News to me. Rather than give an abstract response, let me tell you about my graduating class, Waldorf School of Garden City, 1980, all 18 of us.
Two of us have PhDs, one in biotech and one in history.
Three of us are MDs, including two cardiologists.
Three of us are lawyers, including one who attended Harvard Law.
Five are in business, including a CEO of a video technology company and at least two corporate vice-presidents.
One more is a hospital administrator.
One is a professional fundraiser for a large foundation.
One is a social worker.
One is a world-famous musician.
And one, I just don’t know what happened to her.
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
10 comments:
I'd like to know how many of these 18 students started in Waldorf, i.e., learned to read in Waldorf?
Don't know. Probably half.
Steve, for what it's worth, that was not what I meant at all when I called it anti-intellectual. I was referring to a school that discourages intellectual activity among children. You know, removing books or not even allowing books. Viewing early reading as a detriment rather than as an asset. And so forth.
I know that waldorf students go on to university. (Remember -- I was a waldorf student. I went to law school later and have a degree. Magic, huh? Yet, I call waldorf anti-intellectual -- because it does not appreciate children who want and prefer intellectual activities.)It's a fact that some of them do go on to uni. I wonder how many do it *thanks to* waldorf rather than *despite of* waldorf? I wonder how many do it because they grew up in academic homes? Considering how many waldorf kids in my school had at least one -- often two -- university educated parents, I would expect many of these kids to go on to uni. I don't think that many of them did. Of course, very few stayed all through kindergarten to 12th grade... and those few who did, are probably the most interesting ones to investigate.
Any school where you can't have books and reading early is anti-intellectual in my eyes. And waldorf schools distinguish themselves on this account.
Alicia, we just see things differently, based on different experiences, I guess. We had plenty of books at home and read them to our kids from an early, early age. Both my kids could "read" informally before they started at the Waldorf school, but neither was bored or believed they were repeating anything by learning to read in school. I haven't seen Waldorf schools in the U.S. remove books or not allow them--maybe there's a difference between Europe and the U.S. Regardless, I definitely agree with you that Waldorf schools (all schools, each in its own way) can do much better to address all the children they admit, perhaps especially those who develop intellectually early.
Finally, my view is that Waldorf education, well practiced, follows a growth curve--slower at first, accelerating later--whereas other methods often operate according to a model that would graph as linear accretion--a staircase, as opposed to a growth curve. Also, for better and worse, Waldorf schools really try to address children's development, while lots and lots of other schools either ignore it, pay lip service to it, or misinterpret it as "age appropriate" learning, which is not the same thing.
At the risk of repeating myself (I realize I do that now...)
'Alicia, we just see things differently, based on different experiences, I guess.'
I'm not sure we do really, not on all accounts, at least. You responded to something I wrote by making a list of people in your class who went on to uni or to certain kinds of professions as adults. I totally agree with you that people from waldorf do that. In my opinion, probably because they have had intellectual stimulation at home. (As you write -- your children, teacher children at that!, have plenty books at home! No surprise there!) They got what they needed to develop further. But it's not like I deny that waldorf students go on to do stuff with their lives, even get intellectual careers. Some do. No books in school doesn't really harm children like me or like your children as badly -- such children have books at home! They have parents who engage with their needs, tell them stories, take them to places (libraries, museums, et c), teach them facts, and so forth. Not all children have that. Waldorf's anti-reading policy certainly didn't harm my reading, I could read already. But the policy was boring and it wasted my time; I could have been doing something useful! And it probably was not very good for self-confidence to feel that you were doing wrong without really knowing why. (Yes, you're right -- waldorf schools could do a lot more to address these children. I don't see why not. Except that dogma sometimes gets in the way.)
'I haven't seen Waldorf schools in the U.S. remove books or not allow them--maybe there's a difference between Europe and the U.S.'
I assumed Waldorfmommy was in the US. She seemed quite extreme to me; she talked about not having books in school and even mentioned taking books away.
'Also, for better and worse, Waldorf schools really try to address children's development'
According to Steiner's developmental scheme, yes. For better or worse, indeed. It seems to neglect taking into account how quickly children do develop during these years, and also how eager they are for school. Much more so than teenagers...
I sometimes think the early grades should be very intellectual and very focused on serious abstract academic stuff. Kids are truly eager for it. Then in high school (hormones kick in, the need to be cool kicks in etc.), we could dispense completely with intellectual activities, get rid of all the books, and let them have "circle time" and make paper butterflies all day. Reverse Waldorf education, in other words.
Diana seems to make nonsense remarks about Steve's Class of 1980, wherein 18 future contributors to society were founded.
But, Steve, did you say that you graduated from Waldorf Garden City High School in 1980? And isn't that where the infamous Roger Rawlings graduated from some twelve or fifteen years before?
He writes exposes on Waldorf these days wherein he cherry-picks Steiner remarks with little to no context involved. And he graduated and loved that school.
So, go figure how you and the others gain, while he loses and despises Waldorf ever since.
I have made no remarks whatsoever about Steve's graduating class.
Diana said...
I'd like to know how many of these 18 students started in Waldorf, i.e., learned to read in Waldorf?
December 9, 2011 8:35 PM
Now that question might not be nonsense but what is the point of it if not to demean this quite impressive fact of post-graduate accomplishment?
I have not demeaned anyone. I asked him a question and he said he didn't know the answer. I have not stated a judgment about his classmates. In order to make a judgment about whether the Waldorf school deserves kudos for these people's achivements, I would need to know whether they actually went all the way through a Waldorf school. In the absence of that information I don't have a judgment, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop claiming that I've said things I haven't said.
Post a Comment