or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at School › Waldorf › Argh. New to waldorf and having doubts. Talk me through this please!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Argh. New to waldorf and having doubts. Talk me through this please! - Page 2

post #21 of 40
Originally Posted by vjpam View Post

We just spent a very difficult year at a Waldorf School, and after much soul-searching (and personal trauma), decided to pull our kids out for some of the reasons you mentioned. There are very committed Waldorf parents out there who will tell you to give it time despite initial concerns or problems. Often, as you have heard, it works out.


For us, it did not.

(Note, I apologize for the length of this post...it is the first time I am writing about the experience, so it is difficult to crystallize in a short sentence or two.)


Our children were early readers, and we are an academic family; we encourage questions and critical thinking in our children, and delight when they want to engage the world with not only their heart and hands, but their minds as well. They love puzzles, word games, spelling challenges, science experiments - all the "traditional academics" that Waldorf intentionlly avoids in the early years. We were eager to let them discover other facets of learning, while still engaging their academics in an unconventional way. Unfortunately, we found that our children's learning personalites can be a terrible fit in the Waldorf context.


My nine year old, who has always loved school,  was abjectly miserable. She cried most days going to and coming home from the Waldorf school - she was begging for more challenging spelling  and math work, and asking to learn about history (her 3rd grade class had words like "cat" and "the" on a spelling test, when she had been practicing words like soliloquy and consternation in her precious grade. The only history taught was mythology or Bible stories) She wrote short stories for fun at home, and at school, was allowed no opportunity for creative writing. A curious child, she didn't understand why questioning the teacher was discouraged. She was bored out of her mind, and told to "concentrate on handwork and eurythmy" (new subjects to her) instead. When we met with the teacher and administration after she finally started asking to be homeschooled, we asked for simple fixes: perhaps she could get a slightly more challenging spelling list? Perhaps she could work ahead on fractions on her own (which she had learned and was intrigued by), while other children did the standard worksheets? We did not want to interrupt the class teaching model or curriculum, we only wanted to keep our child engaged and positive about school. But the school not only refused to provide any individualized work (they instead encouraged us to pay for outside tutors for this - really? for spelling tests??), they insinuated that there was something developmentally wrong with a child who didn't strictly hoe to the Waldorf developmental model. Again and again we were asked whether she had emotional/behavioral/or social deficits (no, no, and no - she is a very grounded, emotionally stable child with many friends, and a born peacemaker),  Was she resisting elements of the Waldorf curriculum? No - turns out she enjoyed handwork and Eurythmy, and did fairly well in both despite being new to the subjects. Again, and again, our daughter's interest in and enthusiasm for academics was met with something akin to suspicion, if not downright discouragement. At no point did she feel validated or even "heard" in wanting to learn more. Which ultimately made her sadder, and angrier, as the year wore on.


My son, who was in first grade, had a less traumatic, but still frustrating experience. He was very bored, and reading extensively at home. But books were discouraged in his classroom, and his teacher told him he shouldn't worry about learning more academics, that he should just "feel happy" that he knew more than his classmates. He, too, was encouraged to "work harder on things like handwork." He complained about the lack of any individual voice, about the rigidity of classwork, that each child had to do the exact same art, in the exact same way, as the teacher...he started having nightmares that "Waldorf teachers are trying to turn me into a mutant zombie robot." *(I'm not making that up.) He also came home voicing doubts about the morning verses, saying that he disagreed with the teacher saying there were different spirits in the world ("Brother Sun, Sister Moon), and that he "was not going to say prayers he didn't believe in."


Clearly, this was not a kid cut out for Waldorf. But when we shared our son's concerns with the administration, we were told that children his age "simply aren't able to engage in critical thinking," despite the evidence, and we were blamed as parents for somehow putting these ideas into his head. (Which we didn't....any concerns we had about Waldorf were never shared in front of or in the vicinity of our children.)  At home, we strove to lead a Waldorf-centered life; we upheld the no-media policy, we celebrated Waldorf festivals, we got our kids to bed early, we showed reverence toward nature and seasons, ate healthy, organic food...all things the school actively encouraged. We were as committed as we could be.


Going into the Waldorf experience, we had also done our due-diligence. We read extensively on Steiner and Anthroposophy, and knew we had serious doubts about much of the philosophy underpinning the curriculum. While we thought the belief in gnomes was kooky,  the core belief of helping our children's souls reincarnate occultish and odd, and the whole dentition-as-marker-of-readiness-to-read thing scientifically ridiculous, we were ready to go along with the program if it helped turn our children into independent, soulful learners who used their hearts, hands, and minds equally. (And we had been mightily impressed by many Waldorf teens we had met, who were wonderfully rounded, articulate kids.)  We didn't think the kooky theories would touch our kids, but ultimately they did, and that's a big reason why we ultimately couldn't stay.


We were floored when we were told, for example, that our daughter absolutely couldn't learn fractions (which she had already studied and knew) because it was "inappropriate before the 10 year change, that children cannot understand fractions before then." When pressed for scientific substantiation for this assertion, we were told it was because "Steiner said it." Apparently it all relates to reincarnation theories, and since part of my daughter's spirit would not descend until she was 10, she would be emotionally harmed by the prematurely early fragmentation of the world as presented by fractions. (I'm paraphrasing, but this was the message.) 


This, combined with the assertion that young children weren't capable of critical thinking, forced us to is recognize that there was a great divide in our educational philosophies We realized that the school was not looking at our specific children as individuals, but as some sort of typical 7 or 9 year olds who could not, must not, learn things out of Anthrophosophical sequence. 


Along with this basic philosophical divide, we were also deeply troubled by the tone-deaf responses to our children's frustrations and unhappiness.  Instead of empathy or compassion, our concerns were met with suspicion and a knee-jerk defense of the Waldorf approach. In the end, we felt the teachers cared more for upholding the sanctity of the school's philosophy than the spiritual and emotional health of my children. For a school that paints itself as nurturing, loving, and compassionate, this came like a kick to the gut. 


So....while I still admire much of what Waldorf does, and while we value the many gifts we took away from our experience, we look upon that time as the "lost year" for our children. I know many kids who are happy and thriving in a Waldorf School, but I also know others who had to leave when their children's individual needs (typically, as either special needs learners or advanced learners) simply couldn't be met. 


No one knows the right decision but you, but I would echo the advice of another poster who urged you to listen to your heart, and watch your children. They will tell you more than any one school or random internet poster can.


Thank you for sharing your experience in a thoughtful, detailed way.  It is an invaluable input on a thread like this.  

post #22 of 40

@Jacquelin: Thank you for your thoughtful, graciously worded post. I was not offended in the least! ( ;


I think you bring up an important point: we did bring our children in at a particularly difficult time to transition. There does indeed seem to be a "systems issue" at many Waldorf schools when it comes to helping children from more mainstream backgrounds transition to the Waldorf approach. But our children weren't completely mainstream; instead of being used to being "taught to the test;" they transitioned from a pretty progressive private school that didn't have tests, or grades, or competitive sports. Academics, though fairly rigorous, were very individualized. Fast learners could work ahead, while those children who needed extra time were allowed to take it. It was a very individualized approach, which in many ways was what I (mistakenly) thought Waldorf would be like.


But regardless of the simple difficulty of transitioning, and the school's lack of preparedness to meet it, I think the larger problem for us was a philosophical one. Our children, and we as parents, got the message that it was somehow wrong to have the kind of curiosity our children had - that they should still be in that dream-like fantasy world that Waldorf idealizes. The implication that our children had to be somehow unbalanced emotionally or socially to be striving intellectually at their ages was deeply offensive to us. We believe every child develops at her own pace, regardless of some schedule Rudolph Steiner developed a century ago. We believe each child's unique gifts should be celebrated, rather than shunned if they don't meet someone else's expectations.


I often heard the Waldorf metaphor that children are like rose plants; you must tend them carefully, and not allow them to bloom prematurely so as to allow a greater flourishing later in life. For us, it felt more like our children were dwarf Bonsai tree; eager for sunshine and deep soil, they were kept in small boxes and forced to pull their branches in. For them, in the end, the school's disregard for and suspicion of the joy they took in learning felt like a diminishment of their souls.


Bear in mind, this was a completely personal experience for us and our particular children's specific personalities. I mean no disrespect for the many family and children who thrive at Waldorf. It just didn't work for us for a very specific set of reasons.




post #23 of 40



I am glad what I said didn't offend!!!! I was hesitant to say anything at all because this was such a recent (difficult) experience for you. However, I did want to respond somehow because I think everyone (kids, parents, teachers, the schools) would fare better if there was a bit more insight and discussion on transferring in after other kinds of educational experiences. 


You say, "...they transitioned from a pretty progressive private school that didn't have tests, or grades, or competitive sports. Academics, though fairly rigorous, were very individualized. Fast learners could work ahead, while those children who needed extra time were allowed to take it. It was a very individualized approach, which in many ways was what I (mistakenly) thought Waldorf would be like."


I think a lot of parents new to Waldorf think it is like this and I would have hoped that the school would have done more to explain the differences between the old and new schools. I am just a parent but even I could have elaborated on the many reasons why their new school wouldn't be "very individualized" or a place where "fast learners could work ahead." The model is completely different. The emphasis in grades 1-3 is on growing the capacities of the students (comparatively) slowly and as a group. Whatever modifications the teacher makes... it certainly doesn't extend as far as some students being able to spell "soliloquy" while others are working on "cat." If that is the range of abilities in the classroom...and you're not working with a radically individualized method...someone is not going to get what they need. I think that would be the default outcome in most classrooms, Waldorf or not. I am really sorry that this happened to you because (at least from what you've said) it could have been avoided if the school had taken more time to understand where the kids were coming from. Its weird because there is that metaphor of the rose plant. If the metaphor is right, that should also imply that if a child has "bloomed early" you have no choice but to encourage the new growth or else the whole plant will whither. You have to do it. From a Waldorf perspective, this means really understanding how much "new growth" you're dealing with and if its more than you are prepared to work with right now, you have to recommend another course. I am sure it is difficult for them because there are those cases where a student comes from another school and the kid feels as if its the one thing they have been waiting for all along. The grownups must have their eyes open and figure out which case is which.


As for your feeling that the school doesn't believe that "every child develops at her own pace," that hasn't been my experience. I have found that Waldorf is very attuned to this idea. Its why we send our kids there. We feel very encouraged to have them explore whatever they are interested in, although classroom activities may or may not support their given interest at the moment. I like the Waldorf approach because of the way it works with subjects in such a way to strengthen both inductive and deductive reasoning. This helps them as they take on new projects of their own outside of school. There are many ways to educate a child well. For example, I think Reggio, Montessori and other approaches that fall under the American "progressive" mantle can do some amazing things for kids. But part of the reason why they work may be because each is a "whole solution." You can't easily mix & match their strengths without losing something important. Maybe switching is made all the more difficult because each, as a whole solution, is so successful in setting learning patterns? I don't know for sure but it seems plausible to me. 


I am glad to hear that your kids are doing better now. It sounds like they are not only smart but have taken a lot of ownership over their education. On some level, I would take that as very good news. Anyway, thanks for sharing your story. I agree with Emaye. We can learn so much from each other as parents.







post #24 of 40

Hi Sarah,


I have not read all the responses, but I wanted to say that my eight-year-old son has been in Waldorf since he was three, with a small break for a few months of Montessori when he turned five.  We didn't choose Montessori because we were looking for something different (we were in the middle of a move - long story), but I had wondered to myself if he was indeed a "Montessori kid" and if I was pushing Waldorf because *I* liked it.


He was completely lost in the Montessori setting - and it was indeed a "real" Montessori school (many schools call themselves Montessori without being credentialed from what I understand).  He has never played well by himself and needed more direction than he was given in that particular setting.  However, he is very "in his head" like it sounds like your children are.  He was an early and very proficient reader (is probably reading at a 5th or 6th grade level) and is also excellent at math.


Interestingly, our Pedagogical Chair (or "lead teacher") approached me when my son was in First Grade.  She said, "I see you have an early reader."  We had a great discussion about him and his intellect and we discussed the idea of him being "gifted."  I was so thankful for that discussion and it made me realize that not only is his teacher aware of his learning style, but the other teachers he works with are keeping an eye on things too.  There is a stereotype out there that "gifted" children can get lost in the Waldorf approach because it *is* "slower" but they have wonderful ways of working with children who are more academic than others.


Keep in mind that Waldorf *seems* slower because they don't push reading at a young age, however, it's kind of like the slow food movement - it takes longer to cook, but it's so much more nourishing than McDonalds.  :)  


:) mammom


(PS reading isn't the *only* way of learning - Waldorf math is pretty advanced in the early grades compared to public school and there are LOTS of ways Waldorf builds the brain - song/music/repitition/movement/handwork/plays/art, etc... it builds the WHOLE child, not just the head!)


(PPS - think of the people who got us to the moon, or even people like Steve Jobs: did THEY have academics pushed on them at an early age?? or were they allowed to play, build their imaginations and explore as children?)

post #25 of 40
I think the best thing to do in this situation, if your are truly on the fence and would actually leave the school, is to ask the teacher the questions you asked us. For example, ask him/her if they believe in fairy's, or what they think a fairy is, and maybe why he/she thinks its necessary or important for a child who says fairy's aren't real to say they are.
I would ask them to help me understand the philosophy or pedagogical reasonings behind 1st graders thinking the sun is what he says, vs, what they had heard, learned from other adults.

To be honest, I was a waldorf teacher, I studied anthroposophy and I am still friends with current teachers. I could try to tell you why I think your child's teacher said this or did that. I could try to calm your concerns or ignite them, but when it comes down to it, you need to speak to the person who is actually teaching your child 8 hours a day 5 days a week and possibly for 8 years! I would imagine that, after having this somewhat difficult conversation, you will know if the person who is your child's teacher is actually meeting your child and trying to educate them, or is blind to reality (meaning your child, your concerns etc) by anthroposophical ideals.
post #26 of 40

"The model is completely different. The emphasis in grades 1-3 is on growing the capacities of the students (comparatively) slowly and as a group."


Doesn't this argue against taking a "wait and see" approach for a doubting parent re: Waldorf education in grades 1-3?  In other words, since the adjustment to a mainstream classroom will likely be challenging (due to feeling "behind", etc.) shouldn't a parent who is questioning the appropriateness of Waldorf for their child taking that into consideration as to making the decision about how quickly they move their child on? 

post #27 of 40

I might, as a fellow parent, recommend the "wait and see" approach if it were just the younger child. And if this were a case of a kid who was in 2nd grade and had been doing Waldorf since kindy, I might recommend that too. But I think for the 3rd grader certain patterns and educational expectations had been set in her mind already through her previous experiences. And, as I noted above, this is probably a good thing overall. It sounds like she internalized the value system (for lack of a better term) of the old model. I think it can be stressful for kids to change from one "whole system" to another. (BTW: this is just a working hypothesis I have...I am discussing it here to see what others think...) 


I think when it comes right down to it, we all question that we are doing the best thing for our kids. I was very interested in @mammon's comments/experience trying something else for a short period time. She got some clarity on what works for her kid and it sounds like this happened without too much disruption for her son. I feel for vjpam in that a longer period of time passed after they realized that the transfer was not going to work. Its got to be especially hard when its something you are hearing directly from your kids too. 

post #28 of 40

@Mammon: it's interesting you bring up Steve Jobs, as I was just looking up a biography of his early life. He started reading before he started school, and did not like to have to follow authority. Apparently he really struggled in school with feeling bored and not being stimulated...so he acted out and had major disciplinary problems. Interestingly enough, it was a fourth grade teacher who recognized how gifted he was and worked hard to give him individualized work and attention so he felt challenged and re-gained interest in school. 


Not sure how all that would have played out in a Waldorf context, apparently since he was also intrigued by electronics at a very early age (a definite no-no in Waldorf schools), and was a critical thinker and questioner far earlier than Waldorf likes to see in young children. Which is just to say that there are incredibly talented, creative, trail blazing people who come from all kinds of educational backgrounds...and it sounds to me that Waldorf might not have been a great fit for him as well.


I'm sorry if I sound a bit defensive here - - it's just that we have felt very judged by many in our own Waldorf community for leaving what they believe to the the "one true educational system." Children can thrive in all sorts of wonderful schools (including their homes). I'm very grateful that Waldorf is out there, and is one of many other wonderful independent schools that also foster creativity, personal growth, and academic, social, and emotional well-being.

post #29 of 40

A friend of mine who was a Waldorf student has a theory that Waldorf actually doesn't promote creativity at all.  She believes that Waldorf students bring a "Waldorf lens" to things which others perceive as creative (because it is different lens) but that this is not an innately creative act (as it does not come from within the child).

post #30 of 40

Wow. How sad for your friend. Its like she's alienated from her own creativity. Slap her upside the head and tell her how awesome she is...how unique whatever she created is because (if nothing else!) she did it.  And, there's only one of her.


Sounds like we are getting into a bit of aesthetic theory here but how could something not be creative (ie., causing something to come into being) if in fact it was made? Whatever caused it to be made (the ideas...the process) was enacted by a human being engaged in the act of rendering something into being. Even if I take one of those classes where we work on the old masters as a way to learn certain techniques, I am creating because I have caused something to come into being that was not there before. It might be the worlds worst version of Monet's water lilies but in and of itself it would represent the outcome of my creative act. What should what someone says about it trump the fact my creative actions made it? Both the object (the painting) and the subject (me) have been transformed by the fact that I picked up the brush. This is creativity, even in cases where the outward appearance looks like all I have done is copied. I would argue the creativity I engaged in (perhaps less than Monet but more than nothing) was also generative. There was likely something that I learned about dabbing paint in a certain way over the course of my creation that I can now carry forward and use in a way that might be considered highly creative like Monet. Would only that painting be considered creative because both the object and the subject suggested the highest level of creative process?  


I offer my apologies to anyone here who does not find this idea as fascinating as I do. There is just something perverse about her idea that would seem to lead to alienation of one's own creative process. Maybe I haven't yet put my finger on it. Anyone else find this idea somehow disturbing?

post #31 of 40

@vjpam "I'm sorry if I sound a bit defensive here - - it's just that we have felt very judged by many in our own Waldorf community for leaving what they believe to the the "one true educational system."


I'd just let that go if I were you. There will always be people who think they have found the "one true" anything. Its the people who share your goals and values...but also see that there can be many ways that get there...those are the people to listen to. smile.gif

post #32 of 40
Originally Posted by Jacquelin View Post

Wow. How sad for your friend. Its like she's alienated from her own creativity. Slap her upside the head and tell her how awesome she is...how unique whatever she created is because (if nothing else!) she did it.  And, there's only one of her.


I would differ from Jacquelin's advice and advise you not to slap your friend or do any other sort of violence to her.


I, too, have heard from some artistic friends who went to Waldorf schools that they felt creatively stunted there. There is a lot of copying, and while that is a perfectly fine way to learn, not all students are into it. I think your friend is relating her lived experience, and we wouldn't want to slap her for it.

post #33 of 40

Ummm...MichelleZB...it is a turn of phrase?? Of course I am not advocating actually "slapp[ing] your friend or do[ing] any other sort of violence to her." Geesh. My comment was about what creativity is...what can be considered a creative act. I am of the opinion that if someone does not see something creative happening when they pick up a paintbrush and move it around according to their inner or outer perceptions that they are alienating themselves from their own creativity in some way. Just by virtue of doing it, both the object and the subject have been transformed. This, in my opinion, is what it means to create. 


I've got to say, I'm utterly stunned by your reaction to my post.

post #34 of 40

To VJPam, I didn't think you sounded defensive at all.  I haven't read a full biography about Steve Jobs, but one article I read talked about his intrigue with electronics having more to do with HOW they work - meaning, he would take old televisions apart and try to put them back together (please correct me if I am wrong).  I don't think any Waldorf teacher would suggest putting a stop to that sort of curiosity - they might want the younger child to get out and PLAY a bit more, but what I was trying to say in my post was that my own son is very "in his head" (I won't suggest he's the next Steve Jobs, but if there is a "gifted spectrum" he might be on it).  I've never had any of his teachers try to get him to stop reading or even have him slow down his interest in reading (or math for that matter).  They have worked with him and are finding ways to challenge him when he needs to be challenged. 


And I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Waldorf is the only method that works!  I was just trying to point out that it's okay to have students who are brilliant - after all, they're all brilliant in some way, right?!  My son has no creativity, but is a fabulous reader and is great at math.  He doesn't draw as well as some of his classmates, but he can knit up a storm.  So, I really think that for HIM (and for many "heady" children) Waldorf is a great fit.  I know he would thrive elsewhere.  I just thought I was answering some of the OP's concerns. 


And to that note, I hope *I* don't sound defensive at all!  I'm not feeling defensive - just wanting to explain another view.


How wonderful it is that we have various methods of teaching children, since there are so many different variations of children!

post #35 of 40

Yeah, well, I was being a bit silly, I suppose. I realize you were using an expression. But I was trying to draw your attention to your word use. "Slap her upside the head" is maybe an idiom you should think twice about using.


I think you are being very dismissive of Buzzbuzz's friend's feelings and experience. The thing about art and creativity is that people have to do it their own way. It is very possible to feel bulldozed artistically, and it's not very kind to pooh-pooh that feeling in someone else.

post #36 of 40

Maybe the idiom sounds especially harsh to your ears coming from Canada? Its a rather common thing to say in parts of the US and very often used in a friendly, mock-confrontational context. The idea is that you confront the person with direct and overwhelming evidence as if it were hitting them in the face. 


As for being "dismissive of Buzzbuzz's friend's feelings and experience" I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Her friend's experience is her personal experience and I have no way of knowing anything about it. What I reacted to is that she said her friend had a "theory." A theory is an idea that her experience is applicable to other people or indicative of a larger phenomena. I found it kind of perverse and alienating to think that its possible to render something into existence without you also having participated in a creative act. It sort of cuts off or sets a very high bar for what creativity is...like it can only exist if the artist reflects on the experience and says it was a creative act. I think that sells all of us far too short both in terms of understanding what creativity is and in appreciating the magnitude of our own capacities as creative beings. 

post #37 of 40

And some of it has to do with how you define creativity.  Is making a needlework sampler from a predetermined kit really creative?

That's rather how my friend felt about her Waldorf experience - it had the appearance of creativity but only in a "paint by numbers" sort of way.


No slapping is on the horizon... ;)

post #38 of 40

I'd like to share a few stories of Waldorf alumni I have personally run into over the years who were critical of their education at various stages:

-- An alumna of our Waldorf school wanted to be an art teacher, but definitely not constrain the children's creativity as she felt hers had been constrained in the early years. She was hired by a public school and went into her first class, a first grade, with a rich offering: pastels, charcoal, crayons, oils, acrylics, finger paints, etc., and various kinds of paper. She invited the children to choose a medium, a surface, and do whatever they felt like.

  It was utter chaos, and what came out was, she felt, not remotely artistic. It was unsustainable for her to continue like this, she realized.

  On Day 2 she turned this around totally. She gave out a single medium and paper and started teaching fundamentals: experiences of pure color, of various combinations, building up elements of form...which is what the Waldorf approach tries to do as well, she realized. She became a firm believer in her early education, so long as at the appropriate time increased choices unfold.


-- I met a friend of a friend in England, a music teacher who turned out to be a graduate of the Edinburgh Steiner school. She was not happy with her education at all, primarily because she was Jewish and there had been little (or no) acknowledgement of Judaism in the school.

   I asked her how her teaching was going; she said she found it very easy and satisfying. In fact, she didn't understand why it was so easy for her when many of her friends really struggled. I asked her if she thought she had good teachers at the Steiner school; she answered that they had been very good. I asked if she thought that having good teachers might have given her good examples at a deep level that she was drawing on now. She was silent for quite some time and then she said that yes, she thought that was probably the case, although she had never considered this before.


-- I got to know a German girl who was working as a WOOFer on an organic farm. She was a Waldorf alumna in nursing school. She said she had been really angry at her Waldorf school after graduating, because she was sure that she would be (1) drastically under-prepared for the sciences in nursing school, and (2) a social misfit unprepared for either the competitive environment or to make friends with non-Waldorf students. After one month, she realized that she was both one of the most popular students in the whole school, and was ending up informally tutoring many other students in a variety of subjects. She turned around completely in her attitude and realized that she was the one person who got along with everyone in the school. (The latter is a frequent theme amongst alumni, I've noticed..."I'm the one person in my office who gets along with everyone.")


Having said this, Waldorf schools do sometimes struggle to meet both ends of the spectrum: the very gifted and the very challenged. At some point, if you really want the character building that the schools provide, yet your child falls into one of these two categories, you're going to have to supplement outside of school. That, or find a school that focuses more on your child's needs.

post #39 of 40

I enjoyed reading these anecdotes, hope-faith-charity. Do you mind if I call you Hope? :) 


One of them included this: "She invited the children to choose a medium, a surface, and do whatever they felt like...It was utter chaos, and what came out was, she felt, not remotely artistic. " I can relate. I don't remember having any art instruction in grade school either (public school; good suburb). It was maybe once a week and I always felt that as soon as I got started on my work it was time to return to the classroom. Of course, I thought my work was magnificent but I usually got a "meh" from the art teacher. And it was always stupid stuff like collages too. Later, I took up photography and design and it turns out I have a good eye, and the ability to remember colors very accurately. So, to add to your collection of anecdotes, I mourn what might have been possible for me way back in 1st grade. But what stories to do I have to tell about nothing? I can't even express the loss. Its just a big hole. There is no experience connected to it. Just me now...old...wishing I had the time to take an art class and even if I did perhaps getting embarrassed that I know nothing.


I can understand how "restricting" a more structured art curriculum might be for an early-blooming, talented and motivated student. But what about the kids who don't know how to get started or how to translate their ideas to paper? Its just like the kid who has difficulty with language arts. Yet if you read a lot, recite poems, and act out plays you begin to see how its done. Maybe you'll never turn into JK Rowling but you'll either be able to appreciate what she can do or know how to get started yourself should you want to. So many of us will be blessed with long lives. There's no way to know what the future has in store for us. I'm of the mind that true education entails growing capacities that may not bear fruit for years to come.  

post #40 of 40



I can understand what you mean, I know it seems weird at the beginning... But having studied for 12 years in a Waldorf school, I really enjoyed it! In my school, there were people who followed the "strict" rules, but lots of people just did not and I believe it was fine: every parent should be able to decide what is good for their children, especially if they enjoy singing with the radio!

Regarding the lack of science and readings... I can only say that it comes, but differently for each child, at the moment that is best for them. I was a very intellectual kid, so I guess it was the greatest thing for me to be in a place where they also wanted me to do other things, it gave me a balance. And if I look at the people who were in class with me (it's been 10 years since we finished, and we still see each other very often), some have become great musicians or artists, but most of us have gone to university and have found it really easy.


Hope this reassures you a little, but don't worry, just keep doing as you would with your children, I'm sure it will be fine

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Waldorf
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at School › Waldorf › Argh. New to waldorf and having doubts. Talk me through this please!