooms, every day, and no one found this disruptive.
Waldorf parents should not believe Waldorf teachers when they say this will be “disruptive.” Of course it is disruptive if it is something unusual, then it turns into a big deal (if the teacher freaks out, the kids will freak out, too), but if it happens every day, no one pays it any mind. It is normal. To hear Waldorf teachers tell it, parents want to come in and dance on top of the desks or something. No – in a normal classroom, parents come in for a wide variety of purposes, sometimes they are helping, or reading to the children, or doing a special project, sometimes they are just sitting and listening, but if they are seen as belonging there, everyone carries on.
>Do other private schools allow this?
Yup.
I believe Waldorf schools do themselves a disservice when they don't simply open themselves to the outside, parents, prospective parents, etc. It makes them appear to have something to hide--see the many comments from Waldorf critics who clearly, deeply believe this--when I don't believe they do. If we understand what we are teaching and why, then we have nothing to hide. I support--as I do at concerts, for instance--protocols that make visits as non-disruptive as possible. Enter at the start, don't leave in the middle unless you're invited to, no flash photography, etc., etc., but this is just business as usual. I know that many Waldorf teachers, especially of really young children, believe it would be disruptive to have visitors in class, but it's just a matter of adjustment and the culture of the school. We even, believe it or not, invite parents who are present into the "inner sanctum" (the office) to say a verse with us teachers before we go out to start the day. "Be safe out there." ("Hill Street Blues" reference, for you youngsters.)
Steve:
>I believe Waldorf schools do themselves a disservice when they don't simply open themselves to the outside, parents, prospective parents, etc. It makes them appear to have something to hide--see the many comments from Waldorf critics who clearly, deeply believe this--when I don't believe they do.
The real deep dark secret is actually not that they are trying to hide anthroposophy. They are often trying to hide the fact that things are not going particularly well in the classroom, due to poor training, lack of classroom management skills, reliance on dogma, and an insular school culture that fears “outsiders” and other experts who might help, purportedly because Steiner knew everything but really just because it’s embarrassing. Parents get kind of freaked out when they see that the clasrooms are often chaos. Junior teachers are getting “mentored” by senior faculty and are told that parents don’t have any right to barge into their classroom “disrupting” things. It’s not a big conspiracy, it’s just sort of pathetic.
>If we understand what we are teaching and why, then we have nothing to hide. I support--as I do at concerts, for instance--protocols that make visits as non-disruptive as possible. Enter at the start, don't leave in the middle unless you're invited to, no flash photography, etc., etc., but this is just business as usual.
Of course it is basic courtesy, parents should not interrupt or call attention to themselves but that is obvious. And frankly the ban on photography is old, too. Unless their parents and teachers have somehow conveyed some kind of peculiar hang-up about having your picture taken, most kids today do not get all agitated or distracted by cameras flashing. Times have changed and Waldorf needs to realize it is not 1922. Digital cameras mean kids have their pictures taken practically every day. Again, in my sons’ schools, if someone told us not to bring the camera in we’d have thought they were crazy. Cameras flash right and left. It’s only old fuddy-duddy’s who find this “disrupting.”
>I know that many Waldorf teachers, especially of really young children, believe it would be disruptive to have visitors in class, but it's just a matter of adjustment and the culture of the school.
Exactly. It's the teacher who needs to adjust. The kids are fine.
>"Be safe out there." ("Hill Street Blues" reference, for you youngsters.)
I think it was “Let’s be careful out there” :)
I believe Steve is speaking of his Waldorf High school when he is talking about the "open" policy, no?
Our school would allow a new or prospective parent to visit a class if that parent felt they didn't understand what was going on without this option. Requiring this to be any class at any time, however, is asking a lot. For one, there are security issues to consider. At our school, adults must register at the front office with ID and there must be some stated purpose in order to gain access to students. Are some of you actually saying that this is not a good policy??!! As for current parents, it is just common courtesy to speak to the teacher beforehand about your desire to see the class in action. I mean are you just going to just come barreling in during the reading of a Shakespearian sonnet or a chemistry experiment? I am curious as to which schools allow this to happen in the way some of you feel is your “right.” Finally, I know I'd die of embarrassment if my mother had a habit of popping in on my middle or high school classes.
So, yes, I do have problems with parents who feel they should be able to be in the classroom whenever they feel like it. This is not an opinion that has been forced upon me by Waldorf teachers, thankyouverymuch. I would feel the same no matter where my kids were enrolled. So, I'll say it again: there should be no need for a parent to monitor the classroom through their own presence. There are other means of doing this that respect the classroom as a space belonging to the children. If you need to be that involved in the life of the classroom, I would recommend home schooling or some kind of co-op school. Waldorf parents "come in for a wide variety of purposes" just as you do at your school, Diana. However, I am thankful that these purposes are well-defined from the outset. We all know there are some overbearing parents out there who cannot maintain appropriate boundaries. I have entrusted my children to the school, not a cadre of parents who may end up undermining the teacher's ability to manage the classroom effectively.
Finally, I think it is important to consider exactly what happens in this educational setting and why having parents there might be particularly disruptive. Are you going to square dance or sit it out? If the class makes a circle out of all the people in the room won’t it feel odd if some are left out? Doesn’t that say just the opposite of what the circle is meant to say? On the other hand, what does it mean if you include the adults in one of the multiplication games? Won't the child feel more comfortable clapping with another child who is apt to make the same mistakes as them? What about a sensitive child who becomes distressed because his mommy can’t stay for the main lesson as well? And what about the parent who feels its okay to condescendingly correct a teacher’s math error, for example? How do I protect my kids from that parent who can’t maintain appropriate boundaries?
I hope you see what I am getting at here. In this kind of classroom, what is the parent going to bring that the students are not getting? If this question cannot be answered concretely, then the parental role is to respect the classroom as the children’s space and support the education in other ways. I’m sorry for what has turned into a bit of a rant. For me this has nothing to do with Waldorf. One of my children attended a Montessori school. I kissed the kid goodbye in the morning. I did not try to follow them in during work period. It was clearly understood by everyone that parents were not supposed to be placing their children into their work or helping them with it. After all, that is why we entrusted our children to the directress.
"Pete--Don't generalize so much. It undermines your arguments. "As we have seen." Better, "as I and others who agree with me have seen."
Steve, please don't patronize me... My arguments are mine to make. Tell you what... and be fair... open 10 Waldorf websites at random and see how many are forthcoming about Steiner and Anthroposophy's connection to their school. We're not talking an elevator speech now - we're talking an entire website devoted to describing the school. They should have plenty of room to mention Steiner. Many don't do they? Look at Brooklyn Waldorf School as an example - (I recently did). NO mention of Steiner OR Anthroposophy ANYWHERE on their website! Aren't they are deceiving parents when they do this?
"Schools and teachers vary far more widely in my experience than in yours, it seems."
In my experience, practically EVERY Waldorf school has its critics. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether they advertise what they are. They DON'T. Tell you what - show me one Waldorf school that publicly embraces its connection to Steiner and Anthroposophy on it website... and doesn't downplay it, and I'll be happy to admit your experience is more valid than mine.
"Also, your rhetorical questions: "they're not completely honest, are they?" If you're interested in a conversation, that's great. If you're interested in posting polemics, we'll stop now. "
No problem... Explain then why time and time again we find Waldorf websites disguising the fact that they have a connection to Steiner and Anthropsophy... I've gone to the effort of actually checking... have you? Or are you again dismissing me? Again, your readers can check for themselves Steve. If Waldorf schools are "honest" they mention that they are at the very LEAST connected to Steiner. Otherwise, they're hiding something... don't you agree?
The flash photo line should have had a smiley after it--it was meant to be humorous.
Pete--I checked 6 Waldorf School websites and ALL mention Steiner on the front page or on the "About Us" or the "FAQ" pages. The first five were east coast schools, so I checked Highland Hall, a west coast school, but it's there, too. None mention anthroposophy, which you see as duplicitous and I see as not a big deal. When I mention John Dewey as an educator, I don't feel the need to mention instrumental reason--his philosophy--or its many, many critics. That's because I see Waldorf ed. as relatively independent from anthroposophy, and, I guess, you don't. But let's have some arguments why it IS a religion--I've given several why it isn't.
(And "my bad" for reading one of your posts too quickly. Sorry.)
"They are often trying to hide the fact that things are not going particularly well in the classroom, due to poor training, lack of classroom management skills, reliance on dogma, and an insular school culture that fears “outsiders” and other experts who might help, purportedly because Steiner knew everything but really just because it’s embarrassing. Parents get kind of freaked out when they see that the clasrooms are often chaos."
This characterization is baseless. What comparative study are you relying on to make this broad assertion? Our school invites in student teachers from the local (non-anthroposophical) university and from the local Waldorf training program. These students' observations usually end up as some kind of bachelors or masters paper describing Waldorf classroom life. I should think word would get out if the university students found the classrooms dysfunctional. On the contrary, the pieces you can find in educational journals and dissertations will usually describe how peaceful and calm these classrooms can be. There is simply no evidence to say that Waldorf classrooms are, on average, any more chaotic than other classrooms. Indeed there is more reason to believe that the opposite is true.
"And frankly the ban on photography is old, too...most kids today do not get all agitated or distracted by cameras flashing...Again, in my sons’ schools, if someone told us not to bring the camera in we’d have thought they were crazy."
I am glad that you have found such a great match at your sons' schools. Why do you feel so compelled to express your opinions about what my school does? I find all of the tripods and jockeying for position to be disruptive when I'd rather "stay in the moment" and give my senses a chance to construct my own unmediated impressions (memory). Its hard to pay attention to many things at once if you see your task as getting the best action shot of your own beloved. I find when I am able to "stay in the moment," its a smell that I might remember or a humorous expression on the face of somebody else's kid. Taking pictures after the event is a small price to pay for this gift. However, my sentiments on this issue don't cause me to say what your school does is crazy. Also, I should mention that there isn't a blanket ban. Field trips and outdoor activities like the spring maypole dance tend to have a lot of photographs taken for example.
>The flash photo line should have had a smiley after it--it was meant to be humorous.
Oh :) well, you see, to you it's funny, but to many Waldorf teachers, still, this is dead serious.
Waldorf mommy:
>I believe Steve is speaking of his Waldorf High school when he is talking about the "open" policy, no?
Oh. Well, I did not pick up on this. I assumed his comments referred to the whole school. If he’s only talking about high school, then I’d have to withdraw my praise for his school. Parents clearly don’t and shouldn’t be wanting to monitor their child’s high school classes. (And no, not in middle school either, generally.) If they’re “allowed” in high school classes and not in the elementary school, something is very wrong.
Waldorfmommy, no, it is not only “overbearing” parents with “boundary issues” that wish to visit their children’s classes. The point is not that the parent wants to hang out every day, it is that the parent has the RIGHT to observe – for any particular reason, but particularly if there is a concern.
Also, there is a considerable difference in philosophy here. It is not only homeschooling parents who feel that in the early years, parental involvement is important. The classroom is where the child spends 98% of the school day and it is not some sacred space that must be “respected.” Interactions should be free and normal.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid in Waldorf it is not so much a question of respecting the children’s “space” as the teacher’s, or rather, what the teacher perceives as her space. Waldorf teachers are encouraged to be performers on stage. It is a very hierarchical and authoritarian relationship in the elementary grades, with the children encouraged to “venerate” the teacher as all-knowing. Having ordinary people like parents wandering in and out really messes with this. That’s why Waldorf teachers don’t like it. They want to stage manage every detail. Main Lesson is like a production the teacher has choreographed minutely. Muggles won’t get it, and will screw her up by doing things like asking questions, or just trying to act normal, instead of “reverent.” Things which to the rest of the world are normal reality, but don’t fit the Waldorf way. This is why they don’t want parents “barreling in”; not because the parent might interrupt the recitation of a Shakespearean sonnet.
Security issues do not seem a concern to me. It’s a matter of signing in, or showing ID at the door, no? Is there something difficult about “registering” with the office? I don’t see how you can spin security into some big issue or obstacle here.
Your language continues to give you away. Parents don’t need to “barrel in,” they walk in the door like everyone else, and their presence need not “undermine” the teacher, but support it. Again, if it is part of the normal routine at the school that on any given day, there are parents in classrooms for various purposes, it is not the big drama that you depict.
As to your curiosity about which schools “allow” this to happen, I already answered that. Most other schools do (public and private).
“Are you going to square dance or sit it out?” I don’t know, I guess it would depend on the situation. I might square dance if it seemed appropriate, I might sit it out if that suited me and/or the class better. This is kinda just life, it isn't a crisis. In normal classrooms, it would just be what is happening this morning. Visitors might be invited to square dance, or visitors might prefer to sit and watch, or the teacher might politely request that they just watch if, for instance, there is not enough space.
>Why do you feel so compelled to express your opinions about what my school does?
That's usually what these conversations come down to. I don't know, why do *you* feel compelled to express your opinions about Waldorf?
There are no "comparative studies," or very few, outside of Waldorf-internal sources. There is what you have experienced and what I have experienced.
(Tripods?)
Yeah, I know. Steiner advocated having high school students take photos of others doing eurythmy. How many Waldorf teachers know this? How many schools would allow it if they did? Waldorf teachers do have many misperceptions and misconceptions about Steiner's work.
And, for missing the tone of the sentence, apologies; it's clear that email/comments/texting, etc. flattern discourse and make tone hard to determine (hence "emoticons," I guess). Something that's meant to be funny can come across as serious or even angry, and vice versa...
I was speaking about "my" high school, but it's a stand-alone school with its own incorporation and board of trustees. And the local Steiner elementary school, at which I was formerly the administrator, is remarkably open, too, by the standards we've been discussing...
Ah "remarkably open by the standards we've been discussing" - the plot thickens. Do they let parents in without a hassle, or not?
That is interesting regarding Steiner advocating photographing eurythmy. You know I'm not a big fan of Steiner, but I definitely think if he were alive today he'd be PO'd at all the narrow minded literalism among some of his followers. I'm pretty sure he'd be on facebook and twitter, and advocating schools learn how to enable students to benefit from the technology. It is not incompatible with reciting Shakespearean sonnets or playing the violine or spending an hour in the garden everyday. Videos of the kids reciting Shakespeare and digging in the garden belong on the facebook page, dammit!
Yes, parents and prospective parents. I haven't worked there in years and don't know the current protocol, but I know that visitors are welcome. My wife works at a local girls' (high) school. All visitors must pass security and have an appointment to visit classes. It's the same at our local public school. The issue isn't whether or not parents--or anyone else--can just wander in at any moment. The point is whether or not the school is a welcoming place to visitors, whether they're current or prospective parents, journalists, ed. students, etc.
Diana said:
"I'm pretty sure he'd be on facebook and twitter, and advocating schools learn how to enable students to benefit from the technology. "
I afraid I don't share your optimism Diana. There's that pesky Ahriman character that Steiner had issues with.
Sever said: "Pete--I checked 6 Waldorf School websites and ALL mention Steiner on the front page"
OK, you know which six you checked. How many mentioned Steiner on the front page?
"or on the "About Us" or the "FAQ" pages."
The FAQ page? I wonder why people frequently ask about Steiner's connection to these schools? Again, when they describe him, do them describe Steiner as an "educator and scientist" (he was neither), or do then describe him as a "mystic" - as they do on Anthroposophical sites?
"The first five were east coast schools, so I checked Highland Hall, a west coast school, but it's there, too."
Obviously, you didn't check the Brooklyn school as I recommended. Don't go by Highland Hall, I've whipped them into shape over the years. They aren't about to fool anybody with the amount of internet press I've given them... but other Waldorf schools certainly may.
"None mention anthroposophy, which you see as duplicitous and I see as not a big deal."
I don't see it as duplicitous. They TEACH pure Anthroposophy, they should mention that. Now, I know you're going to argue with me and I'm going to be forced to tell you the racist crap Highland Hall taught my kid disguised as science - so let's just save that part, shall we?
"When I mention John Dewey as an educator, I don't feel the need to mention instrumental reason--his philosophy--or its many, many critics. That's because I see Waldorf ed. as relatively independent from anthroposophy, and, I guess, you don't. But let's have some arguments why it IS a religion--I've given several why it isn't."
No, Waldorf ed isn't independent from Anthroposophy, it is the missionary arm of Anthroposophy. Are they promoting their own "religion"? I don't think that's as important as whether or not they're promoting Anthroposophy - which includes elements of racism among other things. What some Waldorf teachers teach to children can be very dangerous, and is often, at the very least, very damaging. It isn't EDUCATION by any stretch of the imagination.
Hi, Diana. Thanks for your reply. (Especially the tone, because I know I was getting a little testy.)
"no, it is not only “overbearing” parents with “boundary issues” that wish to visit their children’s classes."
I didn't say this. I was saying that *some* parents are overbearing and have boundary issues, but not all parents who want to be in the classroom have boundary issues. These overbearing parents are in every school setting. I appreciate a school that sets expectations for everyone ahead of time and sticks to them. Its really a problem when a group of parents starts having an effect on classroom life when they are, in reality, accountable to no one.
"The point is not that the parent wants to hang out every day, it is that the parent has the RIGHT to observe..."
Then I don't know what we are taking about. If a parent genuinely doesn't understand what happens in the classroom (despite other ways of trying to communicate this), then of course a parent is welcome to observe the class. The parent may just have to do this on the teacher's timeline. A scheduled visit needn't imply the teacher is hiding something. If there is an issue, then of course one of the ways of addressing it includes observation. When I said "push the issue" I was referring to these instances in which the parent is adamant that observing the classroom is the best or only way to address the issue. It may not be, especially if the parent is in an emotional state or if the parent-teacher relationship is dysfunctional. I can tell you as a fellow parent, I wouldn't abide a blanket "no parents in the classroom ever" rule. Our school has no such policy written or unwritten. On the other hand, it does err on the side of finding an alternative to bringing an agitated parent into the classroom. Conflicts are difficult but I think a school has their priorities in order if they try to maintain consistency in the classroom first and foremost. I haven't had any conflicts but I feel confident in both our formal conflict resolution procedures and the ongoing collaborative relationship I have developed with my class teachers, faculty leaders and my fellow parents who I would value as "neutrals" in a hypothetical conflict with the teacher.
"Waldorf teachers are encouraged to be performers on stage. It is a very hierarchical and authoritarian relationship...with the children encouraged to “venerate” the teacher as all-knowing."
I wouldn't characterize the classroom in this way at all and I am interested to hear what Steve would say. I think a better description is to view the teacher as an "orchestra conductor," setting the rhythm, trying to improve pitch and creating moments of crescendo and decresendo. The teacher does get a "solo act" in the form of a story (e.g., the life of Harriett Tubman) but I would say their overall performance depends on how well they work with rhythm and pitch (metaphorically speaking). If children do venerate the teacher (not a guaranteed outcome) it is because she has earned it in the eyes of the kids though how she "holds" the class. Steve can probably speak better than me about how this will ebb and flow over an 8 year relationship.
one more...
"why do *you* feel compelled to express your opinions about Waldorf?"
Because I am currently educating my children at a Waldorf school and find some of the discussion on these schools not only erroneous but very hurtful. It should be quite clear to anyone reading this thread that I see features of the school quite differently than a detractor does. I’m ok with that. However, I don't go around reducing other educational approaches to "the musings of a barely educated [person]" or "based on a religion that [someone] made up" even when there is a limited evidentiary base upon which to place certain pedagogical choices that other systems make.
All educational approaches have an ideological foundation (and sometimes a religious one). This is an essential point one must never forget. Yet when it comes to Waldorf, there is a concerted effort by some to paint its features as "crazy" and the people who participate in it as "needing to do their research," or as people who have been forced to believe things by Waldorf teachers. Give me a little credit! I'm the product of a fine public school education, where reading and tests and separation of church and state have served me well! :) We Waldorf mommies out here care deeply about our children's education and are just as concerned about our kids being able to read and participate as full members of society as you are. There are plenty of things about the Waldorf approach that deserve discussion. I could even point them out for you. The difference is that I view them in relation to the range of pedagogical choices that can be made/are made in education as a whole rather than viewing nearly everything in Waldorf as the esoteric indications of a guru.
High school is just too different to compare. Nobody advocates parents hanging out at high school with their kids. I've been talking about grade school kids (the younger ones; parental involvement of that immediate nature should drop off pretty steeply after about 3rd or 4th grade, I think). I used to get lost driving to my son's high school, I barely knew where it was. (Lest you think I'm a complete hypocrite, I did attend a lot of sports events, but they weren't usually at the school, which had lousy facilities.)
"I haven't worked there in years and don't know the current protocol, but I know that visitors are welcome."
So this has been a bit circular. We're back to having to question what they mean by "welcome." Of course they all claim that parents and visitors are welcome. Usually this means welcome at open houses, welcome at festivals, puppet plays, the Christmas bazaar, parent evenings, back-to-school nights, or for prospective parents, welcome to make an appointment to tour the school. Unfortunately it often does NOT mean parents are welcome to sit in on their own children's classes.
And sorry to harp on, but there is a much deeper point than whether the school is "welcoming to visitors." Waldorf schools have got the "welcoming to visitors" thing down pat, no argument there. But these are very profound differences we are talking about the regarding a philosophy of education for young children, the role of the parents and the relationship of the family to the school. You are glossing over a huge range of issues that differentiate Waldorf very profoundly from other forms of education ("progressive" as well as others). The local public school does not have anything remotely resembling the philosophy at the Waldorf school where the teacher believes herself to be some sort of spiritual guide to the children in her care, meeting them on the astral plane at night, deeply involved in their "karma" from past lives, representing a "spiritual stream" of heredity in contrast to the parents, who represent a "biological stream" of heredity that is secondary to the spiritual, believing the class represents a karmic entity etc.
All of these things are highly relevant in understanding why parents are held at arm's length from classroom activities in Waldorf, and are felt to be "disruptive" when they do come in, but these are not things the school wants parents to get interested in learning about.
Waldorf ed. is the missionary arm of anthroposophy?
No. It's not.
Anthroposophy is a method of contemplative inquiry. It’s not a religion. Therefore, it requires no missionary arm and doesn’t have one. Waldorf education is a method of education based on anthroposophical principles. Rudolf Steiner may be considered the first anthroposophist, although certainly not the first to employ his method of contemplative inquiry. Hildegard of Bingen, Jakob Boehme, Ralph Waldo Emerson and countless others, known and unknown, may be said to employ the same or similar methods. When Waldorf schools rely too much simply on the received wisdom of Steiner, they undermine his very intention for them, which is that they employ this method themselves. Owen Barfield, Georg Kuelewind, Michael Lipson and many others, known and unknown, may be said to have done this and to be doing this, in education and in other human endeavors.
I appreciate my dialogue with Waldorf critics because it brings so sharply into focus my own views of this subject.
"[Piaget] remarks that many profound education reformers were philosophers or doctors, not pedagogues—Comenius, Rousseau, Froebel, Dewey, and Montessori among them." (http://ssagarin.blogspot.com/2009/02/seer-and-scientist-rudolf-steiner-and.html)
Even if Steiner wasn't an educator--and he had more experience than you give him credit for, Pete, it simply doesn't matter. Frankly, what some dead white guy said or did 100 years ago hardly matters; what goes on in today's schools with today's children and today's teachers matters a great deal more.
Waldorfmommy:
>Because I am currently educating my children at a Waldorf school and find some of the discussion on these schools not only erroneous but very hurtful.
I can’t help that. If you want to have a public discussion about Waldorf, on a forum or on someone’s blog, people may disagree with you. It isn’t personal.
>It should be quite clear to anyone reading this thread that I see features of the school quite differently than a detractor does. I’m ok with that. However, I don't go around reducing other educational approaches to "the musings of a barely educated [person]" or "based on a religion that [someone] made up" even when there is a limited evidentiary base upon which to place certain pedagogical choices that other systems make.
I can’t help that either. The evidentiary base for Steiner education is far more limited than most; it’s in a class of its own, deriving from clairvoyant “indications” rather than research.
>All educational approaches have an ideological foundation (and sometimes a religious one). This is an essential point one must never forget.
Quite correct. Parents just need to understand what the basis of the education is. It does not matter to argue about whether anthroposophy is a religion. Whatever it is, parents need full, clear, detailed information on what anthroposophy teaches, before signing their kids up for anthroposophical education.
>Yet when it comes to Waldorf, there is a concerted effort by some to paint its features as "crazy" and the people who participate in it as "needing to do their research," or as people who have been forced to believe things by Waldorf teachers. Give me a little credit! I'm the product of a fine public school education, where reading and tests and separation of church and state have served me well! :) We Waldorf mommies out here care deeply about our children's education and are just as concerned about our kids being able to read and participate as full members of society as you are. There are plenty of things about the Waldorf approach that deserve discussion. I could even point them out for you. The difference is that I view them in relation to the range of pedagogical choices that can be made/are made in education as a whole rather than viewing nearly everything in Waldorf as the esoteric indications of a guru.
I’m not sure I see your point there. Waldorf education is based on the esoteric indications of a guru. That is an essential fact placing Waldorf education in the context of various other pedagogical choices. The first attempt you made here to place Waldorf in context fell significantly short because you wanted to not only not mention the esoteric base, you wanted to not even mention Steiner, but instead tell parents Waldorf is somehow in the tradition of Froebel. That will make anyone knowledgeable about either Waldorf or those other traditions say “Errrrrrkkkk.”
>When I said "push the issue" I was referring to these instances in which the parent is adamant that observing the classroom is the best or only way to address the issue. It may not be, especially if the parent is in an emotional state or if the parent-teacher relationship is dysfunctional.
All this talk of adamant parents and agitated parents and parents barreling in ... somehow suggests to me you've seen this situation. You've agreed that any parent who wants to come in isn't necessarily pushy, overbearing, lacking in boundaries etc. So what are these situations? I think probably most people who have been around a Steiner school for awhile have seen these situations.
Are these parents always agitators, bad apples, etc.? I think not. They are usually ordinary parents. Most parents really do not want to spend all day sitting in their child's classroom. Most parents work, or if they don't they have other children at home or other things they need to be doing. A parent wants to come into the classroom generally for one of two reasons: 1) a desire to be helpful and make a positive contribution and be a part of their child's education - this is the more usual scenario, coming in to read to the class, or help with a special project, or for a party; or 2) the parent has reason to suspect all is not well in this classroom and needs to find out for him/herself.
Usually by the time a parent is "agitated," there have already been "meetings" and mentoring and what-not. The "pushy" parent has usually been held off as long as the teacher/school could possibly hold them off (and other parents have been encouraged to believe that this parent "has issues" or is "disruptive"). At that point, the parent is angry. I'm guessing from your boilerplate talk about parents "bringing in issues" that you've seen all this.
"Even if Steiner wasn't an educator--and he had more experience than you give him credit for, Pete, it simply doesn't matter. Frankly, what some dead white guy said or did 100 years ago hardly matters; what goes on in today's schools with today's children and today's teachers matters a great deal more."
We agree 100%. And now, we simply need to acknowledge what goes on TODAY in Waldorf schools. They teach RACISM to children disguised as science... TODAY! I have, of course, documented this on my blog. "The blood of the people in Europe is more evolved than the blood of people in Africa and Asia". This was taught to my child in physiology class. Do you think that it is a true statement Steve? It's true according to Steiner... AND it's what they taught my kids as science. Not 100 years ago... NOW! Oh, and when I questioned the lesson plan, they defended it! So it wasn't a single teacher teaching nonsense - it was PURE Steiner racism being taught to children as science. THAT'S the problem Steve. Rather than try to deny this - you have a phone, call Highland Hall and ask them what they taught... how difficult could that be? Waldorf is the missionary arm of Anthroposophy! Waldorf's purpose is to create Anthroposophists and to teach Steiner. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
A few responses to Diana...
"I can’t help that...people may disagree with you. It isn’t personal."
I don't care if people disagree with me. I even like it if its an opportunity to learn something I didn't know before. The difficulty with discussions on Waldorf is how erroneous some of the claims are and how hurtful the discussion can be when parents are marginalized as being similar to cult-members who submit their children to a damaging and inadequate education. Oftentimes, these claims fly in the face of the data that *is* available. For example---worldwide---the top sector in which Waldorf parents find themselves employed is education. A percentage of these parents work or have worked in public education. These people view Waldorf education in relation to other educational models. They find a lot of good, some things that could be improved and they step up to the task in their own schools to do what they can to make the educational environment as rich as it can be.
"The evidentiary base for Steiner education is far more limited than most; it’s in a class of its own, deriving from clairvoyant “indications” rather than research."
Its true that Waldorf has not been the subject of large scale educational studies like various public school initiatives have. This has everything to do with how research studies are funded; most alternative pedagogies suffer the same fate. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to consider. Take for example a great book about Montessori education (Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius). The author, a psychologist, breaks down the method into its central components and then substantiates these components with contemporary empirical research. (She characterizes Waldorf as a "progressive" approach, BTW.) The whole reason the book needed to be written is because this science wasn't available when Dr. M was developing her method from existing pedagogical theory, her own conception of the child and her observations of what worked. We keep circling back around to this issue and I am not sure there will ever be any agreement between us. Steiner said a lot of things but when you get down to it a workable educational system is a collection of choices drawn from the stock of knowledge at the time. Educational systems developed after the advent of educational psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience, etc., will be able to point to specific scientific advances that inform their approach. Methods devised prior to the emergence of these subfields cannot; that kind of evidence wasn't there. What they can do is take their core components and compare them against recent advances and see how it stacks up. That is what Lilliard's book did. I suggest that Waldorf critics abandon this untenable idea that Waldorf is "in a class of its own, deriving from clairvoyant “indications." Its not. It can be rationally explained based on where it comes down on important pedagogical choices, and these choices can be compared and evaluated. The final outcome of these choices can be compared and evaluated as well. If you want to do this, hey, have at it! I'd be more than happy if you could do something to improve my kids' education. As the discussions stand now, though, very little of the criticisms are useful to my kids' education because they they are entirely hung up on qualities that are far from central in the everyday functioning of the learning environment.
"The first attempt you made here to place Waldorf in context fell significantly short because you wanted to not only not mention the esoteric base, you wanted to not even mention Steiner, but instead tell parents Waldorf is somehow in the tradition of Froebel."
As I discussed earlier, what I wanted to do was craft a response that described Waldorf like all other systems are discussed. I attempted to do that by placing WE in the stream of romantic pedagogues and the reform movements afoot during his time. (I didn't whip up this concoction of romantic philosophy/meschenbildung/reform pedagogy myself BTW.) I broke out the concept of "interconnectedness" as the anthroposophical influence that becomes most apparent in the structure of the school and its curriculum. I think if I were to write it again I would come up with something better than "moderns inspired by Goethe" to describe the first anthroposophists involved in Waldorf education. Its too vague, especially considering the informed listener I was imagining. Its interesting to me that in Israel Waldorf is customarily called "Anthroposophical Education." I only learned this after I had been describing our children's school to an American with a large Israeli family. It turns out one family member was sending their children to a Waldorf school. This person said, "Is your school an anthroposophic school? It sounds like where my nieces and nephews go in Israel." I had never described it that way before. Its certainly straightforward but I think the usefulness of that description varies by the cultural context.
"All this talk of adamant parents and agitated parents and parents barreling in ... I think probably most people who have been around a Steiner school for awhile have seen these situations."
Nope, I have never experienced this. Its really not an issue at our school. Prospective parents visit the school while it is in session and the children attend a class. After being enrolled there are various opportunities to observe the school as I described above. I realize some parents want to be involved in the early grades...coming in and reading to the kids, doing craft projects, etc. Waldorf isn't set up that way because of the whole classroom teaching, the focus on rhythm, handwork already being a part of the curriculum and because art in the lower grades is either free-style coloring or simple watercolor painting. There are no elaborate paper collages and stuff that other schools might do at this age level so the same kind of parent help isn't needed. We do some seasonal activities that require additional parent help and sometimes there is a culinary connection to the curriculum as well. Parents will help with that. And there is a lot of work involved in the class play. It is different than other schools but nothing about it means there is some concerted effort to keep the parents out. I've certainly never felt that way.
Peter: I don't teach racism. My colleagues don't teach racism. My children's Waldorf school teachers did not teach racism. If your child was taught racism at a Waldorf school, I'm sorry, but I would fire such a teacher, whether his or her teachings were based on what Steiner said or not. You believe this is common. I don't, and I've been teaching in Waldorf schools for 26 years and in Waldorf teacher education for 12.
"I don't teach racism. My colleagues don't teach racism. My children's Waldorf school teachers did not teach racism."
Are you sure? How can you be so sure? They didn't think it was racist at Highland Hall when they taught it... and they STILL don't. They host WISC - the Waldorf Institute of Southern California - i.e. they TRAIN TEACHERS there. How do you know teachers at your school weren't trained there? How does ANY parent know?
Steve, step one is to RECOGNIZE racism. They couldn't even do THAT at Highland Hall... and they're trainers of Waldorf teachers. What evidence do you have that they aren't teaching racism along with everything else Steiner taught at Waldorf schools around the world? Any? Your own personal experience? Waldorf's official position seems to be - it isn't racist as long as they don't recognize it as such.
Is the blood of Europeans more evolved than the blood of Africans and Asians Steve? Steiner said it is... Where do Waldorf teachers draw the line when it comes to what Steiner taught? They don't Steve.
Let’s see… I taught at the school my children attended. I mentored one of my children’s teachers. I was a colleague of both. I’ve attended approximately 1000 faculty meetings at three schools over twenty-six years. I’ve helped to educate more than 300 Waldorf teachers, including advising masters’ theses in a New York State accredited MSEd program for approximately 120 Waldorf education students. I’ve read just about all of Steiner’s 300 or so lectures on education, many of them several times. I’ve read widely in anthroposophical lectures and books as well. I’m well versed in what Steiner said. I also have the point of view—well represented in what I write—that Waldorf teachers should not confuse Steiner’s work in other areas with his educational work. To use a phrase I used in a public talk last night in New York, I’m not interested in working in a “Colonial Williamsburg” version of German expressionist education. Steiner must be understood and interpreted for us, today, here. When he says things that are wrong or don’t make sense, these things need to be put aside, gently or forcefully, as the situation demands. Martin Luther was an anti-Semite; are today’s Lutherans anti-Semites? Thomas Jefferson was a man with a complex relationship to what we now call racism. We’re working through that as a nation, decade by decade. When will you critics acknowledge Steiner’s complexity and his clear, unambiguous anti-racist statements, and not just the execrable racist ones? Until you enter a conversation, instead of railing from one polemical point of view, you will remain the Fox News of the Waldorf world—unfair and unbalanced. (This is not to say that those who love Waldorf education are fair and balanced—many of them, too, fall into a polemical camp that I also do not wish to join.)
"I’m not interested in working in a “Colonial Williamsburg” version of German expressionist education. Steiner must be understood and interpreted for us, today, here. When he says things that are wrong or don’t make sense, these things need to be put aside, gently or forcefully, as the situation demands."
Bravo. This is how the best and most influential teachers at our school describe their responsibility as well. Toward that end, you should probably get the word out about high schoolers photographing eurythmy. That could be really cool.
Well then, Steve, you've GOT to work harder... your message isn't getting through... so maybe MINE will. Teachers are STILL teaching RACISM as SCIENCE - I have proof - you don't have proof they aren't. How are you going to stop this if not with the help of the voices of critics? Internally? You've all had 100 years.
"When will you critics acknowledge Steiner’s complexity and his clear, unambiguous anti-racist statements, and not just the execrable racist ones? "
He didn't make ANY that I know of... do you? The one AWSNA uses, for example, is taken COMPLETELY out of context - describing events that will come to pass thousands of years from now...
Where is Steiner's statement that we are all equal TODAY? You must have lots of clear, unambiguous statements to offer here, right Steve? Maybe you could offer AWSNA one too?
Well, you could start here: http://www.waldorfanswers.com/AAnthroposophicalAntiracismRoots.htm, or here: http://www.waldorfanswers.com/ARacistMyth.htm
I've already debunked Waldorf Answers - Sune's disinformation site. Do you really want to send me HERE? II can take EACH quote and point out how it is taken out of context - and I'm pretty sure you know it. I know Sune knows it!
Why? Because Steiner ACTUALLY BELIEVED black people are savages... that some races are in the process of degenerating. That's what he believed and what he taught. Let's take a random example from your list:
"A time will come when all racial and tribal links come to an end. Individual human beings will become increasingly different from one another. Mutual belonging will then no longer be a matter of consanguinity but will arise through that which binds one soul to another. This is the course human evolution will take."
The Theosophy of the Rosicrucian (GA 99), lecture of 4 June 1907
WHEN is he talking about Steve? Is he suggesting "tribal links" have ended? NO... he had a vision for the future... NOBODY IS EQUAL TODAY according to Steiner. This is the same nonsense AWSNA tries to sell people on... Steiner's vision... not what he believed about people TODAY!
What is being suggested by AWSNA, and by you now, is essentially dishonest. His statements, even the ones you suggest aren't racist, ARE RACIST.
Perhaps you haven't read as much Steiner as you think you have Steve. You seem to have missed the WHOLE POINT of what he was suggesting.
Waldorf teachers are REQUIRED to learn Steiner's racist ideas in Waldorf teacher training - because they are expected to APPLY them to the children they care for. It's really that simple.
Waldorf disguises racism - but it's there... it was taught to my child as science... and it is taught to Waldorf teachers as science too. You can't fight it if you don't recognize it Steve.
“Waldorf teachers are REQUIRED to learn Steiner's racist ideas in Waldorf teacher training.”
Where? Which program(s)? Not at Sunbridge, where I teach, and which has existed since the 1960s (as the Waldorf Institute in Detroit).
You debunk Sune (I don’t know who that is), he debunks you. I'm sure some of your interpretations are correct. I'm equally sure some of his are, too. I'm not interested in a the unforgiving extremes, as I've said.
As I’ve written here, Steiner was a racist in the descriptive use of that term. We don’t disagree about that. You seem to miss his emphasis on the value of the individual and you also see a pattern that I don’t see in teaching and teacher ed.
Goodness gracious, this thread has veered way, way, off topic. I have an idea. Peter, why don't you scan in your kids' lesson books and send them to Steve. He can post them and there can be a discussion (in another thread) about the entire physiology lesson and how it deviates from scientific consensus (or not). If you have proof that Waldorf teachers teach racism as science today then by all means let's see it. Otherwise, why not stick to the topic unless you want to change your elevator speech to "Its an education for racism." If that is so, again, your case is better made with some evidence.
Steve said: Where? Which program(s)? Not at Sunbridge, where I teach, and which has existed since the 1960s (as the Waldorf Institute in Detroit)."
Why do you sound so shocked Steve? Do you have a copy of the teacher training reading list for Sunbridge? It isn't printed on-line that I can find. If you want me to tell you which programs at Sunbridge, I'll need to see the reading list. As I said, Waldorf teachers are trained in Steiner's racist teachings because it's part of what they need to know. Every teacher training reading list I've seen, and I've seen many, has several of Steiner's racist books on the list - and for good reasons I'll be happy to explain. But first, I'll wait to point them out on Sunbridge's list directly, if you don't mind linking to it Steve.
"You debunk Sune (I don’t know who that is)"
He's a disinformation officer who works for the Rudolf Steiner Federation. His job is to interrupt and squash free (negative) discussion about Waldorf on the internet. He has been caught posing as various satisfied Waldorf mothers on Mumsnet and Mothering.com. His job is to promote disinformation.
"he debunks you."
It's his job to try anyway... He doesn't really last too long trying to go toe to toe with me... one or two posts. Find any blog where we've both posted and you'll see Sune make a hasty retreat.
"I'm sure some of your interpretations are correct. I'm equally sure some of his are, too."
This is amazing to me. How can you be so sure about this? It just MUST be that way - just to be fair? That's silly Steve. You should find out... FOR SURE... BEFORE you send people to Sune's website, shouldn't you? Some of his interpretations must be right why exactly? He's a PAID DISINFORMATION OFFICER. Why would you assume anything he says is correct?
"I'm not interested in a the unforgiving extremes, as I've said."
There certainly must be some middle ground, right? What's between racist and anti-racist? You think that's where Steiner was? That's naive.
"You seem to miss his emphasis on the value of the individual"
NO... I don't miss his emphasis on this. It's EXACTLY what makes his comments racist. You really don't understand this Steve... and you really SHOULD.
"and you also see a pattern that I don’t see in teaching and teacher ed. "
I was married to a second-generation Waldorf teacher remember... I saw a LOT of things about Waldorf from the inside... You don't notice things when you don't look Steve.
Waldorf mommy said: "If you have proof that Waldorf teachers teach racism as science today then by all means let's see it."
There is no question of proof... Highland Hall taught racism as physiology. I asked them if they taught this to my child and they don't deny what they taught. They deny that it was racist... just like Steve denies he teaches racism. "The blood of people from Europe is more evolved than the blood of people from Africa and Asia." This is what they taught my child. I asked Steve if he believed this to be true... earlier in this thread... so far, no answer.
" Otherwise, why not stick to the topic unless you want to change your elevator speech to "Its an education for racism.""
I can say with complete honesty that it's an education for Anthroposophy, which includes racism.
"If that is so, again, your case is better made with some evidence."
I'll be taking the people who stood by this lesson to court... that doesn't happen without evidence... and lots of it.
So, Peter, for not answering a question that is beneath contempt and from an unknown blog commenter, I'm to be called a racist? Ask my 1000 plus students--Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and other college grads among them, and their parents. Ask them if I, their Waldorf educations, or their Waldorf teachers were racists or taught racism. Ask them if they can understand the simple difference between what a German may have written or said 100 years ago and what thinking people today believe and do. Yes, all men--and women, Peter, are you a sexist?--are created equal. (The man who wrote those beautiful words was a racist.) Finally, because I believe in the ethical treatment of every individual human being with respect and dignity, and I claim Rudolf Steiner believed the same thing, he and I are racists? Too much. I believe I've said all I have to say on this to you.
Dear Diana, Waldorf Mommy, and Pete K., thanks for an interesting thread. I've decided that comments on this thread will not be posted any longer. Perhaps we'll meet again on another one. In the meanwhile, I invite you to visit me at Sunbridge (why not enroll and learn what Waldorf teacher education is really like?) or in Great Barrington--if you're looking for a great high school for your children, we have one there.
Post a Comment