(My friend Winslow Eliot, a former Waldorf student and administrator and current part-time Waldorf high school English teacher, sent me her version of an elevator speech. I've decided to post it here rather than in comments on the old post in an attempt to re-spark the discussion. What do you think? What would you say?)
Person in Elevator: “What’s Waldorf Education?”
Me: “Waldorf Education, based on Rudolf Steiner’s insights into human beings, integrates three essential components:
1. It’s holistic. Education is not just about learning facts and figures; it’s about exposing students to emotional and character building skills and physical, active development. This means showing them how to accomplish and finish projects so they know they can DO things as well as think and feel them.
2. It’s developmental: A seven-year-old doesn’t learn the same way a seventeen-year-old does. We teach kinesthetically and experientially in the lower grades. We try to inspire more interest and engagement in the middle years – teaching history through the telling of biographies, for example, instead of asking students to memorize historical facts. In high school, their intellectual lives are ripe for analysis, knowledge, and weighing what matters and what students themselves can do to impact the world for the better.
3. It’s phenomenological. It’s developed and presented by teachers’ own experience and observations of children and of the subject matter.”
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
73 comments:
I sincerely hope no parent would be naive enough to send their child to waldorf education based upon this elevator speech. It does not tell the parent what s/he needs to know to make an informed decision, I'm afraid. And, also, this kind of thing is what gets waldorf into trouble -- this is what parents, once they feel they've been let down, will be angry at. They will feel it's deceptive -- even if that was not the intention.
Waldorf needs to do better than this -- present itself more accurately and honestly than this, and not provide a lot of *blah blah blah* instead of getting to the point -- or waldorf *will* have fuming parents on its hands.
Probably the best way to address Waldorf education in a fifteen second ride in an elevator is to have a handy "hand-out" ready to distribute to any and all interested parties. Here it is, and the beauty of it is that it was both a lecture and a revised essay given some ten years before the Waldorf (Rudolf Steiner) school movement became the real necessity in 1919 Germany.
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/EduChild/EduChi_essay.html
So, print it and stuff it in your coat pocket for a possible later meeting in a larger time frame.
Alicia--In a bullet point or two, what would be a more accurate and honest?
Winslow Eliot is a former admissions director for a Waldorf school, and, I believe, represented her school accurately and honestly for years. She's still good friends with many, many non-anthroposophists who happily sent their kids to the school...
I think it has to mention anthroposophy -- and I quite liked Diana's definition in the earlier thread. You then objected that anthroposophy is another word that needs another explanation. Which would possibly require another elevator ride! Well, that may be -- or people could go find out elsewhere. Anthroposophy is still just one word -- and one *essential* word. But in this new suggestion for an elevator speech that you've posted, there are many words and concepts that would also need to be explained, at least to some people. And there are many of them — not just one, as in the case with anthroposophy. And anthroposophy is actually essential in the context of waldorf — while ‘holistic’, ‘kinesthetic’, ‘experiential’, ‘phenomenological’ are not, by far, as important. But some of these words, too, would require either of the person to look them up or ride again in the elevator.
So, in my opinion, if one complicated word is to be used -- it is anthroposophy. And complicated or not, it should be used.
'Waldorf education is an education based upon Rudolf Steiner's spiritual conception of the world and man, anthroposophy.'
I don't think that can be left out. It's the first parents should know, albeit not the only thing they need to know of course.
When it is realized that a Waldorf education is uniquely based on what the Science of the Spirit yields in terms of the educational epochs that modern-day public education is loathe to ignore more and more in our "information-cramming" era, then sensitive parents seeking a legitimate alternative to other formats, will continue to find Waldorf the answer to their needs, as so may have now and before.
Of course, there will always be failures to the system, as in any well-thought system in a world wherein ideals have to meet the inevitable 'human' element, but overall, Waldorf has proven itself over time as a tested and true system that beats public school.
Ah, so the effort continues, to define Waldorf education without using the word "anthroposophy."
At least you've added Rudolf Steiner (and hopefully the embarrassing talk about Froebel is over). A bunch of pretentious buzzwords ("phenomenological," give us a break) will not help.
Don't you understand that the only kind of parent who belongs in your school is a parent who understands what anthroposophy is and wants an anthroposophically guided education for their child?
Steve, you wanted a "bullet point" or two ... I gave this in my first reply to the original post a month ago. Waldorf education is based on Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, called anthroposophy.
Or if "doctrine" offends your sensitive ears, "philosophy," "theories," "indications" etc.
The bullet points are "Rudolf Steiner" and "anthroposophy," Steve. How much simpler could this be?
"Winslow Eliot is a former admissions director for a Waldorf school, and, I believe, represented her school accurately and honestly for years."
She is certainly not representing her school honestly if she tells prospective parents, or even casual passersby, that the school's methodology is holistic, developmental, and phenomenological ... but she doesn't mention both Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy.
Ask twenty anthroposophers or anthroposophists how they anthroposophize and you'll get twenty different answers; ask twenty people who are intrigued by Rudolf Steiner's ideas and innovations and you'll get perhaps more than a hundred variations... all - to various degrees - interesting. But when you're being asked about the methodology of a way of educating, and you need to answer succinctly (30 seconds), you need to be clear and keep to the topic which is: what makes Waldorf Education different? How are subjects taught? What is its basic premise?
Anthroposophy, by its inherent character and tendency, must have the task of providing a practical conception of the world — one that comprehends the nature and essence of human life. Whether what is often called so is justified in making such a claim, is not the point; it is the real essence of Anthroposophy — and what, by virtue of its real essence, Anthroposophy can be — that here concerns us. For Anthroposophy is not intended as a theory remote from life, one that merely caters for man's curiosity or thirst for knowledge. Nor is it intended as an instrument for a few people, who for selfish reasons would like to attain a higher level of development for themselves. No, it can join and work at the most important tasks of present-day humanity, and further their development for the welfare of mankind. (See Note 1)
It is true that in taking on this mission, Anthroposophy must be prepared to face all kinds of scepticism and opposition. Radicals, Moderates and Conservatives in every sphere of life will be bound to meet it with scepticism. For in its beginnings it will scarcely be in a position to please any party. Its premises lie far beyond the sphere of party movements, being founded, in effect, purely and solely on a true knowledge and perception of life. If a man has knowledge of life, it is only out of life itself that he will be able to set himself his tasks. He will draw up no arbitrary programmes, for he will know that no other fundamental laws of life can prevail in the future than those that prevail already in the present. The spiritual investigator will therefore of necessity respect existing things. However great the need for improvement he may find in them, he will not fail to see, in existing things themselves, the embryo of the future. At the same time, he knows that in all things ‘becoming’ there must be growth and evolution. Hence he will perceive in the present the seeds of transformation and of growth. He invents no programmes; he reads them out of what is there. What he thus reads becomes in a certain sense itself a programme, for it bears in it the essence of development. For this very reason an anthroposophical insight into the being of man must provide the most fruitful and the most practical means for the solution of the urgent questions of modern life.
In the following pages we shall endeavour to prove this for one particular question — the question of Education. We shall not set up demands nor programmes, but simply describe the child-nature. From the nature of the growing and evolving human being, the proper point of view for Education will, as it were, spontaneously result.
The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy - http://www.rsarchive.org/Articles/
1) It is not to be inferred that Anthroposophy has only to do with the greater questions of life. Anthroposophy, as the passage would express, is destined to afford a basis on which the solution of the greater questions may be sought; at the same time it is no less true that Anthroposophy is able to bring help to each individual person wherever he may find himself placed in life, that it can be a source whence he may draw the answers to the most everyday questions, whence he may draw comfort, strength, confidence for life and work. Anthroposophy can give strength for meeting the great life-problems, and just as surely also for meeting the immediate needs of the moment, even in the seemingly most insignificant matters of daily life.
"you need to be clear and keep to the topic which is: what makes Waldorf Education different? How are subjects taught? What is its basic premise?"
Absolutely agree. The answers are, what makes Waldorf education different from other types of education is that it was invented by Rudolf Steiner, whose teachings are called anthroposophy. No other education in existence was invented by or draws from Rudolf Steiner's teachings or from anthroposophy. None. None are even similar. Even if we granted it is "holistic," lots of other schools and systems call themselves holistic, so this does not distinguish Waldorf or tell us anything unique or useful about Waldorf. Likewise, other schools use "kinesthesiologic" methods. If you want to explain WALDORF, you point to the things that are different about Waldorf. You might as well say, oh, well, in Waldorf schools, the children each lunch around mid-day. Yeah, probably they do, but that's no different from most schools. And believe it or not, most schools out there do the things you consider "holistic." It's truly a meaningless buzzword, like educating the "whole child" (other schools aren't trying to educate part of a child; honest).
Steiner and anthroposophy are what make Waldorf, Waldorf. The premises of Waldorf are all anthroposophical, and no one else invented anthroposophy - Rudolf Steiner did.
Most of the same subjects are taught as elsewhere, but always with an anthroposophical slant or according to anthroposophical pedagogical methods The few subjects that are completely unique to Waldorf, such as eurythmy, originate directly from anthroposophy; they have no other real antecedents, and they bear little resemblance to any subject taught in another school. The word that explains them is "anthroposophical."
An "elevator speech" that does not mention the word "anthroposophy" is definitely dishonest. There is no good reason to leave out this most crucial piece of information, unless you really would prefer parents not know about anthroposophy.
I think this is a good elevator speech in that it meets the criteria I argued for earlier---namely that it offers a description of how WE resolves various issues all educational systems must confront.
As I noted from the get-go, each of these speeches are in part defined by the kind of person we imagine interacting with. I wanted to imagine someone who knew ed theory but not Waldorf schools. I do talk to other kinds of people and change what I say accordingly. It seems to me that critics prefer to imagine a listener who first and foremost wants to know the ideological underpinning of the education, even though this is not the primary way other systems are identified. What likely matters most to someone wondering "what is it?" is what actually happens in the classroom.
That being said I do agree with Diana when she says "the only kind of parent who belongs in your school is a parent who...wants an anthroposophically guided education for their child." One thing critics fail to acknowledge, however, is that "an anthroposophically guided education" is an idea that is always being defined, redefined and negotiated in Waldorf schools and not all Anthroposophical ideas or concepts are picked up and worked with in Waldorf schools. In that sense, you could imagine someone reading all of Steiner's lectures but not being able to accurately describe what happens in Waldorf classrooms today. This is because there is a level of practice that exists in relation to, but separately from (capital A) Anthroposophy. Reading through the comments it seems that this is where proponents and critics can't agree. Of course Steiner and Anthroposophy deserve mention when describing Waldorf education, but the degree to which they help someone compare, contrast and define this education as opposed to others is limited. That is why I keep arguing that a useful definition gives you a picture of what happens in the classroom and how this may or may not differ from alternatives. Saying it was founded by Rudolf Steiner or based in Anthroposophy, his spiritual philosophy, is secondary in importance.
"Don't you understand that the only kind of parent who belongs in your school is a parent who understands what anthroposophy is...?"
In my experience this is just plain false. Some of the most supportive parents I have known take a far more pragmatic approach. They could care less who Steiner was, what anthroposophy may be, and decide to support the school because of its positive effects on their children. Of course, the reverse is true, too; parents withdraw children not because of ideological disagreements, but because they perceive that their children are unhappy in a particular classroom with a particular teacher.
I've tried to imagine if anyone could guess what or how I teach based on a conversation about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, separate from a discussion of method, and I can't see it. The assumptions that critics make about Waldorf ed based on ideological grounds seem as biased and wrongheaded as the assumptions that Waldorf ideologues make in their dogmatic adherence to misperceptions of Steiner and anthroposophy, and I've been speaking and writing against this latter for years.
This is my observation as well, Steve. At our school there is a very small minority of current parents who follow a complete anthro lifestyle (ie., were anthro before having children, go to anthro doctors, read anthro stuff regularly, maybe they belong to the Christian Community Church, etc.) There are many pragmatists, some parents who have adopted select anthro ideas/practices over time, people for whom their own firmly committed way resonates with anthroposophy, and even some parents openly resistant to aspects of the anthroposophical worldview. In our community, there is a place for all of us. I enjoy spending time with this crowd and find them to be thoughtful and genuine people no matter what their persuasion. More importantly, I find tremendous value in raising my kids along with theirs. We've got some great kids at our school!
I often wonder how many people turn away from the Waldorf option because they read some Steiner and think he was a wing nut. Do these parents think by enrolling their child in the school they have to somehow give up (or hide) who they are? Just the other day I assumed that someone practiced a religion and I found out they are a committed atheist. This person is very involved in the school and has no issues with anything their children do or with any of the expectations on adults. The common thread holding all of these different orientations together is how well we acknowledge and support these differences as an institution and once again as individuals. Its hard work but overall I think everyone understands this and is willing to keep trying. Sometimes our school can be just as difficult for devout anthropops as it is for a secular humanist. Its just that issues challenge them in different ways.
Here here to both comments made today. They demonstrate expertise coming from hands-on sources. I'm glad this discussion has taken place in hopefully helping the critics to see their distinctly minority position concerning Waldorf. They tend to globalize what are specific and genuine concerns at their local levels.
waldorfmommy: "I often wonder how many people turn away from the Waldorf option because they read some Steiner and think he was a wing nut."
This is essentially what happened with us. Specifically, I read Steiner's "Education of the Child". It's on the reading list for prospective parents at our local Steiner school. Having said that, it is the only overt hint that Anthroposophy has a part to play in the school. It explained a lot that had been puzzling me.
Initially we were very keen. Our association with the school lasted through several months of parent/child group attendance and background reading. I'm glad we did our research.
Discovering Anthroposophy wasn't the only factor of course. Before that happened, the evasive answers to simple questions such as "why are there no books in the kindergarten room?" or "there being no headteacher, who has ultimate responsibility when things go wrong?" were big warning signs.
waldorfmommy: "Do these parents think by enrolling their child in the school they have to somehow give up (or hide) who they are?"
Do you mean the parent here or the child? To a first approximation, I got the impression that the school couldn't care less about us as parents. Our concern wasn't whether we'd have to change our beliefs to fit in, but rather how our child would turn out.
Steve, I just wanted to note that it’s fine that you’re not posting all my comments – it’s your blog – but I think it might be fair to point this out to your readers, if you are selecting and/or editing comments. (I wrote a post answering Winslow Eliot that has not appeared, while other posters are debating back and forth, indicating some comments were submitted later than mine.) When I then reply to later things, it appears to readers that I have had nothing to say about certain things when that is not the case.
Waldorfmommy wrote:
“It seems to me that critics prefer to imagine a listener who first and foremost wants to know the ideological underpinning of the education, even though this is not the primary way other systems are identified. What likely matters most to someone wondering 'what is it?' is what actually happens in the classroom.”
True enough regarding the overarching interest in classroom matters, but parents can focus on classroom matters because with most other systems, the basic “ideological underpinnings” are generally known; e.g., if you consider a Catholic school for your child, you really don’t need someone to first explain what Catholicism is to you. It is generally known, probably not in picayune details of theology, unless you’re Catholic, but the basic worldview is quite familiar to most people in the society. There will be no big surprises for parents when their children come home with talking points of Catholicism. The burden on Waldorf educators is very different; the ideological underpinnings are largely unknown, at least in the US, and the details are very surprising to most people, and likely to be considerably at odds with many parents' religious views. Children will come home talking about gnomes and Atlantis, and this is pretty surprising if no one clued you in up front.
The very first responsibility Waldorf educators have to prospective clientele is to explain that the school is anthroposophical, and what anthroposophy is.
“One thing critics fail to acknowledge, however, is that ‘an anthroposophically guided education’ is an idea that is always being defined, redefined and negotiated in Waldorf schools and not all Anthroposophical ideas or concepts are picked up and worked with in Waldorf schools.”
Critics don’t fail to acknowledge this, but I don’t see the relevance here. The “elevator speech” is just a minute or two, remember? The main word is “anthroposophy.” It goes without saying that in any school, the philosophy is interpreted different ways, or details differ.
“Saying it was founded by Rudolf Steiner or based in Anthroposophy, his spiritual philosophy, is secondary in importance.”
How you got from, details may differ in different schools or different classrooms, to Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy are secondary in importance, is hard to imagine. It’s just a preposterous statement, to say that Steiner and anthroposophy are secondary in importance in explaining Waldorf. I don’t know any other way to describe it – preposterous.
(Diana--Sorry; I have occasionally decided not to publish comments, but not yours. Don't know how I missed them. I usually get an email notice of pending comments, but seem not to have in the past couple or days for some, including yours.)
Thank you Steve.
In reply to both Rafael and Waldorf mommy:
Of course PARENTS can pick and choose what parts of anthroposophy they are interested in, embrace some and reject others etc. The issue is the KIDS. The parents often do not understand that the child's experience in the classroom is anthroposophical. The child does not have the option to decide which parts of anthroposophy to embrace - it is simply imposed on them, wordlessly, of course, since nothing is taught directly. Everything is taught via song and dance, puppets and pageantry, Maypole dancing etc.
The issue is not whether non-anthroposophical parents are made to feel welcome. Of course they are, Waldorf educators are not dumb, you'd better make the parents feel welcome if you want to keep the family enrolled. That's not the point here.
These points tie together with the earlier discussion about allowing parents in the classroom. The parents cannot have any notion how anthroposophical the child's daily experience is if he/she is not welcome regularly in normal classroom life.
It is not a secret that most parents in Waldorf schools are perfectly happy not to have anthroposophy too much "in their face." They often don't understand that it is in their kid's face all day, every day.
Thanks for sharing your decision, markh. That is a reasonable rationale for why someone would decide to go in another direction and I hope that you found something that works for you. The only thing I have to say is that in making that decision, are you still able to remain open to the fact that other similarly intelligent parents felt differently and that its possible their children are receiving a quality education?
Its too bad you got "evasive" answers about there being no books in the kindergarten room. As I am sure you know, there are no books because Waldorf doesn't shift to the decoding aspects of literacy as early as other methods (even though it is widely recognized that the basis for literacy exists in a child's ability to decontextualize language). One of the most joyful and least expensive ways to get a child on this path is to appeal to their natural desire to hear and tell stories and act out their ideas through open-ended play. It takes time for children to internalize the features of narrative discourse such as: "AFTER the princess ate the apple SHE fell asleep BUT it wasn't long before help was on the way!" When children listen to complex stories, move their bodies in rhyming games, recite verses and songs (in their own language and others) and engage in collaborative problem solving in mixed-age groups they are building a strong foundation for both the outside-in and inside-out aspects of literacy. In short, decoding early reader books is absolutely a part of this process but there is much proven value in spending "extra" time working on metalinguistic awareness in this way. I appreciated my Waldorf kindy precisely because it placed a central emphasis on providing my children with a rich diet of spoken language. Of course I understand that most quality early childhood environments have these features as well but I do think that Waldorf is unique and beneficial in how *much* kids get of this before shifting to the direct instruction of decoding skills.
What you saw as a drawback, I saw as a benefit. There are many wonderful ways to help foster a love for learning in children. The best outcome for *all children* is if adults are able to support each other in this endeavor and freely share what works. Is the Waldorf way perfect everywhere in all instances? Probably not. On the other hand, adults tasked with the responsibility of preparing the next generation will never be able to strengthen our practices or innovate if we can't find a way to keep the dialogue open. This is what frustrates me most when Waldorf gets "otherized" as being somehow the unvalidated musings of "a barely educated man" (to quote the earlier thread.)
Hi, Diana. I am afraid that we're never going to agree whether or not Rudolf Steiner/anthroposophy is of primary or secondary importance in an elevator ride's length description of Waldorf education. I identify a coherent method or practice that exists in relation to, but not underneath, 'capital A' anthroposophy and you seem to argue that there is no meaningful separation between the educational model and it. (Is that a fair characterization?) On the other hand, your point is well taken that some parents will strongly object to features of anthroposophy (even those features don't make their way into the schools) and this should be determined prior to children enrolling in the school. The difficulty is that people like me---who absolutely honor a parent's "right to know" (for lack of a better term)---have found that slogging through the entirety of anthroposophy is a rather circuitous path in order to determine what Waldorf education is, how its practiced in the classroom, etc. If current parents feel this way (and we are the ones on the front lines answering questions at open houses along with teachers) why does this have to be seen as hiding something? We are asked for our opinion of the education and this is it. I agree when Steve said that a conversation about Rudolf Steiner would shed little light on what he teaches and how. This fact always leads me back to the objective existence of a Waldorf method that, while inspired by an anthroposophical worldview, can be described and assessed according to its own internal logic and values. In this way, it is no different from any other method. So, we should start here first with a secondary grounding in "why" these things are done. And, the "why" is not an automatic "Rudolf Steiner said so" in every instance.
There is also the question of confirmation bias when it comes to considering Waldorf in the way that you propose. Steiner was a prolific speaker and writer. One can find an esoteric explanation for almost any topic. Are there felted gnomes in Waldorf schools because teachers want to indoctrinate children into believing in nature spirits over the long haul? Is there any proof that this outcome is even possible? Or, did the first Waldorf students already have gnomes as part of their playworld and the folkloric tradition continued? Sometimes a felted gnome is just a felted gnome. I'll have to ask around to see if anyone's kids talk about Atlantis with any regularity or sense of conviction. My guess is no.
If the treatise on education of the child isn't enough to stir the interest of a prospective parent of a child looking for an alternative to public school, there are plenty more coming from the pen or voice of Rudolf Steiner. All one has to do is study, decide and make the choice.
So, what is the problem with Diana?
Did you make the wrong choice? It sounds like it.
What happened after you found out you made the wrong choice? Did you adjust with another private school, or public?
I am going to try again since a number of my posts have not appeared.
Waldorf mommy wrote:
"Just the other day I assumed that someone practiced a religion and I found out they are a committed atheist. This person is very involved in the school and has no issues with anything their children do or with any of the expectations on adults. The common thread holding all of these different orientations together is how well we acknowledge and support these differences as an institution and once again as individuals. Its hard work but overall I think everyone understands this and is willing to keep trying. Sometimes our school can be just as difficult for devout anthropops as it is for a secular humanist. Its just that issues challenge them in different ways."
This is all very nice and I am familiar with all this self-congratulation among the parent body about how well everyone gets along despite differences, how accepting and tolerant the school is of non-anthroposophists etc.
The issue is not the parents getting along together working on committees etc. The issue is the children and what they experience in the classroom. The children do not have the option to consider which points of anthroposophy they agree with, if any, and embrace or reject parts or all of it. They are impressionable children and their experience in the classroom is anthroposophy - all day long, five days a week. Not in so many words, because that is not how Waldorf pedagogy works, but in song, dance, puppetry, stories, eurythmy etc. Their reality in the classroom is mediated by and structured overarchingly by anthroposophy.
The children don't discuss this among themselves the way the adults do, because they're children, and because anthroposophy is not spoken of to them or named for them. But that is what their experience is in Waldorf classrooms. Are you under the impression children in Waldorf classrooms are somehow allowed to be atheists? Good luck to such a child; his or her reality would simply not be visible or permissible. His reality would not EXIST in a Waldorf classroom; such a child in Waldorf could well go crazy. It's very nice if his atheist parents are having no trouble getting along with anthroposophist parents, over coffee down the hall ... for his PARENTS it's very nice, see?
It is not news that many parents in Waldorf schools prefer that anthroposophy not be too much in their face. They can tolerate a bit here and there, and they are aware of its presence, but don't want to be reminded of it too often or too blatantly.
They fail to realize that their children do not have this option. There is not even a language or vocabulary for such a discussion with their child, for the precise reason that anthroposophy cannot be spoken of, and Waldorf pedagogy for young children virtually forbids discussing facts and feelings with young children entirely.
This of course ties back to the discussion about parents' lack of ready access to the classrooms. It is much harder for parents to go on imagining that anthroposophy doesn't matter much once they see the classroom in action.
According to Steiner's seminal lectures given to the educational commission in Basel, Switzerland in April of 1920, "anthroposophy is not to be taught to children as a direct educational method."
Ref. The Renewal of Education.
Therefore, if anthroposophy at any level of Waldorf education today is being expressly taught, it is a violation of this edict. This seems to be the issue at hand.
Okay, sorry, I now am repeating myself, because a post I thought got lost, later showed up. Sorry about that!
Waldorf mommy, what you say about the literacy delay in Waldorf is a bit confused, but of course story telling, movement games, a “rich diet of spoken language,” etc. help promote literacy. That fails to explain why reading isn’t taught at the same time. Literacy is delayed in Waldorf for spiritual reasons.
“I do think that Waldorf is unique and beneficial in how *much* kids get of this before shifting to the direct instruction of decoding skills.”
Actually in other schools kids get plenty of all that, often far more than in Waldorf and from a far richer, wider variety of sources, because in other schools the content isn’t constrained by “Steiner’s indications.” It’s a myth propagated by Waldorf that nothing “rich” happens in other schools, only in Waldorf.
Where Waldorf is unique is not in “how much” meta-linguistic blah blah is going on, but in the fact that they AVOID PRINT while all this is going on. That is at the very least an extremely peculiar strategy.
“you seem to argue that there is no meaningful separation between the educational model and it. (Is that a fair characterization?)”
Yes. There is no meaningful separation between the educational model (Waldorf) and anthroposophy. This is not news to Waldorf educators or anthroposophists,or some kind of controversial statement; only to some Waldorf parents.
In answer to Rafael, my child attended 3 years of Waldorf preschool and kindergarten, and later did well in a variety of other schools, public and private (Quaker). He was not harmed in the long term, but I definitely blame the Waldorf school for his slow and painful transition. It didn’t need to be that way. It isn’t a kindness to hold children back. Waldorf would have you believe all other schools will “rush” your child and destroy his soul. Reading and writing don’t damage children; this is the worst myth Waldorf promotes. Reading and writing are spiritual for many people. For many children, learning earlier is simply easier. The brain is extraordinarily plastic at early ages, and many things become much harder later which if learned at a very early age are painless and fun. Making up lost time later can be excruciatingly difficult and Waldorf does many children a terrible disservice in this regard.
Diana:
'It is not a secret that most parents in Waldorf schools are perfectly happy not to have anthroposophy too much "in their face." They often don't understand that it is in their kid's face all day, every day.'
This is very true. Not even parents who are happy with the school having anthroposophy in the background have any clue how big of an influence on everything that it is. They aren't there. And I'm not sure they always know what to look for either, when they aren't alerted to this -- they don't know they should be looking when waldorf folks tell them anthroposophy is not significant. But the child will experience the effects of anthroposophy -- daily.
And Steve: Of course lots of parents think waldorf is absolutely great -- and they think so without knowing much about anthroposophy. They are non-anthro fans of waldorf. But that is a problem. Some of them, upon finding out (usually when some severe problems turn up), will change their minds and realize how little they knew. My mum was really supportive too. Not a great idea.
Waldorfmommy:
'One of the most joyful and least expensive ways to get a child on this path is to appeal to their natural desire to hear and tell stories and act out their ideas through open-ended play.'
What about the child who has an equally natural desire for printed books and for learning to read? Don't you realize that is just as natural? And, thus, appealing to that desire is also natural. (Needless to say, children with such desires will find waldorf dull.)
'If current parents feel this way (and we are the ones on the front lines answering questions at open houses along with teachers) why does this have to be seen as hiding something?'
It might be worth, in this context, taking into account what former parents say -- parents who were disappointed with the education, parents who felt that something was indeed hidden. Because some of these new parents that you current parents speak to will sooner or later be these former (sometimes disgruntled) parents. It is, I think, a fact that this is so.
Diana:
' Are you under the impression children in Waldorf classrooms are somehow allowed to be atheists? Good luck to such a child; his or her reality would simply not be visible or permissible. His reality would not EXIST in a Waldorf classroom; such a child in Waldorf could well go crazy. It's very nice if his atheist parents are having no trouble getting along with anthroposophist parents, over coffee down the hall ... for his PARENTS it's very nice, see?'
Exactly. You could have been describing my situation there.
I need to get back to this stuff about what's 'natural', which is apparently something of a buzzword, like holistic. Waldorf education is 'natural'; mainstream education, in contrast, would have to be less 'natural' (or else: why use it as a selling point?). I believe waldorf teachers need to hear this from someone who, as a child, clearly failed to meet waldorf standards for what's natural and normal. And I think it's time that waldorf teachers show some evidence for what's natural and not, because if you don't, you have no reason whatsoever to deem a certain behaviour or preference 'natural' and, effectively, to deem everything else -- everyone else who doesn't follow this template of waldorf normality -- 'unnatural'. Whether you believe it or not, those children who have 'unnatural' desires can sense what you feel about them. So, at least, if you're talking about what's natural (or, for that matter, good), offer some proof that it really is. Until you can do that, I think it would be much preferable if you treated reading as just as natural activity for children as listening, clapping, whatever. Because chances are it is! And you *will have* intellectual children in your classes and as long as you assume there's something unnatural about their desires, you're not able to treat them with the respect they deserves -- as human beings who have their own inclinations and their own reasons and their own capacity for making choices. Even at a young age. If they want books, they should be allowed to enjoy books and, most of all, they should not be met with the attitude that books are 'unnatural'.
When I read explications of waldorf that include words like 'natural', I think that this is not about 'natural', it's about 'judgmental'.
"Are you under the impression children in Waldorf classrooms are somehow allowed to be atheists? Good luck to such a child; his or her reality would simply not be visible or permissible...such a child in Waldorf could well go crazy."
Are they allowed? Absolutely! History and literature provide lots of opportunities to get into such subjects. For example, Waldorf HS students read Dante's The Divine Comedy. I would imagine this book provokes discussions about the existence of God. Do you think Waldorf teachers would react in some negative way to a student who argues that a higher power doesn't exist? I suppose its possible but good teaching is good teaching. You can't get kids to do their primary job---reading the material and making coherent and informed assessments of it---if you undermine their contributions with your own thoughts and beliefs. The entire class will come to a standstill if you do that to students. Why would Waldorf teachers be able to get away with behavior other teachers cannot? To argue this implies that adolescents in a Waldorf school are passive and can't express themselves as their peers in other schools do. I think this is not only inaccurate but insulting to the bright, inquisitive kids I know. From what I have observed, they are absolutely developing their critical evaluation skills and are actively interested in challenging authority, including their teachers.
As for younger children, I think you are assuming things about a child’s ability to fashion a worldview that haven’t been confirmed in anything I’ve ever read. Of course, I could be wrong. Could you direct me to some resources about preadolescent children who have firm atheist beliefs? My understanding of childhood religiosity is that it follows a similar trajectory as cognitive development and that children generally don't make commitments to a worldview until adolescence. (David Elkind's theory is one example. James Fowler's is another.) The idea that there might be preadolescent atheist children who would "go crazy" in a Waldorf school is a distressing thought to me, though. In order for me to think this through, however, I need the following two pieces of information. First, I'd need to be persuaded that children are making such commitments earlier than is currently assumed by child development experts. Second, I would need to be shown how Waldorf curriculum and practice *specifically* violate the world views of such children. I don't discount that what you say is possible. I just think that in order to consider that atheist kids might "go crazy" in a Waldorf school we have to make sure we're not imagining that preadolescent children are atheists in the same way adults are.
Waldorf Mommy said: "Do you think Waldorf teachers would react in some negative way to a student who argues that a higher power doesn't exist?"
That's exactly what happened to my child in Waldorf high school. My son, a Dawkins fan, has homework assignments that demonstrate his teacher insisted that he hadn't "considered all the possibilities" when he discredited the intelligent design she was teaching his class. He was accused of being "closed-minded" in front of his class. His assignments are marked up with comments by his teacher that challenge science and PUSH intelligent design and his grade was lowered because he refused to accept intelligent design in his lessons.
That is what you will find in Waldorf... teachers who push Anthroposophy at every opportunity (as Steiner intended) - expressing to children that it's closed-minded to assume that natural science is the only science there is.
Re atheists: 'Are they allowed? Absolutely!'
I don't remember the morning prayer... sorry, verse... being optional. That's just one of the most blatant examples.
I didn't believe in god(s). That is, had I been an adult and not a small child, I was what we'd call an atheist. I wouldn't call that a 'committment to a worldview' or how you put it, though -- but it is an atheistic attitude, and can certainly be present in a kindergarten child. I didn't go 'crazy' from the morning verse though, or the rest of the spiritual stuff, but from lack of intellectual stimulation and from being among people who didn't like me at all. Which leads us back to what's natural... (believing in god or spiritual stuff is more natural, I gather?)... a topic I brushed upon in my comment above.
And, just by the way, I will continue to discuss the assumptions about what's 'natural', and the implications of unfounded beliefs re what's natural, but I'll do it on my blog (post written and scheduled for tonight) since it's outside the scope of Steve's present discussion. But I do think it's a very important issue, which is why I felt I shouldn't just leave it.
Waldorfmommy, once again you’re protesting quite a bit too much. It doesn’t take studies and research to get that there are some kids in a Waldorf classroom – even young kids – who don’t believe in god or fairies or gnomes or other mythical creatures. I suggest you ask some of them.
"allowed? Absolutely! ... Do you think Waldorf teachers would react in some negative way to a student who argues that a higher power doesn't exist?"
LOL, yes indeed I know of Waldorf teachers who react in a negative way to such students. I was an aide in such a classroom and it was plain to all that disputing or questioning what the teacher said about Mr. Gnome or the sun fairies or whatever, was not welcome. Such a child would be said to be “intellectualized” by his parents.
But I am not talking about high school. I’m sure debates about atheism go on in some Waldorf high school classes. I’m talking about younger kids – the kids who are supposedly fine because (by your argument) their parents get along with the other parents. My point was that when you make such arguments you seem to forget that the point of the school is not for the parents to make friends and be able to feel comfortable hanging out. The point is the children’s experience.
"Why would Waldorf teachers be able to get away with behavior other teachers cannot?"
They don’t “get away” with it in that sense. That’s the point. It causes damage, and it’s poor teaching. It is inherent in Waldorf. Waldorf insists that a mystical worldview is correct and assumes that any child who doesn’t experience this as true is in some way damaged (the parents have “intellectualized” him), hasn’t “incarnated properly,” has a bad fit between the etheric and the astral body, has bad karma, or some similar formulation.
"From what I have observed, they are absolutely developing their critical evaluation skills and are actively interested in challenging authority, including their teachers."
Sure, I agree, but I also think that it is just as fine for younger kids to do so as well, and I’m sure you’re aware that is heavily frowned on in younger children.
-to be continued
"Could you direct me to some resources about preadolescent children who have firm atheist beliefs?"
You're cracking me up. Why would they have to have “firm atheist beliefs”? Aren’t you “intellectualizing” children with such a question? I’m talking about normal children. Stop in the classroom and ask a few of them. Some are receptive to the type of fantasy world Waldorf creates in the classroom and some are looking around asking, "What fairies, I don’t see any fairies here." I’m not suggesting they’ve joined a formal atheist political action committee or something; it’s normal for kids to question.
"My understanding of childhood religiosity is that it follows a similar trajectory as cognitive development and that children generally don't make commitments to a worldview until adolescence."
You are overintellectualizing this is a comical way. I’m not suggesting there are numerous children with a “committed atheist worldview” slinking around incognito in Waldorf classrooms. I’m talking about the normal tendency of even young children to, well, perceive reality, their fervent desire to know what is real and how the world works, and their need to depend on trusted authority figures to tell them the truth. It’s called reality testing, and it begins around age 4 or younger. When the teacher tells of the great deeds of the archangel Michael, some children ask, “Was Saint Michael real?” (honest; they ask this). The average Waldorf teacher shuts that down, fast, and is prone to pretend to not even hear the question. That’s where a kid could go crazy in Waldorf.
"I need the following two pieces of information. First, I'd need to be persuaded that children are making such commitments earlier than is currently assumed by child development experts."
No one said anything about young children making atheist “commitments,” so your request is silly. Young children don’t know there are atheist groups to join, or atheist blogs to follow :)
"Second, I would need to be shown how Waldorf curriculum and practice *specifically* violate the world views of such children."
“Specifically”? I suggest you spend a morning in a Waldorf kindergarten or first grade.
Everything is nonverbal. The Waldorf teacher does not stand in front of the class and say, “Repeat after me, children; God is real,” thereby distressing or offending children who do not believe God is real. What happens is, an entire reality is constructed by the teacher, a world of elemental beings, mystical happenings, “spiritual reality” etc., in which the child is expected to live. The teacher tells stories that the child is expected to believe, and the child is expected to “reverence” the teacher. The child is not to question or reality-test in this constructed world, but to live happily. For some this is wonderful. For others not so much, but their reality is not welcome, permitted, or visible.
Many anthroposophists consider atheism truly an anathema; a sickness or sign of complete degradation and worthlessness. Only a person with very damaged karma would be an atheist. I don’t know if Steiner gave a specific karmic correspondence, but it’s probably something like, if you were a murderer or robber in the last life, you come back as an atheist. I’m making that up, but it isn’t something good.It doesn’t seem likely they’re going to react warmly to this in students. Even if the child him/herself is too damaged to save, it can’t be allowed to contaminate the other children. A young child in a Waldorf classroom who attempted to tell his/her fellow students that god wasn’t real would be causing a big problem, and the teacher would probably, I don’t know, order extra eurythmy and call the parents in for conferences to demand that they stop intellectualizing this poor child, and maybe make sure he’s always wearing a hat. It wouldn’t just be okay for the poor kid to talk about this with his friends.
waldorfmommy:
"The only thing I have to say is that in making that decision, are you still able to remain open to the fact that other similarly intelligent parents felt differently and that its possible their children are receiving a quality education?"
Of course. I have no doubt that Waldorf education works for some children, but not all. What concerns me is that some parents may still have gone into it less than fully informed about its basis in Anthroposophy.
Our son does enjoy his nursery school. There is plenty of singing, dancing, craft activities and story telling. There are also plenty of books. He bakes and gardens at home. We don't feel he's missing out on anything.
What would be the recommended Steiner/Waldorf response to a 3 year old handing you books and asking you to help him "say the words"? The natural thing for us was to recognise that he's keen to learn how to read and with sensitive, receptive encouragement, start helping him do so. By the way, listening to made-up stories without a book is also one of his favourite activities. But being able to recognise and read a growing list of words really seems to add to his enjoyment of the world.
To get back to the original topic of Steve's post...
Interestingly, Steiner tells us in The Education of the Child that "vague and general phrases such as 'the harmonious development of all the powers and talents in the child'" are not an adequate description of his ideas. I daresay he would have put holistic and phenomenological in the same category. Steiner goes on to say:
"A genuine art of education can only be built on true knowledge of human beings. Not that these phrases are incorrect, but basically they are as useless as saying about a machine that all its parts must be activated harmoniously. To work a machine you must approach it not with phrases and truisms but with real and detailed knowledge"
This real and detailed knowledge he then describes as the anthroposophical hierarchy of physical and spiritual bodies. He does partially justify the use of vague and general terms rather than up-front straight talk about spiritual insight, as the latter would be unacceptable to many and would impede the progress of his educational mission.
Diana is absolutely right. Some kids know that this fantasy world the teachers are creating is just fairy-tale. Others do not, I guess. And the teachers, it seems, pretend that none of the children are doubting its reality (they ignore the signs that some children are desperately doing so). Presumably because they themselves believe in this stuff, or the spiritual context in which it has appeared. And, yes, this is why it is so extremely important that anthroposophy, and its influence, is spoken about honestly and openly.
Children do indeed question things, they do refuse to believe in things adults tell them, but waldorf teachers -- it seems to me -- don't want to know this, don't want to hear it, don't want to acknowledge these children and their needs. It's easier to pretend these children don't exist. Or that, if they do, they're somehow destroyed. (Maybe because it's not 'natural'? They're unnaturally intellectualized? Well, nice. Said sarcastically.)
Alicia h: I find your comments generally interesting but they don’t have anything to do with what I said. I stated “One of the most joyful and least expensive ways to get a child on this path is to appeal to their natural desire to hear and tell stories and act out their ideas through open-ended play.”
While I agree that educational philosophies (ALL educational philosophies) tend to “naturalize” principles that may or may not really exist in all children, the idea that children want to hear and tell stories and act out their ideas through unstructured play is so far from an “unfounded belief” that I am at a loss for how I could even defend my statement further. This may be the most universally agreed upon educational precept concerning young learners. Where experts differ is how to apply this observation pedagogically. Waldorf education chooses to elongate the time children spend doing such things because the skills they are gaining are not just "metalinguisic blah blah" (i.e. enough with the buzz words lets get to the reading!) but essential components of literacy. Now that more direct instruction is happening in kindergarten, a child who starts decoding in first grade will look like they have been left behind in comparison. Traditionally, first grade was the time to teach children the techniques behind reading and writing. In short, I never argued that children who have the capacity to start decoding earlier (or later for that matter) are somehow progressing along less naturally than children who are ready to start in first grade.
waldorfmommy: it has everything to do with it -- waldorf has lots of ideas about what is natural and what is not, and you expressed one of these ideas about reading. And children who aren't behaving according to waldorf teachers' preconceived notions about what is natural are treated accordingly -- they are made to feel 'unnatural'. Subtly, but yes. (They notice, you know. It's not difficult to understand, not even for a child, what a waldorf teacher thinks is good... and bad.)
If both activities are 'natural' -- why even point out that listening is natural? And to use this as a reason specifically for delaying reading, ie, for not providing the children with books -- which is the practice you were defending to MarkH. If it's not unnatural for children to have access to books -- then let them have access! Let the children, who want to read, read. Let them have what they want, and don't stop them because of a silly idea about what's natural and not. Let the children who want to listen and do play-acting or whatever do that -- but why deprive children of books?
If you really believe this:
'I never argued that children who have the capacity to start decoding earlier (or later for that matter) are somehow progressing along less naturally than children who are ready to start in first grade.'
you have no reason whatsoever behind the argument you made about having no books in kindergarten, because it's supposedly natural for children to listen and all that. After all -- it's natural to want to read too! Or are they supposed to sit around decoding... nothing? Or are waldorf teachers dedicated to stopping children having access to books for no valid reason at all?
Maybe that should be mentioned in the elevator speech... ;-)
(I strongly believe waldorf education's anti-intellectual element is one of its most destructive components for some children. Sadly. I frankly don't understand how anyone in education can not be pleased when young children want books. How you can you deprive children of books! It's just too silly. One should have very good reasons for doing such a monumentally silly thing.)
Q: "What would be the recommended Steiner/Waldorf response to a 3 year old handing you books and asking you to help him "say the words"?"
A: Responding to the child...taking interest in what they are taking interest in...telling them verbally and non-verbally that you are a resource for them to learn about the world. Waldorf education is based on a metamorphic depiction of child development; new developments build upon the strength or power of earlier ones. When a 3 year old asks for help of course you give it because at this age what they need is to know that you are responsive to their needs and a good and trustworthy authority in their world. So, you give what they ask but you do so recognizing that this may not signal 'The Commencement of Learning To Read' but rather a desire to be a part of what older people do. Its entirely possible that they will tire of this activity, especially if it becomes about you teaching them to read and not whatever had motivated them in the first place. Or, maybe this kid really needs to figure this out now. That's ok too. The point is to pay deep attention to what the child is really asking for because whatever comes next flows forth from now. Waldorf's emphasis on rhythm and living, open-ended environments are supposed to help the child to tell and the adult to listen.
Having described what I think would be a "recommended" parental response, I should mention that a child bringing a book to a teacher at this age will be different because the purpose of their time together is different. The teacher may offer to read the book to the entire class or more likely, offer some gentle encouragement to have the child enjoy the book at home. The reason for this is that class time is for developing the kinds of skills I have been describing in my comments about literacy as well as: learning how to transition between times of quiet, times of high energy, times of responsibility, etc. This is hard work for a child as is learning to modulate their own behavior in the context of others. Futhermore, class time is special because its when the children are together. Waldorf teachers are interested in the development of the students as individuals and as a group. To sum up: there's already a lot on the agenda whether it appears so or not.
Thanks for asking me this question. I enjoyed working through my answer even though I can only speak as a parent and not someone accustomed to "recommending" a Waldorf response to things.
'A: Responding to the child...taking interest in what they are taking interest in...telling them verbally and non-verbally that you are a resource for them to learn about the world.'
I hope this means helping the child with what s/he asked for: reading the words. Telling them 'that you are a resource...' is not the same as telling them what they feel a desire to know. The response I'm fearing -- one not actually helping the child -- is a response that will be utterly frustrating for a child. Why not say: 'books are a wonderful resource for learning about the world; this is what this text says ...' -- I mean, why not?
'...or more likely, offer some gentle encouragement to have the child enjoy the book at home. The reason for this is that class time is for developing the kinds of skills I have been describing in my comments about literacy as well as: learning how to transition between times of quiet, times of high energy, times of responsibility, etc.'
Some of the time (not to say a lot of it) in waldorf kindergarten is free play. I have not been suggesting that children should be allowed to disrupt organised activities. I'm saying that a child who wants to sit down and read a book while other children play with whatever they're playing with (and that they choose themselves) ought to be allowed to do so.
'Futhermore, class time is special because its when the children are together.'
Don't you think that a child who has nobody to play with -- during the times I just mentioned -- would be happier if s/he was allowed to read a book every now and then? And in first grade, there's recess. Why don't allow small kids into the library?
'Waldorf teachers are interested in the development of the students as individuals and as a group.'
My personal experience: they don't give a shit. Or, perhaps they do on some elusive spiritual level, but not on the level that concretely affects the kids. I have never seen a waldorf teacher do anything when children beat each other up, bully, behave badly towards each other in general.
I think I have exhausted what I have to say on this topic but maybe a few more clarifications will help?? Please understand that people like me are simply parents who have chosen this education for our children because we find value in it. Many of us have credentials in education or related areas that make us look at what we see and determine that this is a holistic and developmentally appropriate model truly capable of helping young people impart purpose and direction in their lives (to quote Steiner). It has its strengths and weaknesses and within our school communities I think you would find intelligent, and often critical, discussions occurring. That is why its so frustrating that certain criticisms never seem to get resolved. There's too much noise for the most interesting (and potentially useful) critiques to be heard. I think Waldorf has a lot to offer its students and to education more generally but if some vocal people can't even conceive of it as a coherent educational alternative comprised of pedagogical choices then, well, I'm not sure where we can go from here. Critique is an essential component of growth and development. People's experiences matter. It would be very helpful if invested critics would figure out how to work as constructively as possible and with the acknowledgement that people's perceptions of real children can be affected by what they say and do.
All that being said, no education should ever make a child feel like he or she is "not natural." If that is how you were made to feel Alicia---and I believe you because this feeling seems to run so deep---I empathize with you and I will do everything in my power as a parent to make sure that doesn't happen at my school. We all need to be advocates for children and I am deeply sorry that your needs weren't met. Now on to this 'n' that...
"waldorf has lots of ideas about what is natural and what is not, and you expressed one of these ideas about reading."
No. I expressed what is widely regarded to be the natural foundation for literacy. Waldorf educators share this perspective with many educators, linguists, neuropsychologists, anthropologists, etc. I can, however, appreciate that some children hate these things and would prefer to explore the world alone. If whole class instruction proves to be distressing after giving it a try, the parents and the teachers have a responsibility to try something different. You probably would have loved a Reggio school, Alicia.
"Let the children, who want to read, read. Let them have what they want, and don't stop them because of a silly idea about what's natural and not. Let the children who want to listen and do play-acting or whatever do that -- but why deprive children of books?"
Again, I wasn't making the case that listening is natural and reading is not. I don't think Waldorf does either except to point out that *most* young children are not ready to read at a young age but they all can listen and play. What you are suggesting is a more conventional open classroom. They can be great. Waldorf kindy prioritizes rhythm, group work, and lots of opportunities for open-ended play in a less prepared environment. I've argued there are specific benefits that can be had from this approach.
-a bit more & then I've got other things to attend to-
-continued-
"I'm saying that a child who wants to sit down and read a book while other children play...ought to be allowed to do so...Don't you think that a child who has nobody to play with...would be happier if s/he was allowed to read a book every now and then?"
This is very interesting to me because I, like you, am a person who loves to read. Sometimes people are just too much for me and I physically *need* to have quiet time alone with my thoughts. It replenishes me. Looking at the issue from an educational standpoint, however, I think it is important for children to 'exercise their play muscle' for as long as they can. This is very easy for some children. These are the kids who can run around and play all day but have difficulty turning off their expressive selves and taking in information from other people. But playing can be extremely difficult for other kinds of children especially if their attempts at playing with the active ones have been rebuffed in some way. In these cases, a lot of learning can happen if a teacher leverages the following rule: "you can't say you can't play." The introverts and the extroverts have a lot to learn from each other but it cannot happen if there isn't a lot of time for this most important "work of children." Reading is an entirely worthwhile activity but it is worth considering how this outlet might serve to relieve both kinds of children from doing some hard work that they otherwise should be doing at this developmental age. When you are at school, you need to be working. Ironically, there may be some situations when reading a book is not the highest and most challenging task for the child.
“I strongly believe waldorf education's anti-intellectual element is one of its most destructive components for some children.”
I strongly object to WE being characterized as anti-intellectual. That is a mistaken characterization resulting from a misunderstanding of its goal to develop multiple intelligences equally well (e.g. Gardner 1983) as well as the developmental stance Waldorf takes toward these intelligences.
“Q: "What would be the recommended Steiner/Waldorf response to a 3 year old handing you books and asking you to help him "say the words"?"
A: Responding to the child...taking interest in what they are taking interest in...telling them verbally and non-verbally that you are a resource for them to learn about the world.”
A nice-sounding way of saying you won’t help him say the words.
So wrong.
“Responding” to a person asking you what does this word say, should involve telling her what the word says. Would you give this kind of rude, evasive answer to an adult who asked you plainly, “What does this word say?” If you want to be a “resource” for someone then how about simply answering her question.
You were wondering how a child might go crazy in Waldorf ...
Also it's egotistical, and it's teacher-centered rather than child-centered. The teacher is not the only source for the child to learn about the world. Education is all about helping children make their OWN use of the resources out there; books have a lot to offer that you don't have, no matter how smart you are.
"Waldorf education is based on a metamorphic depiction of child development; new developments build upon the strength or power of earlier ones."
That sounds sophisticated but honest, all the other types of education work on exactly this same premise.
"When a 3 year old asks for help of course you give it because at this age what they need is to know that you are responsive to their needs and a good and trustworthy authority in their world."
Other parents and teachers also communicate to our three year olds that we are responsive to their needs and good and trustworthy etc. When they ask you what a word says, they want to know what the word says – honest. It is not a code for “Are you good and trustworthy?” It’s a straightforward question and if you really want to indicate trustworthiness, just answer it.
"So, you give what they ask but you do so recognizing that this may not signal 'The Commencement of Learning To Read"
Actually, when a child asks what does this word means, it often signals a commencement of learning to read, or at least wishing to.
"but rather a desire to be a part of what older people do."
Yes, they desire to read, like older people do. That’s normal.
"Its entirely possible that they will tire of this activity,"
Yes, probably. Hm – what happens if they tire of eurythmy?
"The point is to pay deep attention to what the child is really asking for because whatever comes next flows forth from now. Waldorf's emphasis on rhythm and living, open-ended environments are supposed to help the child to tell and the adult to listen."
That’s some serious PR rhetoric there. If it were true, there wouldn’t be so many children in Waldorf early grades trying to tell the adults they would like to learn to read, and the adults somehow not hearing this.
"that class time is for developing the kinds of skills I have been describing in my comments about literacy as well as: learning how to transition between times of quiet, times of high energy, times of responsibility, etc. This is hard work for a child as is learning to modulate their own behavior in the context of others."
Other schools are also teaching kids to transition between times of quiet and high energy and modulate their behavior with others etc. Again, this is not an explanation for why Waldorf is not ALSO teaching them to read. Other schools somehow manage both.
"Futhermore, class time is special because its when the children are together. Waldorf teachers are interested in the development of the students as individuals and as a group. To sum up: there's already a lot on the agenda whether it appears so or not."
Yes, yet oddly, “class time is special” at other schools, too, and at other schools “the development of the students” is also on the agenda, and somehow, so is learning to read.
Waldorf education today wouldn't exist if it wasn't the largely successful education system it is in response to public school as an alternative method of teaching our children.
Therefore, what it seems we have in this discussion is more of a have and have-not rationale wherein those who are happy with their children meet those who are not happy with the outcomes of education, including Waldorf children themselves speaking as adults, as well as parents of children who they feel were sabotaged by the system.
I keep hearing about Steiner's "Faculty Meetings", wherein he supposedly advised teachers to intentionally confuse and otherwise obfuscate matters relative to talking to parents in order to assure that anthroposophy would get taught. Is this true?
To Raphael: There's a difference between discretion and deception, and it will depend on how you interpret Steiner's comments, as it always does. More important, perhaps, is whether or not Waldorf schools today work to act, as a previous comment claimed, as the "missionary arm of anthroposophy." I've been around them for more than 30 years and, at least in the U.S., they don't. Fox News-style conspiracy theories just discredit the value of more cogent criticisms, in my view.
To Diana and Waldorf Mommy: My own children, with a Waldorf teacher dad and attending Waldorf schools, both read early, with both parents' assistance, before they "learned" to read in school. There's a huge difference, in my view, between warm, at-home, informal, family-based learning, when everything arises out of children's interest and parents' interactions with them, and more formal presentations in an institution called a school. We all know some history before we learn formal history, for example. It simply doesn't bother me--and I don't think it should bother parents or Waldorf teachers or any other teachers (no matter how young you start, some children will already know a lot of what you're teaching) that some children will already know what's going on. We should not be ignorant of the flip side of the coin, however. Early reading means an early engagement with abstraction and a loss of the amazing instinctive memory that young children enjoy; it's not for nothing that Native Americans called letters "little devils." And research shows that, on average, late readers and early readers are on par by 4th grade.
Waldorfmommy:
"There's too much noise for the most interesting (and potentially useful) critiques to be heard."
I haven’t seen “noise” in the discussions here – unless perhaps you count Steve dismissing the notion that Waldorf schools are the missionary arm of anthroposophy as a “Fox news style conspiracy.” That is pretty unhelpful. It is not exactly far fetched to point out that these schools advance anthroposophy, and they do it, um, on purpose. Just like other missionaries – it’s outreach for a religious sect. This isn’t a CIA plot or something from Wikileaks, it’s a straightforward observation.
"I can, however, appreciate that some children hate these things and would prefer to explore the world alone."
I think that’s pretty snotty. Speaking of noise, that doesn’t even remotely address what Alicia said, but just comes across like, well if you’d rather explore ALONE all the best to you. That’s a dig, pretty clearly.
Also, I’m amused by all the references to Waldorf as “open ended” and a “less prepared environment.” Waldorf is the farthest thing imaginable from open ended and less prepared. Every detail is worked out in advance, even color schemes are anthroposophically prescribed, which day of the week to eat rice and which day to eat oatmeal (based basically on astrology) …
Rafael wrote:
"Waldorf education today wouldn't exist if it wasn't the largely successful education system it is"
That is an unfounded conclusion; in fact a rather astounding one. How did you reach this conclusion?
Steve:
"it's not for nothing that Native Americans called letters 'little devils.'"
No indeed, it’s not for nothing. This is closer to honesty about the Waldorf method than all the edu-babble about metalinguistic metamorphosing.
Steiner said similar things. Reading is delayed in Waldorf because it is thought to be damaging spiritually for young children. Why don’t Waldorf schools just say so?
“Responding” to a person asking you what does this word say, should involve telling her what the word says."
Um...agreed? I am not sure why you needed to assume that my definition of "response" entailed an "egotistical...teacher-centered" and "rude, evasive answer" and not "simply answering [the] question." To respond means to answer in words, action or both. I offered a description of the entire response in terms of what it should offer to the child. An incomplete response, in my mind, would be one that only addressed "what are these words."
Again, I have to reiterate that we approach nearly everything about Waldorf education in a fundamentally different way. I labor under no delusions that I will ever change your mind. What I would like for people who share your viewpoint to acknowledge is that there may be other valid ways of looking at these issues even if you disagree. If you really want to help kids, it will be more productive if you consider an issue, like delayed formal instruction of reading, as a defensible position (in theory) and offer a rationale for why its wrong. Show why having kindergarten reading corners (for example) is superior to a play-based model that ostensibly "limits" activity to physical and imaginative play. This is the basis upon which we should consider "What is Waldorf" and not on some murky idea that Waldorf teachers think reading is a pointless activity, or that knowledge is bad or that what children should really be doing is peeking under mushrooms looking for families of bearded gnomes or something. If the complaint really is that children need to have books in their school then just say so and show why schools that don't have them (any school that doesn't have books in kindy/1st grade/2nd grade) will not be successful. And then back it up with some facts that most Waldorf students are not prepared for difficult work in high school or college as a result. There is no need to imply all sorts of ridiculous motives on the part of teachers and parents. After all, we need these kids to to able to read all of Steiner's lectures so they can become Anthroposophists, right? (joke! joke!)
"there wouldn’t be so many children in Waldorf early grades trying to tell the adults they would like to learn to read, and the adults somehow not hearing this."
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Children begin reading instruction in first grade and they work on letters, words and sentences until they are reading on their own. Children understand they are having "Language Arts" blocks and that they are getting the tools they need to be able to read and write.
"Other schools are also teaching kids to transition between times of quiet and high energy and modulate their behavior with others etc."
Yes they do. In my assessment, Waldorf teachers accomplish these goals better than other approaches because of the way they do it and the singular focus
they place on getting this right before moving on to other things.
I'll respond to this quickly because I didn't intend any offense on the following point:
"That doesn’t even remotely address what Alicia said, but just comes across like, well if you’d rather explore ALONE all the best to you. That’s a dig, pretty clearly."
I didn't mean it as a dig at all. I was imagining another kind of classroom where students can pick and choose what they want to do during "free period." In this kind of classroom there might be books or counting blocks and students have an opportunity to select what they want to work on and go for it. Sometimes these things can be worked on alone or as a group. I was imagining a child who may have different interests than children of a similar age and who might find the other children working slower or faster than they wish to work. This kind of child might prefer to work alone. The essential point for me is that while this is fine children do need to confront this problem of others being more advanced than them, or less advanced or slower or faster in serious ways. Its a fundamental issue that shouldn't be avoided in any age range and ideally children begin working on it early on. If educators take a stance that early reading is the goal (since we are in school after all) you might be in a frame of mind that prevents you from asking "What is the most challenging task for *this* child? How can I bring them to the challenge?" Its the opposite of what a teacher needs to be doing with a child who can easily play all day with her peers but has serious difficulties quieting her body and concentrating on a teacher's story or other discrete tasks. I like the Waldorf approach for how it anticipates and addresses this issue. That being said, I recognize that for some children whole class learning and lots of free play can be stressful to an extent that it surpasses the possible benefits. After a period of observation, teachers should be open to the fact that this method might not be in the best interests of this child.
"I’m amused by all the references to Waldorf as “open ended” and a 'less prepared environment.'"
Yes, it is "prepared" in some sense. Here's analogy that might help you see it my way. Traditional kindy classroom:: Broadway Theater. Waldorf classroom:: Abstract Theater. The set design in the former is lush and realistic and the actors wear elaborate period costumes. The set design in the latter is suggested by lighting rather than physically constructed walls, turrets, etc. An actor might wear a top hat to suggest an era but otherwise be dressed in extremely plain clothing. Props will be suggestive as well. A simple piece of fabric might transform from an apple in one scene to sea of blood in another. Both approaches can result in incredibly moving and beautiful dramatic performances and one isn't necessarily "better" or more artistic than another. Both are prepared and "thought out" in a sense too. The internal effect on the audience, however, is likely to be very different based upon what they need to do as participant-observers to "complete" this world in their imaginations.
Waldorfmommy:
'Please understand that people like me are simply parents who have chosen this education for our children because we find value in it.'
I know such mums. I had one such mum myself.
'It would be very helpful if invested critics would figure out how to work as constructively as possible'
It really is waldorf's task to reform itself. It's impossible for someone on the outside to do much about it. I do think, however, that waldorf has things to learn from those of us who experienced it and who were not happy. But that means having to listen to how, for example, an anti-intellectual approach is experienced by children who are inclined towards intellectual pursuits.
'All that being said, no education should ever make a child feel like he or she is "not natural." If that is how you were made to feel Alicia---and I believe you because this feeling seems to run so deep---I empathize with you and I will do everything in my power as a parent to make sure that doesn't happen at my school.'
I appreciate that, but I wonder if, in reality, you would really notice the disparaging behaviour of some waldorf teachers. Simply because you share their view on things fairly deeply, i e, you share their thoughts on what is good and their ideals. Which isn't necessarily bad! (It's probably also a human 'flaw' in general.) But it may make it more difficult to see when things are off, when indeed unfounded assumptions about natural, good, et c, are allowed to have undue influence in the school.
'If whole class instruction proves to be distressing after giving it a try, the parents and the teachers have a responsibility to try something different.'
Yes, absolutely! I'm in full agreement with you here. I think it would be a very good thing if waldorf teachers were more skilled at spotting the children for whom their methods are not appropriate. And waldorf schools should be more honest and open about they can't do -- which children they can't help, which things they can't offer.
Parents have a definite responsibility too, but they're not teachers, they don't see their child in class, they often don't know enough about the different pedagogies. And too often they're in love with the waldorf school and refuse to see... Anyway, with good and accurate information about waldorf, they would be more likely to make the right decisions. And in the absence of a completely neutral point of view (that is all too rare) -- I suggest they familiarize themselves both with what critics say and what waldorf proponents say.
'Again, I wasn't making the case that listening is natural and reading is not. ... Waldorf kindy prioritizes rhythm, group work, and lots of opportunities for open-ended play in a less prepared environment. I've argued there are specific benefits that can be had from this approach.'
Sure. I'm saying nothing of these activities (not saying they should go); I'm certain they have their benefits. I just don't see why reading can't be included for those children who want it. That suggests to me that reading is conceived of as not good (which, as Diana points out in her comment, aligns with the philosophy behind waldorf). I started to discuss the word natural because it was the one you used when you described some activities that were natural and naturally beneficial. You have to assume then that there are other activities that are not natural. But I would have raised the same objections had you used the word 'good' or 'appropriate' or any other value-laden word to put these particular activities above other activities.
'But playing can be extremely difficult for other kinds of children especially if their attempts at playing with the active ones have been rebuffed in some way.'
This is just a minor point, but if the rest of the children are pretty much awful, you aren't going to attempt to play with them, are you?
continued...
'The introverts and the extroverts have a lot to learn from each other but it cannot happen if there isn't a lot of time for this most important "work of children." Reading is an entirely worthwhile activity but it is worth considering how this outlet might serve to relieve both kinds of children from doing some hard work that they otherwise should be doing at this developmental age.'
This leads to sadism. This is the approach waldorf takes, of course: let the bullied put up with the bullies. To learn. Bully and bullied have a common need to sort it out, to learn from each others' plights. In reality, they don't. The bullied child need to be allowed to escape, or will be scarred for life.
'When you are at school, you need to be working.'
I wasn't talking about the organized, teacher-led activities; I'm all for everybody participating in those. I was refering to the periods of free play. No child should be forced to be victimized during those hours of free play just so that everybody can 'learn' from it.
'I strongly object to WE being characterized as anti-intellectual.'
If you discourage early intellectual development and intellectual activities, like waldorf does, then yes, it is anti-intellectual. That is ok for some children, not for others.
'If the complaint really is that children need to have books in their school then just say so and show why schools that don't have them (any school that doesn't have books in kindy/1st grade/2nd grade) will not be successful.'
Do you need evidence that schools without books have a certain disadvantage for children who want to read or learn to read?
Waldorf usually advertises itself as being about the individual child and his or her needs and some such bullshit.
'And then back it up with some facts that most Waldorf students are not prepared for difficult work in high school or college as a result.'
I think that after so many years, waldorf itself should have had enough time and collected enough data to show the efficacy of the waldorf method.
In addition, I'd like to say I agreee with Diana on most things. For example, every detail is indeed worked out in advance. Nothing spontaneous happens, unlike other schools. The entire environment is perfectly organized according to various ideas and principles that are practically written in stone. Every ideal is rigidly adhered to. (This is another reason why it becomes so difficult to handle the fact that children are individuals and different and not just drones in a beehive. Despite all the fancy words -- this is a difficulty that derives directly, I think, from having so very firm beliefs about oughts and ought-nots in child development and everything else.)
Thanks waldorfmommy for your perspective. I would have thought that the delayed approach to literacy (and numeracy?) should form part of the Waldorf elevator speech. But this isn't what makes Waldorf unique either.
Of course learning to read isn't a particular priority at my son's nursery. At age 3, I'd be concerned if it were! But he likes books, so I'm glad that they are there. At home, it's not a priority either. Pointing out words that he recognises is just a fun activity that we share together. The importance of developing social skills etc. is a familiar argument from our enquiries at the local Steiner school, but I don't see it as enough of a reason for excluding books altogether.
Steve, your experiences as a parent and views as a Waldorf educator are refreshingly direct, thank you. However, I'm not sure what you mean by the "amazing instinctive memory that young children enjoy." Do you mean the amazing ability that young children have to learn new things seemingly effortlessly? I know what the anthroposophical interpretation might be, but I'm interested in yours.
As a six or seven year old, I remember reading books about astronomy, dinosaurs and so on. This certainly fuelled the imagination. I guess the Waldorf approach to those subjects would be more experiential: go outside at night and look up in wonder at the stars or go to the museum and be impressed by the size of the dinosaur skeletons. Well, I did that too, admittedly with family rather than with school. The books and the museum trips complemented each other nicely.
In an ideal situation, the warm, informal family-based learning would complement the more formal education at school. Part of the reason we decided against the Steiner school was that their approach was so radically different to what we were doing at home that there was the potential for conflict and confusion.
On Steiner/Waldorf schools being the "missionary arm of Anthroposophy", Steiner was fairly clear in his intentions. That is, that they should lead the way to profound societal change vis-a-vis his idea of social three-folding. I'm not claiming that modern day Waldorf schools are anywhere like as ambitious as that... However, I can only report that our local school runs classes in Anthroposophical medicine for parents and study groups that promote Steiner's more esoteric works: The Study of Man etc. It is a centre of Anthroposophical culture, no doubt about it, though this is not obvious to the outsider.
To Mark: I just mean that my kids knew dozens of children's books by heart, as I believe all kids do, and could remember all kinds of stuff that used to amaze us as parents. Once they learned to read and write, as with all of us, the quality of their memories changed. Now, almost 50, I have to write things down if I'm to have a slim chance of remembering anything...
Steve:
'Now, almost 50, I have to write things down if I'm to have a slim chance of remembering anything...'
As it is natural -- ha! -- that our capacity to remember changes, even deteriorates, as we get older (I have much more difficulty remembering things now than just ten years ago), it's a pretty darn good thing we learn how to write things down!
My memory is very much based on seeing written words -- what I haven't seen in writing, just isn't filed properly. I think that was one part of the relief that came with the written word, when I was a kid. There was order -- not just disorganized fluff floating about randomly in space. The written word, the written information, was represented in my brain in a way that made it stick. But when I was that age -- practically everything I read stuck in my memory (much in the way you describe with the example of children who've listened to stories). I can assure you that at 30+ that's not the case anymore... very far from it.
Stories made a lot more sense when I could read the stuff my father read aloud to me. Comically, I didn't tell him for a long while. I read the pages quickly and remember sitting there, quietly annoyed that he would produce a lot of noise that disturbed my reading and that he would take so long to finish... (In retrospect, I think these were important moments anyway, but not for the reason of listening to the story.)
Steve: yes, that is pretty amazing isn't it? On the other hand, the transition from knowing some stories by heart to being able to read whatever they want opens up an enormous amount of further pleasure.
I know about the Waldorf stance on technology, but have you ever seen a 3 year old operate an iPad? That's pretty amazing too. :-)
"Um...agreed? I am not sure why you needed to assume that my definition of 'response' entailed an 'egotistical...teacher-centered' and 'rude, evasive answer' and not 'simply answering [the] question. To respond means to answer in words, action or both. I offered a description of the entire response in terms of what it should offer to the child. An incomplete response, in my mind, would be one that only addressed 'what are these words.'"
I find this paragraph-long protest evasive. Looking back at your original reply, I am still pretty suspicious that you wouldn’t tell the child what the word said. “Respond” can mean a lot of things, and I'm pretty sure the stuff about encouraging the child to believe you are a resource means you would encourage them to ask YOU rather than to look for the answer in a book. If you believe that learning to read the words is BAD for the child, you would probably “respond” the way Waldorf teachers often do, by suddenly pointing out the window and saying “Oooh! Look at the butterfly!” If you believe reading is damaging, you would “respond” by distracting the child from his/her desire to know what the word says.
So: if a child asks you what does this word say, would you tell them what the word says? And would you manage to do it WITHOUT also communicating that you don't entirely approve of their interest, and that you would prefer they do other things, or implying that (I've heard Waldorf kindy teachers say it often), "That's for big kids" or some such.
(con't)
(con't)
“it will be more productive if you consider an issue, like delayed formal instruction of reading, as a defensible position (in theory) and offer a rationale for why its wrong. Show why having kindergarten reading corners (for example) is superior to a play-based model that ostensibly "limits" activity to physical and imaginative play. This is the basis upon which we should consider "What is Waldorf" and not on some murky idea that Waldorf teachers think reading is a pointless activity, or that knowledge is bad or”
There’s nothing “murky” about it, what Steiner said is that abstract or “intellectual” thought is spiritually damaging to young children, reading is “intellectual” hence damaging. Early reading can cause sclerosis in later life. Waldorf teachers repeat this deleterious nonsense regularly, to each other and to parents if the parents are receptive.
I really find it hard to believe – and rather sad – that you are asking for evidence that providing books is a superior method of helping children learn to read, compared with, well, NOT providing books. I can post some links to studies this evening, if Steve allows comments to remain open; I gotta work today.
One doesn’t find these studies in the latest issues of reading research journals; it was established many years ago and doesn’t really engage researchers as a pressing question to investigate anymore. Research ASSUMES that you need an environment where children have easy access to printed materials if you want to help them read. This is like you’re asking me to post studies showing that encouraging children to eat fruits and vegetables will be good for their health. The New England Journal of Medicine doesn’t publish such a study every day these days, ‘cus it’s kind of been done. Reading research journals don’t regularly publish comparisons of print-available versus print-free kindergartens, because, frankly, no one in their right mind would even imagine there are print-free kindergartens, except perhaps in some odd cult. Worldwide, in Western countries and developing countries, the consuming passion for increasing literacy always involves shipping in cratefuls of books. But if you can wait till this evening or maybe even tomorrow morning, I’ll post some of the solid data for you, and some sources describing the basic characteristics of kindergarten and early-childhood programs that encourage literacy.
As for evidence that Waldorf students are impaired by their poor early start, I would concede, as most critics do, that the evidence is not good there, for a couple of reasons. 1) Waldorf doesn't allow this research, at least not as conducted by outsiders - generally only Waldorf insiders publish "findings" on Waldorf practices, in Waldorf-internal publications, and these findings are generally very flawed, for obvious reasons (bias); and 2) the research itself is very complicated, because there are so many confounders. Much of what kids need to learn to read, many Waldorf kids are getting at home (the print-rich environment), rather than at school. Put another way, you have to control for socioeconomic background, which correlates with the print-rich environment (not to mention all the metalinguistic stuff you like to cite) and that's complicated, longitudinal research. No one but the zealous anthro parents are actually eliminating print from their children's environment at home - fortunately. Thus they are diluting the actual effects of Waldorf - again, fortunately.
Diana says: “I am still pretty suspicious that you wouldn’t tell the child what the word said.”
I humbly submit that this comes from your prejudices about waldorf mothers and not from what I wrote. I wrote, “Respond to the child…” and then followed that up with another entire post providing the definition of what “to respond” means. What else should I do to reinforce that yes, in fact, I make use of the English language according to standard definitions? One misunderstanding I can accept but twice? Good grief!
Since you don’t know me, you would have no way of knowing that my home is filled with books for all ages. The very idea that I would find intellectual pursuits “bad” would send friends and family into a fit of laughter. Even a casual acquaintance, only knowing a little bit about my background and activities, would find such an idea absurd. Yet somehow by virtue of sending my children to a Waldorf school I am suddenly against reading and academics. So, yes, I would tell the child the words. I would work on the words as long as they wanted but in doing so I would try to observe if their request was really about the words. I would try to avoid conceptualizing our new activity as “learning to read” and remain open to the possibility that it was about something else or that this was just one tiny step in that direction that will be followed by a longer period of disinterest. I would endeavor to spend more time in adult activities that the child can more easily participate in at their level of development. If, after having observed that its really about the words, why then we would work on words to their hearts content.
MarkH: “Part of the reason we decided against the Steiner school was that their approach was so radically different to what we were doing at home that there was the potential for conflict and confusion.”
FWIW, my kids have some plastic toys, and we go to museums, play a few sports, attend sporting events, are members of a mainstream religious denomination, listen to all kinds of music, play musical instruments, and watch movies from time to time (although we’re more into documentaries). Well, I insist on the documentaries and I control the movie choices. Guilty as charged; my kids will watch any kind of crap if they get a chance. I don’t find any conflicts between school and home and I don’t notice many differences between my family and others of our education/income level except for the TV and technology thing.
Diana: “Much of what kids need to learn to read, many Waldorf kids are getting at home (the print-rich environment), rather than at school.”
I agree and this is precisely why I value a school environment that works so deeply on other intelligences as well. I see my children’s educational environment as being both their home and their school. Each complements the other and each offers different things. Its not an accident that it happens this way. Waldorf parents are very cognizant of the need to do this and in part chose it based on their assessment of what their home environment can provide. I am not an expert on Waldorf charters but I think they don’t assume as much synergy and therefore adjustments are made in the school as a result. IMO, this educational model (at least how it is practiced in the private Waldorfs) seems to be better suited to families who are willing to take a process-oriented perspective to education and are able to maximize educational enrichment opportunities in the home.
Diana: “Research ASSUMES that you need an environment where children have easy access to printed materials if you want to help them read.”
I agree: the absence of printed material in a child’s learning environment is likely to produce a poor literacy outcome. But if you are defining the learning environment as both school and home then Waldorf kids do have printed materials in their learning environment.
Rafael wrote:
"Waldorf education today wouldn't exist if it wasn't the largely successful education system it is"
Diana: That is an unfounded conclusion; in fact a rather astounding one. How did you reach this conclusion?
To Raphael: There's a difference between discretion and deception, and it will depend on how you interpret Steiner's comments, as it always does. More important, perhaps, is whether or not Waldorf schools today work to act, as a previous comment claimed, as the "missionary arm of anthroposophy." I've been around them for more than 30 years and, at least in the U.S., they don't. Fox News-style conspiracy theories just discredit the value of more cogent criticisms, in my view.
To Diana and Steve: Well, here is my assessment on the above. Waldorf schools are successful in America, which is why parents are choosing them in spite of the high cost, and it seems that anybody can take Steiner's faculty meetings out of context, now that they have been put in a written form.
Yes, even those who are critics and find the Steiner school system has failed them. Move on; get a life; find a way to smell the roses before you're dead...da da da.
Does that sound like something you've heard before? It works, even for those who put kids through public school. Life goes on, and Waldorf works for those who seek it and find it.
Waldorf mommy wrote to me:
“it will be more productive if you consider an issue, like delayed formal instruction of reading, as a defensible position (in theory) and offer a rationale for why its wrong. Show why having kindergarten reading corners (for example) is superior to a play-based model that ostensibly "limits" activity to physical and imaginative play. This is the basis upon which we should consider "What is Waldorf" and not on some murky idea that Waldorf teachers think reading is a pointless activity,”
First, let’s keep clear that it is Waldorf that needs to defend its methods: the onus is not on critics to prove that other methods work. An educational system with an unusual method that flouts very well-established findings about how children learn, specifically how they learn to read, should explain itself, or at the very least announce itself – not fail to even mention to prospective customers the ways they are different.
The real way Waldorf is different wrt reading instruction is Steiner’s theory that early reading is spiritually damaging. It has nothing to do with “natural” methods of learning to read, a phrase many Waldorf supporters parrot. This is a misconception that Waldorf teachers encourage because it is much more appealing to their prospective clientele than the truth: Steiner said that delaying reading and writing until adolescence is spiritually beneficial.
Here is a useful link for those who question that a print-rich environment is basic to learning to read (again, note that this is not some kind of recent research finding, rather it is an assumed, agreed basis among virtually all educators and researchers today):
http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/literacy-richenvironments.asp
This link includes dozens of citations of the relevant literature, over decades of research. It is primarily concerned with elementary classrooms, but note: “Language acquisition and literacy experiences begin at birth. Students lacking previous experiences with skills such as print awareness, alphabetic principle, and phonemic awareness need supplementary instruction” – meaning if the child has come from an environment that did NOT include these things – such as a Waldorf kindergarten - the child is already basically deprived.
Also: “Some students begin elementary school struggling with literacy experiences. Creating a literacy rich environment in school enriches literacy experiences of students who may have limited exposure to literacy due to delays or disorders in their development” – or, due to exposure to very strange educational settings that deny and discourage such “literacy experiences,” actually viewing them as “damaging”?
Finally, note this comment on the role of the teacher: “The role of the teacher is to encourage all attempts at reading, writing, and speaking, allowing students of varying ability to experience the different function and use of literacy activities.”
That is not how the Waldorf teacher sees herself, is it? In Waldorf, it’s more like, “The role of the teacher is to embody knowledge and wisdom for the student, to encourage the children to reverence her and to view her as the only necessary ‘resource’ for knowledge. This model is an anachronism. It is deceptive advertising to call this system “progressive.”
This is getting too long but I’m going to separately post a bulleted summary of the desirable literacy-related characteristics of a kindergarten (from this source), if Steve will permit.
Some useful points from the source:
http://www.k8accesscenter.org/training_resources/literacy-richenvironments.asp
“88 percent of students who were poor readers in first grade were poor readers in fourth grade" (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000, 9
(hm – didn’t Steve say they all catch up by 4th grade?)
Some of the skills needed before learning to read:
Print awareness, alphabetic principle, and phonemic awareness (can’t get this from oral storytelling)
Understand the functions and uses of literacy – this is something Waldorf teachers want to make sure students DON’T get in kindergarten
Besides print books, other stuff suggested for a classroom that would foster beginning literacy:
Books on CD or on tape
Magazines
Computers
“Word walls”
Labels on objects in the classroom
Calendars
Schedules
Signs
Phone books
Menus
Recipes
Word/letter games: Pictionary, Scrabble, bingo
Alphabet letter cookie cutters, stamps, stickers
Diverse writing materials: pens, pencils, markers, crayons of varying shapes and sizes, typewriters, keyboards, magnetic writing boards, tactile books, manipulatives, slant boards, pencil grips (for kids with problems w/proper grip)
Things a teacher in such a classroom might do:
“a teacher conducting a science lesson may request hypotheses, observations, and conclusions from students in an oral and written form”
“teachers demonstrate their own participation in language and literacy through modeling its use continually throughout the day” – the Waldorf teacher does just the opposite; more than one Waldorf teacher has told me it is important for the students NOT to see the teacher consulting a book, because the children will not respect her if they think she does not know all the answers herself
“Teachers can demonstrate writing on the board by recording what children share in class discussions.”
Encourage kids to incorporate reading/writing into imaginative and dramatic play, e.g.” “reading to dolls, writing notes to friends, making shopping lists, and taking telephone messages”
“Taking dictation for students not yet fluent in writing”
This one kind of sums it up: “Teaching staff connect literacy to all elements of classroom life”
They also mention various accommodations for students with disabilities and recommendations for a multicultural classroom. This stuff is not even in the Waldorf teacher’s known universe.
Parents considering Waldorf for their children need to be sure to see a kindergarten or early grades classroom, and look for this stuff. The literate environment, basic to “school,” is not there. In the early grades, there will probably be a few Waldorf-approved books (from anthroposophical publishers, all in the same Germanic aesthetic), but there will never be stuff like magnetic writing boards, alphabet shape cookie cutters, labels on objects, “word walls” etc. Frankly, many Waldorf teachers would view such recommendations for children as young as 3 and 4 as close to child abuse, or at least, seriously hindering a child’s positive development.
Bad readers in first grade are not non-readers or late readers.
Waldorf schools do not do a good job, in my opinion, of sussing out early enough students who may have challenges that should be addressed earlier...
Just for the record ... if possible ... I'm giving up, because not all my posts go through. Hey, it's your blog, Steve, but obviously, I can't converse that way.
Whoa, Diana. Before you give up on it, what gives with all this "critically supposed knowledge" of Waldorf Education? Didn't you say that you had a kid in pre-school and then Kindergarten in a Waldorf school?
So, then he/she went to Quaker school as an alternative. Well, what does that mean? You say you were a teachers' aide in the Waldorf school your child attended when he/she was in Kindergarten.
Well, what happened that you seem to know so much about supposed nefarious aims of teaching kids with this type of education when your own child only lasted one year in it? As a teacher's aide in your yet unnamed Waldorf school did you find out about the plan of teaching these students?
What gives?
Say what? Your questions don't make a lot of sense, and what you got from my comments is related in only a rather fragile way to what I said. I never said, for instance, that my son was in the school for only 1 year. Anyway, comments take several days to appear here, so a discussion here is not very practical.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but here is what I am seeing. Steve has 25 years of experience in every dimension of Waldorf education, and this is not to be denied in terms of relevant authority within the field as a whole. As well, 'Waldorfmommy' strikes me as a very intelligent, astute, and practical mother who takes full responsibility for her child(s) education within the alternative medium of education that Waldorf represents, and affords.
Yet, you seem to come in with huge notions of what Waldorf is trying to do with only a smattering of experience within the field, which involves a child in the kindergarten year, and no further.
Is this correct? Thanks.
No. It isn't correct. If you went back to read the posts I've already written, you might see your mistakes. I'm not writing new ones, it isn't worth it here.
Diana, on December 3rd you said:
In answer to Rafael, my child attended 3 years of Waldorf preschool and kindergarten, and later did well in a variety of other schools, public and private (Quaker). He was not harmed in the long term, but I definitely blame the Waldorf school for his slow and painful transition. It didn’t need to be that way. It isn’t a kindness to hold children back. Waldorf would have you believe all other schools will “rush” your child and destroy his soul. Reading and writing don’t damage children; this is the worst myth Waldorf promotes. Reading and writing are spiritual for many people. For many children, learning earlier is simply easier. The brain is extraordinarily plastic at early ages, and many things become much harder later which if learned at a very early age are painless and fun. Making up lost time later can be excruciatingly difficult and Waldorf does many children a terrible disservice in this regard.
December 3, 2011 9:30 AM
So, Diana, what did I miss?
well, for one thing you keep repeating that my child was in the school for 1 year when it says 3.
2 years pre-school and one year of kindergarten within a waldorf environment, this is what I have gotten from the outset of this discussion. Did you continue to teacher assist at waldorf after taking the child to a new school? Thanks.
"Kindergarten" is all one thing in the Waldorf/Steiner schools, at least in the US. The program is exactly the same for 3-year-olds and 6-year-olds. So it is not quite correct to say he attended 2 years of preschool and 1 year of kindergarten. He attended 3 years of the same thing, over and over. They treat 3 year olds and 6 year olds, who are worlds apart developmentally, as exactly the same type of creature.
I would say:
Waldorf education was developed by Rudolf Steiner in Germany. It is a wholesome education ( educación integral ). It teaches through the arts. Everything is surrounded by beauty. It develops creativity and curiosity for learning. It takes into consideration a balance between physical activities and the academics. Promotes outdoors activities, interaction with nature.
Most of the time you learn two other languages. :)
Waldorf education as I see it :
1)The head (the pedagogical structure)
2)The heart (the teacher/adult -child's unfolding within the context of the natural worlds)
3)The hands (methodology of instruction)
Whilst the first and the last may be set in stone if one so perceives it, and thus is also easier to 'imitate', it is the middle - the 'heart' that really makes it different.
At the heart of Waldorf schools is meant to be the teacher who journeys through inner work - learning , growing, advancing. Children to a Waldorf teacher become the silent masters, in who's observations the teacher finds reflections of not only her/himself but that of the unfolding of nature. This, is the true significance of 'Waldorf Education', that whilst it refines the adult, it provides the child with the opportunity to unfold unhindered.
This to me is the true relationship of interconnectedness of their inner & outer worlds. One cannot evolve without the other.
The Waldorf school building, the classrooms, the muted colours, the choice of subjects, the delivery method, the inclusions, the exclusions, the similarities, the differences are all transient. For maximum benefit, these must be organic and fluid.
In my personal understanding - the meat, the crux of 'Waldorf Education' is about the 'teacher' & the 'student' - how each of their unfolding overlaps the other's world, and how these worlds in turn are not divorced from the interplay of nature and it's ways. 'Waldorf Education' should steer one towards how vital in the first instance it is, to have an understanding of this phenomenon.
From 'Waldorf Education', if we take anything, it is to understand that there is nothing to teach in the real sense but only to become attuned to. In the presence of this unfolding insight, we become acquainted with our individual self in it's relationship to all of creation and it's phenomenon’s. Then and only then, can true teaching begin - pretty much like looking at yourself in a mirror and fixing that straying curl.
'Anthroposophy' in the realm of education is then, a revelation of this unfolding as experienced or perceived by Rudolf Steiner. The interpretation of such insights, have been eluded to by many others, and will continue to be. Who subscribes to it, is a matter of personal attraction.
So in an elevator I would hit the stop button....:) and then answer on the 'heart' bit (as the 'head' bit is much to obvious and needs no further description and the 'hands' bit is not necessarily undo-able or not being practiced by other educational approaches - pretty much achieving similar outcomes in the path of academic education per-say).
I suspect that in my quest to seek an answer as to which type of education works – I must admit that Steiner’s indications in steering the adult to focus on ‘inner work’, is of paramount importance. Through Anthroposophy or another source of inspiration, will always remain a personal choice.
Joy to all
kanika
Post a Comment