Rhonwyn, thanks for your answer. Your three aspects of Waldorf are interesting.
"The first was an article on looping (same teacher for 2 -3 years) in the Seattle schools and how beneficial it was the classes and there test scores. They never once mentioned Waldorf but many of the benefits they sited were the same as I have seen in Waldorf. Specifically, the teacher already knows the kids, they can pretty much jump in where they left off before the summer and the kids are less anxious about going back to school because they know what to expect. Granted this works much better if the child and teacher are compatible. If they aren't, then it doesn't work very well."
Hmm, but is there anything 'new' in this re Waldorf? I've worked in schools - public schools - where this is also the policy. As you say, it is great if it works for a particular child and teacher. But a disaster if it doesnt. Everythign depends on the quality of the teacher and her relationship with the child. But yes, I believe that continuity is a key, althuogh not quite such a big issue in the UK where the kids dont spend all summer out of school. And there are many ways of addressing continuity and progression aside from staying with the same teacher.
"The second was the recent study done of young children and TV. I am sure you saw this one in the news. Much of what was found reflected what I had been hearing from our Waldorf teaches. Specifically, that it wasn't the content on TV (there is both good and bad) but rather it's effect on the developing brain and what snynapes (sp?) are reinforced and which are not. In my own children I can see the difference between them and their peers who watch a lot of TV. This purely anecdotal though."
Jane Healey is an interesting read on the subject. Again, I agree, but there is nothing new or particularly novel imo about a school discouraging TV. Many mainstream schools and teachers would agree.
"Lastly, I had an acquaintance who was doing brain gymnastics to improve her memory and concentration. She showed me the drawings she was making and they looked remarkably similar to the form drawing and the mirror drawing my kid was doing in grade school. From what I understand, form drawing is not art but is a brain training technique. I have no idea if brain gymanastics was started by a Waldorf person or if it was developed on its own."
No, Waldorf did not invent Brain Gym. It is something that many people have worked with in different ways, but Paul Kenniston has a strong claim to be the innovative voice on the subject (and will sue anyone who uses or quotes his material and claims it as their own!) Maybe aspects of Waldorf education are similar to some brain gym techniques, but I think you'd find that many, many schools - and a huge number of mainstream public schools - use Brain Gym widely as a learning technique. I havent read much about Waldorf that is very much in line with Brain Gym theory, but maybe I've missed this when researching.
I do agree that Waldorf has some things right in terms of matching policy to scientific 'proof' and research. However, some of the fundamental claims and what for me are central policieis, did not stand up to scrutiny when I did my research. For example, and I can't recall where I read the claim, but one of the authorities on Waldorf claimed that the reason why children should not learn to read (or be discouraged) before teeth falling out (I think I'm right?) is scientifically proven due to the late development of an aspect of vision vital to discriminating print. I can't recall specifics, although I did post about it on mdc at the time. He is quoted even in Smart Moves by Carla Hanniford. However, when I did some research, in fact this aspect of vision is fully developed by the age of four, and sometimes even earlier. My research kept taking me full circle until I came back to quotes by the same guy, (Sorry, I can't remember names and dont have time to look it all up), but he was quoting others who quoted him who quoted 'scientific research' of which there was no proof. And what I did find showed something very different.
This is why I continually search for something more concrete than references to research that don't in fact stand up to scrutiny.
This is not a down on Waldorf, just a personal view. It doesnt suit me or my children - both early readers. When I took dd#1 to a Waldorf nursery to look around she was frustrated and unsettled in the environment. She is just too logical and too much a realist for the waldorf atmosphere. Wonder where she gets that from.
"The first was an article on looping (same teacher for 2 -3 years) in the Seattle schools and how beneficial it was the classes and there test scores. They never once mentioned Waldorf but many of the benefits they sited were the same as I have seen in Waldorf. Specifically, the teacher already knows the kids, they can pretty much jump in where they left off before the summer and the kids are less anxious about going back to school because they know what to expect. Granted this works much better if the child and teacher are compatible. If they aren't, then it doesn't work very well."
Hmm, but is there anything 'new' in this re Waldorf? I've worked in schools - public schools - where this is also the policy. As you say, it is great if it works for a particular child and teacher. But a disaster if it doesnt. Everythign depends on the quality of the teacher and her relationship with the child. But yes, I believe that continuity is a key, althuogh not quite such a big issue in the UK where the kids dont spend all summer out of school. And there are many ways of addressing continuity and progression aside from staying with the same teacher.
"The second was the recent study done of young children and TV. I am sure you saw this one in the news. Much of what was found reflected what I had been hearing from our Waldorf teaches. Specifically, that it wasn't the content on TV (there is both good and bad) but rather it's effect on the developing brain and what snynapes (sp?) are reinforced and which are not. In my own children I can see the difference between them and their peers who watch a lot of TV. This purely anecdotal though."
Jane Healey is an interesting read on the subject. Again, I agree, but there is nothing new or particularly novel imo about a school discouraging TV. Many mainstream schools and teachers would agree.
"Lastly, I had an acquaintance who was doing brain gymnastics to improve her memory and concentration. She showed me the drawings she was making and they looked remarkably similar to the form drawing and the mirror drawing my kid was doing in grade school. From what I understand, form drawing is not art but is a brain training technique. I have no idea if brain gymanastics was started by a Waldorf person or if it was developed on its own."
No, Waldorf did not invent Brain Gym. It is something that many people have worked with in different ways, but Paul Kenniston has a strong claim to be the innovative voice on the subject (and will sue anyone who uses or quotes his material and claims it as their own!) Maybe aspects of Waldorf education are similar to some brain gym techniques, but I think you'd find that many, many schools - and a huge number of mainstream public schools - use Brain Gym widely as a learning technique. I havent read much about Waldorf that is very much in line with Brain Gym theory, but maybe I've missed this when researching.
I do agree that Waldorf has some things right in terms of matching policy to scientific 'proof' and research. However, some of the fundamental claims and what for me are central policieis, did not stand up to scrutiny when I did my research. For example, and I can't recall where I read the claim, but one of the authorities on Waldorf claimed that the reason why children should not learn to read (or be discouraged) before teeth falling out (I think I'm right?) is scientifically proven due to the late development of an aspect of vision vital to discriminating print. I can't recall specifics, although I did post about it on mdc at the time. He is quoted even in Smart Moves by Carla Hanniford. However, when I did some research, in fact this aspect of vision is fully developed by the age of four, and sometimes even earlier. My research kept taking me full circle until I came back to quotes by the same guy, (Sorry, I can't remember names and dont have time to look it all up), but he was quoting others who quoted him who quoted 'scientific research' of which there was no proof. And what I did find showed something very different.
This is why I continually search for something more concrete than references to research that don't in fact stand up to scrutiny.
This is not a down on Waldorf, just a personal view. It doesnt suit me or my children - both early readers. When I took dd#1 to a Waldorf nursery to look around she was frustrated and unsettled in the environment. She is just too logical and too much a realist for the waldorf atmosphere. Wonder where she gets that from.
: I don't deliberately sit my kids down and disabuse them of any Santa or toothfairy ideas they may have picked up along the way, but I don't tell them the stories as if they are true, and I won't say they are real if asked directly. It just feels wrong to *me* to do otherwise. I respect that other parents feel differently -- I don't think it matters that much to the kids either way, unless parents get too fanatical about it (on either side). We had a book from the library about fairies, and I was uncomfortable with it. It credited fairies for everything from painting the flowers to teaching birds to sing -- as if those beautiful things aren't magical enough on their own! It was a lovely book, but I was not disappointed when my dd showed little interest in it.
:
What's up with that? It would be one thing if she had been thinking of ps from the start and valued it in some way. But she seemed like she had some serious issues with public compulsory education. (As do I! 
Follow Mothering