Waldorf promoting CIO

[Attached Mama]

Is this normal? I was at my DD's parent child waldorf group today and the teacher was promoting letting an infant cry.

We had just finished a period of formally observing our children play. Then she begins talking about children's abilities and tells how another Waldorf teacher in the school is staying with a family with a 4 mo old. The 4 mo old flipped itself over and couldn't roll back onto it's back and was crying. THe mom instinctively went to help, but the Waldorf teacher told her to wait and let the baby resolve the issue itself. The baby "screamed and cried" but eventually rolled over adn was then very pleased. So the baby then rolled back on it's tummy and struggled and cried again ("but not so long this time") until it rolled over again.

I was soooo shocked that I immediately spoke up and said that I didnt' agree with that, crying is baby's way of asking for help and now she is learning that her communication is ineffective. Baby would have learned to roll over in time without all the struggle and been just as pleased with herself. Yes, I did say this in front of everyone. Noone else was blunt enough to agree outloud, but I did get a few approving nods.

So later the teacher and I were discussing this and i just stayed calm and explained again that is how baby's communicate and also how women are biologically wired to respond with milk letdown etc to a baby's cries. She wasn't totally buying it, but I wasn't in the mood for a big argument either. I really was just so surprised to find this at Waldorf!

[Attached Mama]

bump

[Deborah]

I doubt if I would have gone along with letting a baby cry it out in that particular situation, or in general, however...

my daughter told me a few years back when my grandson was a few months old, just beginning to crawl, that when he fell down and hurt himself she would not intervene for a short time to give him a chance to figure out what had happened. Her idea was that immediate intervention by a mom or other person for a minor "owwiee" sends several messages besides the "mama loves me" that we want to deliver. It tells the child that he/she can't deal with small stuff on their own. It doesn't give the child time to figure out what happened because someone jumped in and started cuddling and soothing and telling him/her everything will be okay. And so on.

So, how has this turned out for my grandson, now 3? First, when he hurts himself he usually waits a bit before he starts crying, to see if he is actually hurt and needs help. Second, he is really, really good at climbing, running, jumping and generally messing around and doesn't lose control of the situation very often (I think this is because he usually had the opportunity to learn from his mistakes, but when he really needed comforting or help or first aid, he got it). Third, even when he does lose control and fall, he can fall without hurting himself. A while back I saw him have a fall off a small bike with training wheels (he wasn't even 3 yet) and he fell in a relaxed manner, lay there for a little bit processing what had happened, then he got up, got onto the bike again and started riding. He didn't fall again.

Think it over. Children need a balance between always being helped and guided and having an opportunity to work things out for themselves, even things that hurt a bit. And as they get older, they need more and more opportunities to struggle with things. The only questions are when and how much...

Deborah

[zansmama]

I don't know if I would call that CIO...

When my son was 4 1/2 months (yep, that early!), during his "tummy time", he would get up on his hands and knees and rock and cry. If I picked him up, he screamed and struggled to get down. He did not want to nurse, and his diaper was not wet. What did he want? to crawl. We all felt it: anyone who looked at that baby knew that he was ahead of his body, wanting to MOVE. And he did. At 5 months, he was crawling everywhere and totally happy and satisfied.

I do not advocate CIO, I nurse on demand and cosleep, and etc. We even got rid of our car and switched to bikes because ds hated the carseat. My heart breaks when I see a baby sobbing and grownups acting like it's normal, or worse, an annoyance.

But, I think that babies have a physical need to learn some things by themselves. We cannot teach them how to walk, for instance. I may not have agreed with the teacher in that situation, I don't know. But I do know my own experience, and that is to trust ds' instict. if he thinks he can do it, he probably can. And even if he's frustrated, he will figure it out, and he will benefit from having done it all by himself.

[marieandchris]

I think there is a big difference between allowing a toddler/preschooler to sort out a fall and letting a FOUR MONTH OLD cry in frustration. I would have been shocked, as well. I'm glad you spoke up.

Marie

[melamama]

I also don't think the original situation with the 4month old is CIO. It sounds like the mom and maybe the teacher were close enough to see what the babe was up to. At 4 months some babies are rolling around and the crying did resolve. I have a 7 month old so I do remember what 4 month crying is like and there are differences. (and no I do not advocate CIO, I am currently wearing my 6year AP/cosleeping/extended bfing badge right now)

I think this does highlight one often misunderstood aspect---Waldorf and AP are not the same thing; Waldorf is not child led. Read some Rudolf Steiner---the man who created the first Waldorf school, and read about Anthroposophy--the spiritual science that is at the heart of Waldorf.
Waldorf schools are different, Waldorf teachers are different, some follow Steiner more closely than others; but all the people working at a Waldorf school have a perspective on a child's heart/spirit that is informed by Anthroposophy.

Not that you need to take it all on--but that it's a good idea to be clear about where the teachers are coming from. Much about Waldorf education is a blessing to our family, but some Steiner stuff is wacky, it's not all silks and baking and cool wooden toys.

[mijumom]

My issue with it is that the mom had an instinct and a desire to pick up the baby and the teacher was the one that told her not to. It is fine to have an opinion but certainly, mothers have their own comfort levels. I agree that the baby would learn to roll over either way. No mother should ignore a cry just because an "expert" tells her to.

That said, I think it is worth being contemplative about when to give our kids space to work through some things. And like the example of picking up the baby who wanted to crawl, the baby can certainly show you that they want or need to work through something. I say, pick the darn baby up and if it needs to be put back down it will let you know.

Back to the point which I think is more about Waldorf in relation to this. While I certainly was surrounded by lots of AP when my kids were at a Waldorf school, many teachers definitely don't agree with a lot of it. I had some differences, and I know others who have as well, regarding family bed, separation issues etc. I think it is up to a parent to draw the lines as far as how much authority they will give a Waldorf teacher. It is just one more opinion and often based on Steiner's philosophy.

[Rhonwyn]

Waldorf teachers are as vaired as the regular population. Our Kindergarten teachers for our children were very AP and practiced extended breastfeeding, family bed, slinging, etc. with thier own children.

I think in this situation I would consider it CIO in the first instance but not in the second. How long the baby actually cried is important. I know that as a mother, when my kids cried that time expanded and what seemed like a long time actually wasn't. I think I would have gone to the baby and try to determine if the baby wanted help or if the baby was crying only out of frustration and didn't want comfort. Some of it depends on the baby's personality.

[Deborah]

Balance, balance, balance and the patience to develop accurate perceptions. Any extreme, rigidity rather than paying attention in the moment, is wrong.

So, yes, I think the teacher may/probably was wrong in the OP story. However, the if the rule "never let a baby CIO" becomes a dogma, it is bad, because there may well be situations where letting a baby cry for a few minutes is appropriate. Equally, letting a baby/toddler figure something out for themselves is great, but as a dogma it could lead to ignoring a situation where a child does need intervention.

When waldorf stuff becomes dogmatic it can be destructive, but this applies to every other approach to education and childraising, too. Human beings are responsible in each moment to make the right decision and no philosophy or approach will save us from this burden (and delight).

Sorry, I'm being dogmatic about not being dogmatic
Deborah

[Cassiopeia]

Originally Posted by melamama

I think this does highlight one often misunderstood aspect---Waldorf and AP are not the same thing; Waldorf is not child led. Read some Rudolf Steiner---the man who created the first Waldorf school, and read about Anthroposophy--the spiritual science that is at the heart of Waldorf.
Waldorf schools are different, Waldorf teachers are different, some follow Steiner more closely than others; but all the people working at a Waldorf school have a perspective on a child's heart/spirit that is informed by Anthroposophy.

Could not agree more.

Steiner got a few things right and many things very wrong.

[Zilla]

Originally Posted by marieandchris

I think there is a big difference between allowing a toddler/preschooler to sort out a fall and letting a FOUR MONTH OLD cry in frustration. I would have been shocked, as well. I'm glad you spoke up.

Marie

:

[Attached Mama]

Well, I can see letting a baby be a bit frustrated and working something out - but that is entirely different than what this teacher described - in her words "cried and screamed a lot".

I also agree with the pp who said pick the baby up and if they want to be let down to work it out they will let you know.

I guess I just assumed Waldorf was more "crunchy" than it is...

[Deborah]

Attached Mama wrote:

I guess I just assumed Waldorf was more "crunchy" than it is...

Hey, the first waldorf school was founded in 1919. There are close to a thousand waldorf schools all over the world in different countries and cultures. One place's crunchy is another place's conservative is a third place's nutty.

A lot of the waldorf schools in the U.S. were started in the 70s and show that influence. But a lot of the childraising ideas that were popular in the 70s have now gone out of style.

So what you'll encounter at a particular school/classroom will depend on:

when the school was founded
the surrounding community
the particular members of the school community who set the tone
the teachers
the individual teacher you are dealing with

People are constantly assuming that anything they encounter in waldorf that they dislike is due to Steiner and Anthroposophy, but it could also be a result of how that particular teacher was raised.

Steiner said very little about baby raising. Most of the ideas currently circulating in waldorf circles come from the work of Emmie Pikler (sp?), an Hungarian pediatrician. I haven't actually read her work (my daughter has) so I don't know what her recommendation would have been in the particular situation described. My guess is that the teacher was interpreting something in a rigid and inappropriate way, but I wasn't there.

Cheers,
Deborah

[Rhonwyn]

that!

Our school community is pretty crunchy. Slings, breastfeeding, cloth diapers, organic food, organic clothes, vegetarians, hyrbid vehicles, no spanking, etc. for the majority of the parents and teachers.

Each school needs to be checked out when looking for a school. School community and teachers come and go so the personality of the school can change over time.

Ultimately, you have to decide what is best for your family. Take what works for you and toss the rest. It has pretty much worked for us.