My apologies to Waldorf folks ahead of time, but I am so totally creeped out about Waldorf schools right now, it isn't even funny. Has anyone else seen the Waldorf critics website?

I visited one Waldorf preschool two years ago, and I will tell you frankly, it did not sit well with me. The teachers and parents were all gathered in one room, staring raptly at the teacher who was doing a bizarre marionette show in a very high, sing-song falsetto voice. Candles (candles?!? with pre-k kids?!?) were lit, the drapes were drawn and it had a very strange feeling to it. We were told to be very quiet, almost like it was a religious service.

I didn't understand what it was that bugged me about the whole thing, until now.

Sure thing. Sorry I forgot!
http://www.waldorfcritics.com

Post url to critics website?

you're in nc, was it the chapel hill or asheville waldorf school that hit you as being so weird? i ask b/c i was considering them as an option for my dd when she's school aged..
i agree there's a whole lot about the waldorf philosophy that is really really bizarre to me, and that i really have issues with-thanks for the link.

I have seen the Waldorf critics site, and I think it has a lot fo good information, but liek anythign else I think you have to take it with a grain of salt. There are reasons behind all of theings that are untraditional about Waldorf education, and I think you should delve more into the rerasoning behind what they are doing before judging it.

so I can't comment on the NC ones. But trust your instincts, mama!

I just want to chime in for a moment AlohaDeb and say I hope you find some support. I also had uneasy gut feelings about our local Waldorf school. My very first impression was it felt like a "cult". The teachers had these pastey smiles on their faces and appeared uncomfortable when I asked about diversity at the school.

Now, that being said, I took Ellie there for a year and a half for a mommy and me playgroup one morning per week. My good friend from LLL was taking her son and I knew I wasn't looking for a traditional preschool. It was as much for me in that it taught me some wonderful crafts, reinforced some of my parenting and helped me to meet some other moms.

We didn't end up staying for kindergarten and have a few famillies in our hs group who left that Waldorf school very unhappy. I heard stories bout unsupervised children down at the creek, little girls pushing another little girl off of a high slide because she wasn't wearing a dress. Icky stuff. I know there are parents here who are happy with their Waldorf schools, but I didn't want you to go unvalidated or have your concerns minimized. Good luck to you!

Such as...? The reasoning behind it seems to be a religious philosophy, called Anthroposophy. I'm not against religious education at all if parents are informed and understand what they are choosing. I do get upset when I feel that I have been misled, which I feel is the case at the Waldorf school I attended. This website confirmed my gut feelings.

Can you imagine a Catholic school not stating right up front that they were, in fact, associated with Catholicism? Why would they do that?

I guess the reason I posted this was because I feel very disappointed. I had thought Waldorf was awesome, I love the natural toys and not pushing children too hard. I thought perhaps it was just this one school that was strange. But this website suggests it is not. I just find that very disappointing :(

Everything I ever read about waldorf mentions anthroposophy. So it was easy to do a little more research about it and think about whether that's ok with me. There are certainly things about it I don't agree with, so I would eveluate a school myself before considering sending a child to waldorf without me. I have never encountered anything in my parent child class, or in the visits with the school where we plan on doing another parent-child class, that made me uncomfortable.

I am not a waldorf advocate by any means, but there are certainly pluses and minuses to it. Different schools and teachers seem to adhere to principles of anthroposophy to different degrees, you have to investigate to figure it out. (a past thread on support in Waldorf schools for extended BF was an example....anthroposophy would not support it, but many people have had ebf teachers and other ebf parents in school...) Too many parents I think just send children somewhere and never do any research. More reading on Waldorf and Anth. will explain stuff like the singing, the decor, and use of stories/puppets. Some of which is kind of wacky, IMO. But there's tons of stuff in modern life that have a basis in things I don't buy 100%, but their basis doesn't necessarily affect me, yk? Some things, to me, seem to be culturally German, too, and others holdovers from customs more common earlier this century...not just unique to Waldorf. And many of their quirks, IMO are no more damaging and probably less so than what most children encounter in a conventional school environment, or through typical kind of student or teacher interactions. We've all heard stories about hair raising things at regular school, too.

I have done no detailed anthroposophical reading or study groups, just scanned a few things, more reading *about* it (like the historical basis in theosophy) -- some interesting common roots of the new age and neopagan movements there. And I have read a great deal from the critics site. I think they spin things a little extremely in many cases. I am not sure I would accurately define anthroposophy as a religion or a cult...in many ways it just doesn't fit the definition of either word. It might be more closely compared to some sort of spiritual philosophy or world view...perhaps Buddhism is a better comparison? Considered a religion by some, a philosophy by others, and can frequently be combined or compatible with other religious beliefs? And secondarily, while it does underpin the teacher training, unlike in an overtly religious school, this philosophy is not taught *to* the children even though it influences how the children are taught.

Issues I have, externally, with Waldorf is that in some cases the advocates seem a little hide-bound and too traditional - and not always in helpful ways...more adaption would make it more compatible with modern American culture and values, and could still contain the unique waldorf priorities...some seem too take Steiner a little too literally instead of inspirationally, I think I'm trying to say. One interesting lecture I saw the transript of (though the critics site) and another article I read (montessori vs waldorf) seems to recognize that fake smile/automaton teacher attitude that was mentioned...it was depicted to be burn out, and lack of stimulation...repetition and isolation, rather than a stimulating environment for the teacher. So perhaps a more externally focused school environment would help keep the teachers engaged and recharged. I was wondering if some of the charter/public Waldorfs might be managing to do that.

But even with all that, if it's not right for you, certainly don't do it!

I had some really mixed feelings about Waldorf, having a known a few people raised by anthropothosophists (sp?!) and knowing a bit about Steiner. So it's kind of ironic that now I'm going to a Steiner parent toddler group and have signed Ds up for kindergarten and am really excited about it. It's like the above poster said, there is plenty to put me off other schools, I'll never find the perfect school IMO, and I've discovered Waldorf meets more of the needs (at least for kindergarten age) that I'm interested in, than other schools.

They put on those puppet shows all the time and I can't stand them, amongst a few other things, but Ds loves it all, and I'd rather he be doing that than watching "educational" videos, kwim? I also was turned off by the dreamy smiles pasted on teacher's faces and how they are all so "maternal", but putting my own judgements aside I'd rather that than a disinterested burnt out teacher with disipline problems. Plus there's a lot that I really really like. The community of parents being a biggy. You may find commonality amongst other parents there, even if the whole approach doesn't sit right with you.

But then again, it's certainly not for everyone. I think it's very important to go into it open-eyed and read up a bit on the Waldorf philosophy, but waldorf critics (I've seen it) is a very one sided take on it. Someone on another thread pointed out it was created by disillusioned Christian parents who did not like the (pagan) spirtuality of Waldorf. There are lots of threads here about Waldorf that can probably point you in the direction of a more balanced take on it.

It might be more closely compared to some sort of spiritual philosophy or world view...perhaps Buddhism is a better comparison? Considered a religion by some, a philosophy by others, and can frequently be combined or compatible with other religious beliefs?

Oh, just saw this. As a buddhist it's important to me that my son is in a school that at least acknowledges the spiritual dimension of each individual and this is another big reason I like Waldorf. So far I have not heard mention of a "God", instead there is a mindfulness around the rhythm of the day, eating, play, cleaning up, etc and special emphasis given to nature and the seasons. Since there's not really any buddhist schools in the west a lot of buddhists choose waldorf for this aspect of it.

I know this lady who started a Waldorf school down in the states somewhere about 20 years ago, and now she doesn't like them. She told me that they are good for little girls who are all "fairy-like" and want to please everyone with their paintings and such, but it's definately not for every kid. Her kid was never put through any sort of schooling.

I looked at the websites and I kind of got the feeling like the anti-waldorf site was very over-done. And the idea that a christian had started the site rings true to me. I have no problems with candles, in fact, I love them.

This whole waldorf business is still all up in the air for me because my baby is just 17 months old right now. But for me, I think I will let it be her choice to go to school or be unschooled.

(I've got pregnancy brain, so sorry if I don't make very much sence)

I looked into Waldorf when my kids were small. I used to get the Hearthsong catalog all the time, and I liked the toys.

But I took a short workshop and immediately knew it would not work for my kids. The whole, wet-on-wet painting thing. Every morning. No black crayons.

Yes, the books I saw some Waldorf kids had made were beautiful. But one of the messages for Waldorf homeschooling was: "Have your child do..." My kids would not stand for that kind of forced instruction. I found unschooling worked better for us.

And they preferred sculpting with clay to water colors.

There was something about elves to teach math which I found extremely confusing. And fairies in your mouth to like, deal with digestion? I forget the details...

Much later I read something about anthroposophy, which was not mentioned at the workshop. Wild talk of Lucifer? No thanks!

They really have an axe to grind. Like Clarity, anthroposophy to me is a philosphy not a religion. Most of the anthroposophists I know are also Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Pagans, etc.. They don't view it as a religion and feel it is compatible with their personal religion.

We have 2 children in Waldorf and so far it has been very positive. Many of the wacky things you hear about Waldorf have started to be proven true by science. Recently, there was a study on TV watching and how children's brains grow. That is exactly what our Kindergarten teachers have been telling us for years that it is not the content on TV that is necessarily bad but rather it is the effect on the developing brain. Another thing that I have found is that the form drawing they do in school closely resembles the activities supported by Brain Gymnastics. There have also been studies where they have teachers loop in public schools (have the same class for 2 or 3 years) which reflect what has been known in Waldorf schools for years. My sister-in-law is teaching knitting in her public schools to help the kids with hand-eye coordination and math.

The biggest selling point for me on Waldorf was the graduates I met. They were kind, caring and smart. 95% of them went on to college.

It is funny, everytime I go into a public school I am creeped out. It is loud and cluttered and an assualt on the senses. I can't imagine learning in that environment. I'll take the soft colors, round lines and funny painting any day over that.

Also, as it has been stated, every school is different. I love our school, warts and all, but I am sure it is not for everyone and I am sure I might feel differently at another Waldorf school.

Can you imagine a Catholic school not stating right up front that they were, in fact, associated with Catholicism? Why would they do that?

The educational ideas of a Waldorf school are based in Anthroposophy- as in their ideas about development, but the spiritual ideas are never taught or mentioned. That is why they are not presented as a "religiously associated" school, as a Catholioc school would be. A Catholic school has a religious studies class where the children are taught the dogma of the religion, and they attend religious services. Those things don't happen in Waldorf schools. Most of the things you mentioned that seem so strange to you, are just things that are done because they view the children as being very close to their spirituality at a young age, and living in a sort of fantasy world. They protect the children from all things harsh. and try to make everything look ethereal for them. The sing song voice is so that they are not distracted from the story itself, the marionettes float, reminiscent of a spiritual being.

black crayons?

I'd like to know that myself. :shrug And is it true that the waldorf school doesn't make kids read till they are like 9 years old?

Wow that just sound like such a weird invironment to me. I have never liked Waldorf for other reasons (the schools are very expensive and exclusive) but all of that just seems so unstimulating. My dd would go absolutely nuts not being alowed to use black crayons :LOL Itis her favorite color and about the only one she uses. I could see her in that environment rolling her eyes. The puppets would scare the bejeezus out of her and she would think all the fake smiles and sing songy stuff was stupid. too funny. The toy catalouge always made it sound like this perfect utopia but after reading the first little essey on that sight it just sounded terrible drab and boring. becuase of the whole exclusivness of them and other things I have read here I had never had an intrest in looking into thtem further but intresting stuff I tell you.

Does anyone know how homeschooling waldorf stuff compares to the school environment.. Like Oak meadow?

whats with no black crayons?? that's ridiculous! and what is wet on wet painting? what's wrong with fingerpaint? or clay? sounds wonkier by the minute.

i met a reaaaaaaaaaaaal strange woman in the park once, she came up to me and dd and without saying a word, busted into a dance, started moving her arms and hands, i didnt know whether to kick her in the leg, grab dd and run, or crack up laughing. dd was entranced (and almost immedietly began to imitate her arm motions), i was totally weirded out. my aunt was with us and she started talking to the woman, who was very floaty and strange, and found out she was a waldorf teacher in san francisco. now she's a childrens storyteller. ok, so one lady doesnt speak for the whole lot of waldorf teachers, but it was really strange. she did her funky dance for at least a minute before speaking. and she kept invading my personal space while she was talking...it wouldve been really neat, had she *spoken* like a reg. person before busting out her moves..

they have some strange views about color - someone else can address that more specifically. Colors have emotional influence. Which I guess studies have proven is partially true. Wet on wet painting is just watercolor paints on wet paper - like I learned in public school. I think they use it because of the focus on color blending rather than object representation. Black crayons are just over their color philosophies - you see a lot of peach for instance. Though at least one waldorf school I was in had black crayons, so I don't think that's as universal as I had thought from my reading. They also sculpt with colored beeswax.

The art is strange because it is presented by others as being very rigid (duplicate this) which is what art was like for me in school. It's not the creative process most of us are looking for. But I have been surpised that way by montessori too...a lot of people expect these alternative schools to be very open and flexible and counter-culture, but they actually are quite definied within their own philosophy.

The late reading is part of that spiritual unfolding...they don't think kids are ready...I think it's actually 7. Some rigid teachers actively discourage reading...others are fine if the child is ready to explore it on their own, but it's not formally taught until 7. Waldorf believes a lot of their storytelling, song, and craft work are actual imporant prereading activities...and that the children are more ready to read when they've had more overall emotional development. (remember, this is just me here from what I'm gleaning from low level Waldorf reading...please correct any areas where I see this wrong!)

My children use black crayons all the time in our Waldorf Kindergarten. There is some reason why many schools skip the black crayon but I don't remember why. Most drawing is done without black crayons or without lines because it is meant to be borderless.

Children are not taught reading until 1st grade (6 or 7) nor are they taught letters in Kindergarten. Many children pick up reading on their own or the letters and it is not actively discouraged at our school. Reading starts in 1st grade with the letters, beginning with consonants (called bone letters I believe because they are the skelton of words) and then the vowels (angel sounds). The children are learning to write at the same time. About mid year in 1st grade, they begin writing words. The second half of the year, my son's entire classroom was covered with labels made by the children for just about every object in the classroom. By the end of 1st grade, some kids could read and others couldn't but there was no pressure to be reading by this point.

In 2nd grade, there is more emphasis on actual reading. The kids split into small reading groups according to ability and parent volunteers help each group with their reading. My child went not reading in 1st grade, to Sheep in a Jeep by Christmas of 2nd grade, to reading My Father's Dragon by February of 2nd grade. The majority of children are reading at or above standard 2nd grade level. There are a few struggling who are receiving extra help. One boy in the class came from a public school during 2nd grade. The teacher said is wound tighter than a top and really stressed out about reading. His reading was very rigid with little or no comprehension. He could say the words but he was so focused on saying the words he couldn't remember what he had read. He has relaxed now and is reading above level with full comprehension. One of the primary reasons we chose Waldorf is because I didn't want my children to be forced to read before they were ready. Public schools around her expect kids to read in Kindergarten way before many are ready.

Kindergarten teachers use sing-song voices to get the kids attention. It is much nicer than yelling. I have yet to see pasty smiles. All the smiles seem authentic to me. The teachers love their pupils and if they are guilty of anything it is in holding them back from 1st grade because they don't want to let go. That is why, 1st grade readiness assesment is always done by an outside objective panel. I have yet to see any children frightened by the puppets.

Waldorf isn't for everyone, just as Montessori isn't for everyone. I found the artwork at the Montessori schools near us to be much more rigid. It looked like it had been done by copy machines.

Just for the record, we unschool, and none of my 3 kids learned to read until age 8 or 9. But they went then from 3 letter words to reading everything (above "3rd grade" level) in a month or so, with full comprehension, and dramatic voices when reading aloud. So that aspect of Waldorf does not bother me in the last.

Even tho I read at age 4.

I do think Waldorf has a religion behind it. A certain Germanic early 20th century, almost Nazi philosophy, that is kind of scary. It is quite precise and guides all the educational processes. Karma, reincarnation, brain devlopment, human perfection, etc. Some of it may be good, and some of it may be proved by modern science, but why are they not more upfront about it? the Hearthsong catalog makes it seem all innocent and fairy-tale-ish, but there is much more underneath.

Their idea of the paintings as talismans of the soul...pretty far out stuff. And I am a hippie, and comfortable with much far out stuff.

I just lost an incredible detailed post, so now Ill be quick.
We homeschool but if we schooled we would school waldorf. Mostly because of all the excellent peopl who I know that schooled there. Intersting, well rounded, well learned, whole people.
I dislike the religon part, but none of waldorf adults I know are very religous or cult like. The NO's - no black, No character clothes, NO TV!!! Its a little stifling. The $$$. 20 grande for 2 kids *ouch*. The fact that the school was started for factory workers kids and its become ... well no for factory workers kids. Methinks Rudolf would not be please.

the black crayon

http://www.openwaldorf.com/art.html
lilyka I used oak meadow and have some stuff from it this year I don't know how it compares to waldorf schools but you can pm me with any questions you might have
I will try and answer..

the black crayon

http://www.openwaldorf.com/art.html
lilyka I used oak meadow and have some stuff from it this year I don't know how it compares to waldorf schools but you can pm me with any questions you might have
I will try and answer..

You just sent me your 1st grade syllabus!!! HI!! :thumb

cool link

as well as all the "no's".

Why not be upfront about all the karmic stuff, the soul stuff? I do not like being misled. I am not a mindless sheep who "doesn't understand" -- TRY ME. I find that attitude to be incredibly patronizing.

I considered Waldorf because I want my children to receive an education that is as freeing as possible -- allowing them to become the people of their own potential, expressing their creativity and discovering with an open mind. I do not wish to exchange the shackles of traditional mainstream schools for an equally dogmatic prison -- even if it is a soft peach colored one.

are formerly sg and now VL at Edgy Rowantree?

I am not an expert on Waldorf and don't know really anything about Anthroposophy, but I have read a lot of Waldorf childhood books and my mom is a Waldorf preschool teacher. (she was not into Waldorf when I was a child)

Here's my point of view: I think the Waldorf philosophy can look a little "different" or even "weird" at first glance, but I think it is important to look at WHY they do the things they do. It's not just because they like wearing flowy dresses and making crafts of natural materials. It is all based on a philosophy about child development and what is truly appropriate for young children. It is different because they don't overwhelm with children with overstimulating environments, they trust that children have an innate desire to learn and can be trusted to learn with out having to be taught formally in the early years. So much of the Waldorf philosophy, particularly regarding young preschool children, is now being confirmed through brain research. The delayed reading (see Jane Healy's books), the importance of play, the limited/no TV viewing, the influence of color on emotions, etc. we are now learning about how these things effects children's brains and Waldorf is right on track as far as what children in these years really need.

For me personally, that is the bottom line. I just feel like of all the choices out there, Waldorf is most what I want my children to get in their early years.

I know that Anthroposophy is a part of Waldorf, and I do think they should be up front about it. The way I look at it effecting what happens in the school is that the teacher recognizes my child is not just a physical being, but a child made of body, mind, and spirit. And I am cool with that. The rest of Anthroposophy I really haven't read anything about.

I guess my main point is that it is easy to look at something and think, "Wow! That's really wierd!" But I think it's important to actually find out WHY they do it and the theory behind it because it may actually make sense when you think about it.

Just my 2 cents!

. A certain Germanic early 20th century, almost Nazi philosophy, that is kind of scary.
We chose Montessori, but would have had a Waldorf option in our old town. That said, I was glad I chose Montessori when I had to review a book with a collaboration from Hans-Joachim Mattke, author of Waldorf Education Worldwide. The book was When a Child Is Born: The Natural Child Care Classic by Wilhelm Zur Linden, and was the most rigid, disrespectful towards women and the feminie that I had ever read- right up there with Babywise, but under the guise of 'spiritual parenting'. I sent a scathing review to the media outlet I was writing for and we sent it on to the publisher. Although Waldorf did not write the book , the endorsement and forward by Mattke certainly left an odd feeling for me.

the lack of diversity issue.

I can understand the cost of Waldorf tuition can be prohibitive and sometimes ends up drawing a pretty homogenous student population. But that's not what I'm talking about. What about their *teachings*? From what I saw in their early childhood programs, everything is based upon Western European traditions. Contrast this with the private mainstream preschool and Montessori schools I visited, both which not only had globes but posters of children from all over the world, ethnic dolls and books about Chinese New Year in their reading sections.

Although I have not personally investigated a Waldorf high school, it appears that history is taught entirely from a Western European perspective. And what's up with this stuff about Atlantis and Vulcan?

As for the color schemes, I don't agree with the theory that all the colors should be soothing, even for very young children. Think of the teal ocean, orange and black tree frogs, brilliant blue-green peacocks, red flowers, a fiery sunset. The natural world is not pastel. Learning can be exciting and fun as well as calming and nurturing, so why shouldn't the colors reflect that?

(Sorry - I realized the original way I wrote this sounded kinda mean, hence the edit!)

I do like Waldorf schooling methods. DS's will go if they decide to school. DS1 did go to Waldorf preschool or one sem. The only thing I really don't like about their schooling is that for history lessons, they mostly teach mythology, etc. Not much mulit-cultural perspective. But if my kids decide to take the Waldorf route, I'm very willing to fill in the stuff I feel they're missing.
The colors are not all pastel. They are warm colors that are surrounding the children (walls, etc). But those are only used for the pre-K/K grades, and as the children get older, more colors are introduced into daily activities. They use all the other colors (yes, bright ones) with crayons, paints, etc.

It's all a matter of priority, I think. Like I said before there's a lot about Waldrof I'm sceptical about, but most of it's pretty harmless stuff. There's a lot of stuff in public school I'm extremely sceptical about and I think much of it is very harmful. So, i'll put up with no black crayons (we have em at home ;) ), pastel walls, and floaty marionettes, in place of standardized testing, lack of creative play, pushing kids much too hard much too young.

RE diversity, this is my biggest concern about it and I think it depends very much on the particular school. Our school does emphasise Christian festivals which mean nothing to me whatsoever but individual teachers choose to teach about other cultures, festivals, holidays, religions, etc. I've heard it said that waldorf kids are "worldly" because of the depth of their understanding and compassion for humans of all background and cultures. Another school may teach about Diwali and Kwaanza but that doesn't necessarily mean kids are being taught respect for humanity, kwim?

Also, here in the UK Steiner schools are heavily subsidized by the government, and the one we go to is in a multicultural city and in a few yrs will be free to all. That means it is 9 a bit) more diverse than I'd have expected, and I'm sure MUCH more mixed than waldorf schools in the US. If we were still there there'd be no way I could have even considered Waldorf, and I'm not sure I'd have wanted to because of the privelege involved.

A certain Germanic early 20th century, almost Nazi philosophy, that is kind of scary. It is quite precise and guides all the educational processes. Karma, reincarnation, brain devlopment, human perfection, etc. Some of it may be good, and some of it may be proved by modern science, but why are they not more upfront about it?

Waldorf schools had a mixed interaction with the 3rd Reich. They survived at first but were enventually shut down by the Nazis because the purpose of the education is to raise independent thinkers and people of strong will.

I think the schools are upfront about the background. Anthroposphy is not taught to the children unlike Catholic schools were Catholicism is taught to the children. The children never learn about karma or reincarnation which some but not all the teachers believe in. The teachers are usually Anthroposophists and the school is influenced by this just as most schools in the USA are influenced by the mostly Christian teachers. Most students who graduate do not become Anthroposphists.

Many schools offer classes in Anthroposophy and about Rudolph Steiner and who he was. Parents rarely show up. The literature our school sends out clearly states how Waldorf schools developed. They don't go into the details of Anthroposophy because it is not a school for Anthroposophy but anyone with a library card or internet connection can quickly find out anything they want about it.

As a side note, we have two families leaving our school, one who is Jewish who decided the school is too Christian and another family who is Christian who decided the school is too Pagan! Everyone has their own perspective and no school can meet every parents expectations.

I just lost an incredible detailed post, so now Ill be quick.
We homeschool but if we schooled we would school waldorf. Mostly because of all the excellent peopl who I know that schooled there. Intersting, well rounded, well learned, whole people.
I dislike the religon part, but none of waldorf adults I know are very religous or cult like. The NO's - no black, No character clothes, NO TV!!! Its a little stifling. The $$$. 20 grande for 2 kids *ouch*. The fact that the school was started for factory workers kids and its become ... well no for factory workers kids. Methinks Rudolf would not be please.

We like no TV and no media character clothes. It is one of many reasons why we chose Waldorf. I found it to be freeing to the children's imagination. Instead of repeating what they saw on TV they develop their own ideas.

I do agree with you about the cost and it is something we have been struggling with at our school. We don't receive any outside support so tuition pays for everything - buildings, utilities, teachers' and staff's salaries and medical, tuition assistance. Education isn't cheap. Every student who receives tuition assistance is receiving it because another family is paying more. This is not a bad thing because it brings more diversity to the school but you can only raise so much money this way.

as well as all the "no's".

Why not be upfront about all the karmic stuff, the soul stuff? I do not like being misled. I am not a mindless sheep who "doesn't understand" -- TRY ME. I find that attitude to be incredibly patronizing.

I considered Waldorf because I want my children to receive an education that is as freeing as possible -- allowing them to become the people of their own potential, expressing their creativity and discovering with an open mind. I do not wish to exchange the shackles of traditional mainstream schools for an equally dogmatic prison -- even if it is a soft peach colored one.

Dogma is a relative thing. I have never found our school to be dogmatic yet others have. The school is very upfront but they don't talk about karma or reincarnation because they don't teach that to the students. They do talk about the soul. The motto is "Educating the heart, head and hands". Most people understand heart to mean soul, head to be academics and hands to be handwork. It is the spiritual recognition of the child is what attracted me to the school.

the lack of diversity issue.

I can understand the cost of Waldorf tuition can be prohibitive and sometimes ends up drawing a pretty homogenous student population. But that's not what I'm talking about. What about their *teachings*? From what I saw in their early childhood programs, everything is based upon Western European traditions. Contrast this with the private mainstream preschool and Montessori schools I visited, both which not only had globes but posters of children from all over the world, ethnic dolls and books about Chinese New Year in their reading sections.

Although I have not personally investigated a Waldorf high school, it appears that history is taught entirely from a Western European perspective. And what's up with this stuff about Atlantis and Vulcan?

As for the color schemes, I don't agree with the theory that all the colors should be soothing, even for very young children. Think of the teal ocean, orange and black tree frogs, brilliant blue-green peacocks, red flowers, a fiery sunset. The natural world is not pastel. Learning can be exciting and fun as well as calming and nurturing, so why shouldn't the colors reflect that?

(Sorry - I realized the original way I wrote this sounded kinda mean, hence the edit!)

The Kindergartens have dolls of all colors. In 1st grade the children hear fairy tales from all over the world. They learn Spanish and Japanese. They celebrate festivals from all over including Westren European ones. The school is more European than anything because of how it developed but people from many countries have taken it and made it there own. Last year, there was a teacher in training from Tanzania who did her in-service training with our Kindergarten. The children learned songs and dances from Tanzania as well as hearing many stories. It all depends on the school. We have a multi-cultural committee who is constantly working on improving things. I have heard repeatedly from graduates that they feel they are more open to other cultures than their public school friends because they have been shown the humanity behind everything. They have learned how we are more alike than different.

Also, here in the UK Steiner schools are heavily subsidized by the government, and the one we go to is in a multicultural city and in a few yrs will be free to all. That means it is 9 a bit) more diverse than I'd have expected, and I'm sure MUCH more mixed than waldorf schools in the US. If we were still there there'd be no way I could have even considered Waldorf, and I'm not sure I'd have wanted to because of the privelege involved.

I think I have said that before!

:) yes, i do appreciate this about our move to the UK!

But, it's interesting, I was there today with the parent toddler group and there is one dad that goes there who's black, with his bi racial daughter. he complained to the teacher about a song we sing at snack time that says "all the men have gone to plough...". It's been bugging me too, the old fashioned sexism in it. She just sort of laughed and dismissed him. Hmm.
he and I got talking about it and he said he was surprised that there they wouldn't be "more PC", and I said I didn't think of Steiner as particularly PC. But he pointed out that they have dolls of all colours, and said when he first came to look around he saw a big picture of a black Madonna and baby and that helped him consider going there. But when I asked if his daughter would continue at playgroup there he said, "naaaah,no way" and gave a wink as if to say, "are you kidding me?". Too bad, but I think whatever they do there to try to be accessible they are still appealing to a small largely middle class white people, myself included.

It's all a matter of priority, I think. Like I said before there's a lot about Waldrof I'm sceptical about, but most of it's pretty harmless stuff. There's a lot of stuff in public school I'm extremely sceptical about and I think much of it is very harmful. So, i'll put up with no black crayons (we have em at home ;) ), pastel walls, and floaty marionettes, in place of standardized testing, lack of creative play, pushing kids much too hard much too young.

RE diversity, this is my biggest concern about it and I think it depends very much on the particular school. .

I agree with you, I would choose it as the better of 2 evils for sure. There is lacking in diversity in the waldorf schools here, but I honestly think that it is more diverse than the public schools in our area. :9
I know ALLOT of people who like the no TV thing, I understand the philosophy behind it, yes. But watch pretty slim TV and what we watch we like and learn from. Allot of Jeff Corwin, Weather channel, ykwim? I just dont like someone else making the choice for me.

I agree with you, I would choose it as the better of 2 evils for sure. There is lacking in diversity in the waldorf schools here, but I honestly think that it is more diverse than the public schools in our area. :9
I know ALLOT of people who like the no TV thing, I understand the philosophy behind it, yes. But watch pretty slim TV and what we watch we like and learn from. Allot of Jeff Corwin, Weather channel, ykwim? I just dont like someone else making the choice for me.

Most of the Waldorf families I know do watch some TV. Especially when visiting relatives. The teachers don't normal bring it up to a family unless they see a child showing effects of watching too much TV. Some children can process it better than others. We have never had a teacher say that our child needed to watch less and we do let them watch a video occasionally (never on a school night) as well as see movies especially during the summer. Other parents have been told to cut out the TV because the child was overstimulated by it. I have never heard of anyone being tossed out do to watching TV.

One thing I have found funny is that other parents will often ask you if you have a TV and if you let the kids watch it before they will send their kid over for a playdate. Kind of like they tell you to ask whether a household has a gun or not in standard parenting advice!

But, it's interesting, I was there today with the parent toddler group and there is one dad that goes there who's black, with his bi racial daughter. he complained to the teacher about a song we sing at snack time that says "all the men have gone to plough...". It's been bugging me too, the old fashioned sexism in it. She just sort of laughed and dismissed him. Hmm.


The issue of sexism came up in our playgroup and the teacher basically said that to her the issue is equal respect, not equal treatment.

[QUOTE=muse...Too bad, but I think whatever they do there to try to be accessible they are still appealing to a small largely middle class white people, myself included.[/QUOTE]

We keep working on it! We want to maintain the character and the parts we love while appealing to more minorities. There is the problem also that because there are so few POC other than Asians, it is hard to interest other families of color. My child's 1st grade will have one African American child, two Hispanic children and several Asians out of a class of 27. The African American's mother is a Waldorf pre-school teacher who is originally from England as is her husband. One Hispanic is from Mexico. We tend to attract more foreign people of color than we do American ones.

The issue of sexism came up in our playgroup and the teacher basically said that to her the issue is equal respect, not equal treatment.

I think this is pretty much how our school handles it. It is hard with old songs and poems to take out the sexism without losing the original beauty. My church has stripped the reference to a masculine God and made it all neutral in all of the hymns. Some of the older hymns have lost a lot of their beauty and poetry because the new words don't flow as well.

Also, the school doesn't discourage girls from playing with boy stuff or vice versa. In fact nothing is labeled as girl vs. boy stuff. One of the most popular girls in 2nd grade is a complete tomboy.

The worst example I have heard of sexism in our school was a couple of years ago. The 7th grade were making shoes and teacher had the boys make leather shoes while the girls had to make felt shoes. The girls were pissed but the teacher was an old school, stick in the mud taken out of retirement to lead the class because the original teacher flew the coop so there was no changing his mind. The girls rebeled by making the most fanciful, outlandish felt shoes they could think up. Needless to say, the teacher was allowed to return to retirement after 8th grade and not asked to return.

The 8th grade teacher this year is a tomboyish lesbian so I think the kids get exposed to all sorts of people.

Rhonwyn would you mind emailing or pm'ing me. I have some questions about the school your children attend and you have the pm feature turned off. If you'd rather not I'd understand. :)

TIA!
Kristin (another Seattle mama)

Rhonwyn would you mind emailing or pm'ing me. I have some questions about the school your children attend and you have the pm feature turned off. If you'd rather not I'd understand. :)

TIA!
Kristin (another Seattle mama)

We don’t have a Waldorf school in our area, but we get the Hearthsong and Magic Cabin catalogs, and some of the folks in the hs group I've started attending seem to be kind of "Waldorf-y" -- lots of fairy stuff, etc. My almost 4 y.o. dd has zero interest in that kind of thing I show her the catalogs and once checked out a book for her about fairies. (Not because of Waldorf – I just liked the pictures!) She didn't care for the book, and she has a hard time finding things in the catalogs that she likes. She's not into dolls, and has no use for "play silks", dress up clothes (unless it's the fire-fighter costume at her preschool :LOL), or anything else like that. She prefers shorts or pants to dresses. She's not a tomboy -- she's not really into traditionally “boy” things either. She tends to like more gender-neutral activities like puzzles, reading, exploring nature, bike riding, etc. NOT that I’m complaining – far from it! I just wonder how a kid like mine would fit into a Waldorf scenario. If she wouldn’t fit in, then how “diverse” can the program be? Race and class aside, how about diversity of personality and interests? I’m honestly just curious about this. I’m not necessarily down on Waldorf. (Although I am taken aback by some of the white-supremacy stuff in their background. Have to wonder about that “color theory”, KWIM?)

I don't think those are boy vs. girl issues. Your dd may just not be suited for Waldorf shools. To each his own, after all :). My DS is very boyish, would much rather wear grey and black and dark blue clothes. But he LOVES his doll I made him, and I don't know how he would live without his playsilks. Also, I'd recommend getting playsilks, even if you don't think your dc would play with them. They can really spark imagination in unexpected ways!

dready*mama...your kids and your house are beautiful!! I love the snow around your house! We live in a snowbelt, but it is more suburban.

My dd also enjoys reading and nature, but also enjoys fairies and animals...she can go through the Magic Cabin catalogue and mark $1,000. worth of stuff..and that is on the first couple of pages :LOL

After I posted I realized I didn't really answer the question if your dd would "fit into" the waldorf environment. Although my ds is not really into fairies, etc. He is really into trolls, elves, tomtens, more "boyish" things, and there's no pressure to embrace fairies. It does seem as the catalogues sell lots of fairie stuff, maybe just b/c it's prettier and sells better, kwim?

Thanks, mom4tot, c'mon over and visit!

Rhonwyn would you mind emailing or pm'ing me. I have some questions about the school your children attend and you have the pm feature turned off. If you'd rather not I'd understand. :)

TIA!
Kristin (another Seattle mama)

I am kind of a dork when it comes to these boards. I have limited time so I don't bother with the smiley's etc.

My almost 4 y.o. dd has zero interest in that kind of thing I show her the catalogs and once checked out a book for her about fairies. (Not because of Waldorf – I just liked the pictures!) She didn't care for the book, and she has a hard time finding things in the catalogs that she likes. She's not into dolls, and has no use for "play silks", dress up clothes (unless it's the fire-fighter costume at her preschool :LOL), or anything else like that. She prefers shorts or pants to dresses. She's not a tomboy -- she's not really into traditionally “boy” things either. She tends to like more gender-neutral activities like puzzles, reading, exploring nature, bike riding, etc. NOT that I’m complaining – far from it! I just wonder how a kid like mine would fit into a Waldorf scenario. If she wouldn’t fit in, then how “diverse” can the program be? Race and class aside, how about diversity of personality and interests? I’m honestly just curious about this. I’m not necessarily down on Waldorf. (Although I am taken aback by some of the white-supremacy stuff in their background. Have to wonder about that “color theory”, KWIM?)

There are a lot of other things that go on that have nothing to do with fairies or other floaty things. My ds is only interested in fairies that bring cash as in the tooth fairy! He did great in Waldorf K but he spent most of his time digging and catching bugs. During inside play, he used the trestles to make ships, cars, boats, buses, shops, etc. One of the girls in his class then and now (2nd grade) plays with the boys all of time and rarely does girly stuff. She is the queen of the pack and the boys think she is the greatest. Waldorf classes spend a great deal of time outdoors especially in Kindergarten. In Kindergarten, they go for a walk almost everyday and some are specifically nature walks. They don't force any of the kids to play fairies but they do talk about fairies, gnomes and tomtens. I don't think they talk about trolls much because of the scary factor for some kids.

Lastly, on the 'white supremacy' thing. I think it depends on the school and how the faculty interprets that stuff (color theory, etc). One of our best teachers is from the Netherlands and she always says that Waldorf has to grow and learn. Steiner never meant it to be stagnant. He didn't anticipate after school care or many other things but his ideas can be adapted to today's realities. In many ways he was a product of his times. I am sure that he would reevaluate much that he said if he lived here and now. Many of our founding fathers in America had slavery and racism issues also but they were able to produce wonderful documents such as the Constitution.

When Rain was 5, we met a little girl her age who had been going to the Waldorf school in Sacramento, which is where the big Waldorf teaching college is. She had been drawing a person with brown skin and the teacher came over and told her not to use that "mud color", and gave her a peach crayon to use instead. The child was Black, which makes it even more offensive... but come to think of it, all the pictures of people I've ever seen created by Waldorf kids have been peach-skinned children, including the ones drawn by the bi-racial former Waldorf student I taught in the bay area.

dar

She had been drawing a person with brown skin and the teacher came over and told her not to use that "mud color", and gave her a peach crayon to use instead. The child was Black, which makes it even more offensive...

:eek :irked:

When Rain was 5, we met a little girl her age who had been going to the Waldorf school in Sacramento, which is where the big Waldorf teaching college is. She had been drawing a person with brown skin and the teacher came over and told her not to use that "mud color", and gave her a peach crayon to use instead. The child was Black, which makes it even more offensive... but come to think of it, all the pictures of people I've ever seen created by Waldorf kids have been peach-skinned children, including the ones drawn by the bi-racial former Waldorf student I taught in the bay area.

dar

I would have serious questions about that school. My kids regulary draw people of all colors. My son's calender page for January has a picture of Martin Luther King giving his 'I have a dream!' speech. (The calender was made by son and he drew the picture.) The school has a big assembly for Martin Luther King day. His class celebrates Kwanzaa and during the saints and heros portion of the curriculum, they learned about John Henry. It really depends on the school and the teacher's committment to diversity.

:jaw

She had been drawing a person with brown skin and the teacher came over and told her not to use that "mud color", and gave her a peach crayon to use instead. The child was Black, which makes it even more offensive... but come to think of it, all the pictures of people I've ever seen created by Waldorf kids have been peach-skinned children, including the ones drawn by the bi-racial former Waldorf student I taught in the bay area.

:scared Wow! I understand that this kind of thing varies school by school, but this isn't the first time I've heard of incidents like this at Waldorf schools, although it *is* the most blatent and harmful to the child. It seems like this would really trouble the good Waldorf schools. Isn't there some sort of accreditation required to use the name "Waldorf"? (I know Montessouri has no such thing, however.) That kind of story gives all Waldorf schools a black eye. As the parent of bi-racial children, that would probably clinch my decision not to send them (if I were considering it, which I'm not), and it further turns me off to the whole idea of Waldorf. It only takes one incident like that to do lots of damage to a child. Even if a school in my area seemed very open to multi-culturalism, I would be worried that there might be some undercurrents in the cirruculum or the environment that could undermine their sense of self. Even people who are trying to understand and respect cultures not their own can come off as patronizing if they aren't careful. I know individual teachers in *any* school can be a problem, but hearing stories like this leads me to wonder if there aren't some negative racial vibes woven into the very fabric of Waldorf education, (or perhaps anthroposophy, which influences Waldorf. ?? I know nothing about that though, so I'm just wondering out loud. Don't mean to offend anyone!)

Rhonwyn, I don't mean to burden you with this question, but you seem to be the one here with the most experience with Waldorf, and your school sounds like an exemplary one. I'm wondering if there have been any families of color in your school during the time your kids have been there? I would be curious to know if they felt any weird racial vibes. Your school sounds wonderful, and I'm sure it is! Sometimes black folks have a more finely tuned prejudice radar, though. I know my dh occasionally has been uncomfortable in situations where I thought everyone seemed friendly and normal. He notices things I'm oblivous to sometimes. It's almost never something deliberate or malicious -- it's much more subtle, like an unspoken judgement or something. The person doing it might not even be aware of it. (We white folks can be pretty blind to our own prejudices, especially if they aren't too glaring.) I would assume that if there are several minority families who have stayed, it would probably mean they're happy with the school.

Rhonwyn, I don't mean to burden you with this question, but you seem to be the one here with the most experience with Waldorf, and your school sounds like an exemplary one. I'm wondering if there have been any families of color in your school during the time your kids have been there? I would be curious to know if they felt any weird racial vibes. Your school sounds wonderful, and I'm sure it is! Sometimes black folks have a more finely tuned prejudice radar, though. I know my dh occasionally has been uncomfortable in situations where I thought everyone seemed friendly and normal. He notices things I'm oblivous to sometimes. It's almost never something deliberate or malicious -- it's much more subtle, like an unspoken judgement or something. The person doing it might not even be aware of it. (We white folks can be pretty blind to our own prejudices, especially if they aren't too glaring.) I would assume that if there are several minority families who have stayed, it would probably mean they're happy with the school.[/QUOTE]

In next years 1st grade, there will be 1 African American child, 2 Hispanic children and several Asian children. The rest of the 27 are white. (This is what I can tell from appearance and names. We haven't taken a poll.) In this years 1st grade, there is one African American girl and several Asians. In 2nd grade there is one Hispanic boy from Mexico. Not sure about 3rd grade. There is one girl in 4th who is mixed but you would never be able to tell as she takes after her white mother. Her father is really cool with very long dreadlocks. Not sure about 5th or 6th but in 7th there are 2 girls of color who I think are African American.

I'll ask the mother of next years first grader about the racial vibes at the school and also what she thinks about Steiner. The mother is from England and is studying to be Waldorf teacher. She currently has a Waldorf pre-school. I am really curious about this because I want more diversity at our school.

My take on it is that there are some remnants, which many waldorf adherents have rightfully discarded, of old racism and genetic/eugentic theory popular in the 20's. Note this was pre-Nazi, so I do not favor the Nazi comparison...the Nazis took some attitudes that were fairly popular and mainstream and made madness out of it. In fact, the Germans borrowed many *american* eugenic theories and writings. So racial hierarchies and other strange gentic theories have a long historical track. People that adhere too closely to this I think get caught up in steiner-worship and forget that many people of the time promoted similar principles. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water - many steiner/waldorf things are great, But it seems dubious to me when poeple can't see what's abusurdly dated and racist today. And waldorf schools and teachers that still espouse this stuff should be smacked upside the head. And if they continue to be such an insular environment, it's less likely to happen.

The two waldorf schools I have seen both incorporate non european culture, art and depictions of people- proof to me that a school, if it chooses, can be more progressive and shed the more offensive stuff. They also have a mixed student base...but not as mixed as the surrounding community. I plan in the fall in maybe asking some of the families what they think about the whole steiner racial vibe thing.

The more I learn about Waldorf philosophy the more distasteful I find it to be. It seems to be racist, sexist, AND anti-attachment. I really don't get why it is so popular among the attachment-parenting community?

I wish we were closer to a waldorf school so I could check it out.Heres my 2 cents for what it's worth.Homeschooling has fortunately allowed us to incorporate many ideas,Whatever works Kwim?The net has a wealth of resources on waldorf.Waldorf books .com,waldorfshops .net etc,Some of the ideas work relly well with wiggly kids and they're fun.But i guess thats the joy of hs you can pick the best and leave the rest.I love some of the art instuction books I've come across.If only they'd teach goethes colour theory in ps! :thumb

Saintmom, did you read the above comments about the color theory? ABout how it is used to teach children that all people should be peach-colored?! Are you giving a thumbs-up to that??

Sheesh - that was only ONE school that did that with only having peach-colored people. Public, Montessorri, and yes, even waldorf can have bad apples. Please don't judge the whole system on what has happened in only a handful of schools.

Tracey Kidder sat in a 5th grade public school class for a whole year in preparation to write Among Schollchildren. For me the take home message of the book is that the teacher is everything - one of the principles of Waldorf education. When the door to the classroom shuts in the morning it is not that the children are shut in, it's that everything, educational philosophies, cirriculum, school board mandates, and parents are shut out. The teacher is everything. I find both public school and Waldorf school teachers to be highly commited to the education of the child. I also find Waldorf school teachers struggle to model the best they can and to present an aesthetic view of life; things beyond the academic.
Because the teacher is everything then what somebody said a century ago doesn't matter. I look to the teacher and if one teacher I've heard about in the publc school system does something inappropriate I wouldn't condemn the entire system and if a Waldorf teacher I knew suggested a child use a different color crayon I might ask why before assuming the reason. I've changed colors for my children when the crayon was too short for them to comfortably use. Doesn't teaching, like parenting, involves many issues and shifting priorities with each individual child?
Concerning race as a school issue, I learned that on the 50th anniversary of Brown vs Board of education there has been no progress on segregation. The Midwest and Northeast are more segregated than the South and thousands of black teachers have lost their jobs. "In 1954, about 82,000 black teachers were responsible for teaching 2 million black children. In the 11 years immediately following Brown, more than 38,000 black teachers and administrators in 17 Southern and border states lost their jobs.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-28-brown-side2_x.htm "

The more I learn about Waldorf philosophy the more distasteful I find it to be. It seems to be racist, sexist, AND anti-attachment. I really don't get why it is so popular among the attachment-parenting community?


And they actively support and practice attatchment parenting - slings, family bed, child led weaning. This is another area that has been growing and refining Steiner's philosophy. Not all teachers are pro-attachment (just like many in mainstream schools aren't) but many are.

Just one comment on the color theory issue.

I am fairly ignorant about Steiner's theory of color, but I venture it is not the same as that I studied in art college!

Now, on the dreaded "mud color." Why dis mud? It is decayed organic material, clay and silica. If they support nature study, why denigrate wet earth (our Mother Earth) in this way? Does not make sense.

Just one comment on the color theory issue.

I am fairly ignorant about Steiner's theory of color, but I venture it is not the same as that I studied in art college!

Now, on the dreaded "mud color." Why dis mud? It is decayed organic material, clay and silica. If they support nature study, why denigrate wet earth (our Mother Earth) in this way? Does not make sense.

I don't know. At our Waldorf school they certainly support the digging in and the loving of mud. I have to wash my kid's clothes 3 times sometimes to get all the mud out! I affectionately call my kid 'dirtball'. This is a 2nd grader we are talking about here not a preschooler!

Thus far, I have never heard brown refered to as a mud color nor have I seen the black crayon withheld. Anything can be taken to the extreme.

Steiner wrote a book on color, based on Goethe's color theories apparently. He said stuff about black and thought it should be used at older ages. a quote

"Now submerge yourself in black; you are completely surrounded by black--in this black darkness a physical being can do nothing. Life is driven out of the plant when it becomes carbon. Black shows itself alien to life, hostile to life; when plants are carbonized they turn black. Life, then can do nothing in blackness. And the soul? Our soul life deserts us when this awful blackness is within us.

Black represents the spiritual image of the lifeless."

http://www.openwaldorf.com/art.html

The whole light = good dark = bad is a problem. Now of course, brown, the color of mud and earth and wood and people - that's not what he was talking about. Since most thing are wood, the classroom has a lot of brown. Does anyone have the color book to know what he said about brown? The other wacky racial theories seem seperate from the color stuff....but interestingly, almost identical to a chart I have in an american public school geography textbook from the turn of the century. Since waldorf doesn't use textbooks, I see no excuse for reviving those theories. From what I'm gathering, the hierarchical chart of the races is based on spiritual evolution, and as a soul reincarnates they move through the races. Yucky, yuck yuck yuck. But what I would insist is that it much be possible to maintain some elements of what is worthwhile and not fall back on this sort of stuff. Lots of prominent education theorists whose techniques are still used today, even if we forget their names, thought this sort of thing. And that time is past.

I guess in any school what you have to get to know is how strongly they adhere to the more negative steiner stuff. Enter with eyes wide open.

http://skepdic.com/steiner.html
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy_criticism.htm

The more I learn about Waldorf philosophy the more distasteful I find it to be. It seems to be racist, sexist, AND anti-attachment. I really don't get why it is so popular among the attachment-parenting community?

Why do you say it's anti-attachment? One big reason I love going to the parent toddler group is because it's the ONLY place other than LLL I'm around other mothers nursing toddlers. Most people there are very committed APers and many of our practices would be frowned upon by a lot of parents and teachers in the public schools. At Waldorf I feel no judgement.

I do think it's true that a classroom is only as good as the teacher. Waldorf, Montessori, public mainstream schools, homeschoolers included! :D

If Waldorf as a group is really committed to increasing its diversity, though, they had best address the issue head-on. This kind of reputation precedes you and will only serve to alienate more people of color.

Why do you say it's anti-attachment? One big reason I love going to the parent toddler group is because it's the ONLY place other than LLL I'm around other mothers nursing toddlers. Most people there are very committed APers and many of our practices would be frowned upon by a lot of parents and teachers in the public schools. At Waldorf I feel no judgement.


I have heard two sides to this argument one says that Steiner said that breastfeeding past one is wrong and the otherside says, Steiner didn't say anything about breastfeeding. I asked our Kindergarten teacher about this and she said that child led weaning is fine but that breastfeeding if it goes on too long (4, 5, or 6) can be an impediment to the child's growth and interaction with the world. If they are staring at a boob all the time they can't interact. I think it is like everything else, it depends on the child and the child parent relationship. My own kids self weaned at 15 months because they got tired of staring at my boob and wanted to be out and about while using a sippy cup. I have oftened wondered how people get a 4 year old to nurse but that is for another board.

p.s. Staring at a boob was my statement not the teacher's. Sorry if it is offensive to some, I didn't mean it to be that way. It is my interpretation of how my children reacted at 15 months to nursing. They would be on/off/on/off constantly because they wanted to see what was going on rather than not being able to look around. Once they got the sippy cup they never wanted to nurse again. It was much more portable than my breast.

Rhonwyn....

My dd nursed well past 4, my ds, almost 4 is still happily nursing. They are both quite happy, active, curious children. I find the term, "staring at the boob all day" mildly offensive and the antithesis of attachment parenting.

I attended a Waldorf mommy and me for a year and a half with dd. She liked it enough. I didn't pursue it at 4 because she needed MORE. She was/ is a sponge and I knew she needed more stimulation and learning activities than what was offered at the Waldorf school (especially if they held her in kindergarten for 2 years).

Most children who "self wean" do so around 3 or 4...that is the "don't offer, don't refuse" idea. Many children nurse longer than that.

Rhon, I am sure you did not mean it this way, but I find your post short-sighted and insulting.

Nursing children over the age of 15 mos, are not "staring at a boob" all the time.

Very hurtful statement.

wow, what an interesting thread. dh really likes the idea, but now reading more is making me think about it a lot more.

Rhon, I am sure you did not mean it this way, but I find your post short-sighted and insulting.

Nursing children over the age of 15 mos, are not "staring at a boob" all the time.

Very hurtful statement.


I was being flippant. It was my interpretation to my children's response to nursing after 15 months. Every kid is different and the confinement of nursing drove mine nuts after a certain age. If I had a detachable breast, it might have been different.

Just lurking because we're looking at Waldorf and a Waldorf "inspired" pre-school for DC where we live in Germany.

I haven't had time to read but I wanted to bookmark the thread...thanks, H.

"Many of the wacky things you hear about Waldorf have started to be proven true by science."

Can you give examples? I found when I researched Waldorf that most things that were claimed to be scientifically proven were not, and that some of the references given to 'proof' turned out in fact to be statements by Waldorf proponents, not proof at all. I simply went around in circles.

I'd be really interested in any links. Thanks!

One of my dd's is fair like daddy the other is dark like mama. There is a good mix of cultures, religions and race at our school.

My 3.5 yr is still nursing, teachers are not thrilled but I made it very clear that it is MY decision. Probably over 50% of the children in dd's classes were bf'd past a year and I know of many up to age 3 or 4. I have never seen so many slings in on location as I do EVERY morning at drop off. MAny of the moms are doulas, LLL leaders & even midwives. This is the only place I have been fortunate enough to meet other AP parents.

We are not a religious or spiritual family but I would rather deal with a splash of Anthroposophy than a shower of mainstream America. Some of the children speak of Jesus or God, but I can assure you the same talk goes on in any school. The teachers do speak of angels and the spirit often, I just make sure I talk to my dd's too. I want open minded accepting children and I feel confident that Waldorf is the answer. At our school they celebrate all the holidays.

I like to think that it is utimately a parents responsibility to educate a child. If I feel at some point that my dd's are not getting a broad view of the world, I'll do what I can to enrich their education. We travel often (not just domestically but internationally), I read to my dd's about all religions, cultures, countries, etc. DH & I speak foreign languages, the girls are bilingual.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that any school will have shortcomings, so as a parent you need to supplement not matter where your child attends school.

BTW, I grew up in the South Bronx surrounded by Hispanics & African Americans (there was 1 single white girl in my class) and I can't begin to tell the racism I came across everyday, both towards me and others. So it doesn't just happen at schools where the majority are white.

No black crayons in our Early Childhood. I'm on the puppetry committee and never seen a scared child yet. We did have one young boy come in with a Game Boy who never raised his head from his toy, now that is 'scary'.

Why do you say it's anti-attachment? One big reason I love going to the parent toddler group is because it's the ONLY place other than LLL I'm around other mothers nursing toddlers. Most people there are very committed APers and many of our practices would be frowned upon by a lot of parents and teachers in the public schools. At Waldorf I feel no judgement.

This is a really interesting thing at our parent-child playgroup. The teacher is against it and makes comments each time it is discussed among parents. Last time I went she compared breastfeeding a child over 1 to being a piece of meat for the child to grab at at will. Hmmm.

The other thing is that the other regulars at our playgroup literally do not seem to question anything Steiner says. We never have discussions about the validity of an idea (unless I question it), just how to incorporate it into life at home with children. But, the one area those mothers don't question is EBF. I'm not sure why.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=121249

This was an interesting thread about the experiences of people with EBF and waldorf...

Rhonwyn, first you ask me why I perceive Waldorf to be anti-attachment. And then you say a baby older than 15 months should quit nursing because it's just "staring at a boob all day." You just answered your own question!!

To be fair to Rhonwyn, some rare babies who are raised AP style (which I am assuming her are) do self wean at 15 mos. These children are self-soothers, usually very active, adopt a lovey and take well to sippy cups. They are more likely to wean if they have older sibs to keep up with too.

(Of course if babies are left to CIO or encouraged to use pacifiers or bottles early on, they will seem to "self wean" young too.)

So if one or more of Rhon's kids were like this, this is her own exp. It has nothing to do with the normal age of child-led weaning (age 3-6 yrs) or whether or not her school was encouraging early weaning, as she said above.

But it is strange she brought it up as if it was approved by the school. She quotes a teacher erroneously saying that a nursing 4,5 or 6 yr old will be staring at a boob all day, which of course, is ridiculous, as most nursing children of that age do not nurse more than a couple-3 times a day! Nursing an older child is usually just a brief cuddle at the end of the day or first thing in the morning...

wow, shocked at the teachers' comments about EBf. hmmm. going to check out that other thread.

** thanks for sharing your experience, cuqui, that's v. helpful.

no I wasn,t giving a thumbs up to one stupid teachers misdirected prejudices :angry Goethes colour theory arose from his dicoveries of light reflecting in a prism the warm colours would be at one end and the dark colours at the other .Not your standard colour wheel.The interpretation of dark and light is also percieved differently,i.e.Black containing all colours and light the absence of colour.Don't know if I agree with it,just gives me new ways to think about the use of colour when I'm working on my art.sorry waldorf stuff stirs up such strong feelings in some folks.I know there's a lot of good stuff there.

no I wasn,t giving a thumbs up to one stupid teachers misdirected prejudices .

But this is what I really don't understand either! I have heard (on this board and elsewhere) of many Waldorf schools that forbid the color black, have all white students, and have only white Christian art on their walls. Yet pro-Waldorf folks claim each and every example is "just one misdirected exception."

Same with the EBF- people from several different Waldorf schools -on this one thread alone!- have shared their expereriences with Waldorf schools being anti-EBF- but again, pro-Waldorf people claim each and every one of these schools is a misguided exception.

I thinkyou propbably have heard these "bad apple" examples alot, but that they still are just a "misdirected exception". I feel like I'm always hearing alot of bad stories or experiences when I am researching something questionable, kwim? I've been feeling this way about most of the discussion on this thread.

For example - when DS1 was just an infant and we told people that we would co-sleep as long as everyone felt comfortable, well then we just started to hear all these extreme situation stories. Like a girl who is 13 and her parents couldn't get her out of the family bed.
Or when I talk to people about EB, I have gotten so many people who've 'heard' of someone else that BF until they were 10 or so!
I don't really care if it's true or not, honestly. I know what we will do and I know my boundries. I know that the Waldorf preschool here rocks. They teach much cultural diversity and the teachers are young and progressive and very AP. I'm a devoted parent and research OUR school, not worried about what some old fart teacher in some school far away is teaching their kids.

We are fortunate enough to have a Waldorf charter school in our town. (there are 4 such charter schools in AZ). My dd is only 3 1/2, but Ive been reading everything I can get my hands on regarding Waldorf Philosophy. I would never rely on a Waldorf critics site to get unbiased info on Waldorf. I also have a friend who teaches at a Waldorf school in N. Calif, whom Ive had several conversations with regarding philosophies etc.

I went to the Waldorf open house recently, talked with the director and kindergarten teacher, and other parents who have had several children go thru the school. Thats really the only way I can make in informed decision on whether my dd will go there. THis school goes to grade 8, and the parents are getting together now trying to get a highschool in place. I was really impressed with the curriculum and the dedication of the teachers in this school. Its been a long time since Ive experienced that kind of teacher in a public school, having already raised a ds in the public school system.

The other public schools are pretty bad here in our town/state. This would be the one of 2 schools I would consider. The other is a private school. OUr town is not very diverse as far as ethnicities, so Im not expecting the schools to be, but thats bc of where we live.

If you are considering a waldorf education, I would suggest reading everything you can on the subject, talking to parents, and visiting and observing the school.

Rhonwyn, first you ask me why I perceive Waldorf to be anti-attachment. And then you say a baby older than 15 months should quit nursing because it's just "staring at a boob all day." You just answered your own question!!

but that is not what I said. My own babies would not nurse past 15 months. I interpreted their response to be that they didn't want to be confined with no view. I wasn't going to force them to nurse if they didn't want to. Everyone is different and what works for one doesn't work for another. I know plenty of Waldorf Moms and Teachers who nursed up to 4 years old.

"Many of the wacky things you hear about Waldorf have started to be proven true by science."

Can you give examples? I found when I researched Waldorf that most things that were claimed to be scientifically proven were not, and that some of the references given to 'proof' turned out in fact to be statements by Waldorf proponents, not proof at all. I simply went around in circles.

I'd be really interested in any links. Thanks!

The three things I have read about recently were in local newspapers and I can't send you specific links because of time constraints. I am sure that you have seen some of this in the news.

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.

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.

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.

This is what I have found so far. I keep my eyes open because often the articles I find do not mention Waldorf at all but present the ideas as new discoveries. I only recognize them as an affirmation of Waldorf techniques because my kids are in a Waldorf school and I know what they are doing in school. I think the Waldorf association could do a better job of collecting the information as backing to their techniques.

Good, bad, pro-AP, anti-AP... just about everything is hearsay!

I did have my own negative experience, so that's what I'm going off of.

Good, bad, pro-AP, anti-AP... just about everything is hearsay!

I did have my own negative experience, so that's what I'm going off of.

I am sorry you had such a negative experience and I understand where you are coming from. I had a negative experience with Montessori when I was deciding between Waldorf and Montessori. It pretty much colored my whole opinion of Montessori.

We are fortunate enough to have a Waldorf charter school in our town. (there are 4 such charter schools in AZ

I have heard that AZ has the best Waldorf Charter schools. AZ has the most liberal charter school laws and it allows the schools to set up almost like they would be if they were a private Waldorf school.

Too bad AZ is too hot and dry for me!

Well, it sounds to me that if anyone is considering putting their child in Waldorf school, they should research the *specific* school that the child will go to. If I look into the one near here, and feel "weirded out" by their attitude, my daughter can be homeschooled. But I feel like it should be her decision as well. It's her life, and if she doesn't fit into the Waldorf "model" then I'm not going to force her. Thanks for all the info, mammas.

I talked to a friend today who has a 5 yr old in the kindergarten and her 2 yr old in our toddler group. She EWBf her daughter to 3 yrs old. She said they were gently encouraging here to "separate" at 3 when she went to playgorup, but she spent a whole term in the class with her (and BFing), then went and sat down in the parents lounge. They were very gentle about it, did not criticise EBF, and let her do things at her own pace. In our toddler group every mother but one is still bfing 9kids up to 3 yr olds) all through the group, during story and songtime, etc etc and there has never ever been any criticism or comment. It is the most wonderful bunch of mothers I've ever been around who are all APers. Whatever else goes on there the school fosters a wonderful sense of community amongst families with a lot in common, and all the children I meet there are very sweet, responsible, kind, and thoughtful.

Definitely check out individual schools but I think spend as much time talking to the parents and observing the kids as you do the teachers.

AlohaDeb I would guess you went to the same Waldorf school in Chicago I did four years ago. I had a very mixed experience in the parent/child program--kept loving certain aspects -- the gentleness, the patience toward learning, the reverence for childhood, but as the year progressed I began to feel like it was too in love with its philosophy to see each child as an individual. And I couldn't believe they had all the children line up to wash their hands in the same tub of water. That was the first big 'klunk' against common sense. But then there would be these enchanting experiences, like the Winter Solstice candle walk (through gritty Rogers Park, but there was a luscious full moon). However, I resist anything that defines human development in terms of stating that 'thus and such happens at age 7' and I remember them being very definite on some of those age things, including at what age a child uses the word "I". It started to feel to me that my child would not be viewed as an individual within what felt like a very dated, quaint philosophy of development (i.e., the four personality types defined by Steiner). The teacher we had was a lovely person to converse with but I felt very strongly she was burnt out and not very interested in the children! Some of the parents were really high maintenance tho, and attracted to Waldorf as an alternative, artistic school. They seemed unaware that it had a particular philosophy, and barely noticed the children, and I'm sure that was part of her burn-out.

I am finding that the whole school experience as a parent can be overwhelming, from the Waldorf end of the spectrum to where I am now in an expensive, homogenous suburb. There isn't a perfect school anywhere but Waldorf felt like a huge leap of faith and experiment and I had enough reservations to decide it wasn't for us. I think if I had sensed that there was more receptiveness to input from the parents it might have been different but when I raised questions I usually felt like I was viewed as someone who just didn't know enough about anthroposphy.

I went to a waldorf school many years ago, as a teenager. Only 2 years, but it was a valuable and enriching experience. Later I was a waldorf parent for 13 years. Now I'm a waldorf grandmother. I also worked at a waldorf school for two years as the business manager and at the anthroposophical society in america for 6 1/2 years.

There are certainly lots of problems in waldorf schools, but my take would be that there is not enough anthroposophy rather than too much. In my experience the teacher who is dogmatic is usually the one with the least knowledge and years of experience. The more you know the more flexible and creative you can be.

In addition to waldorf education here are a few other anthroposophical initiatives:

homes and schools for developmentally disabled children and adults (1,000 + worldwide)

biodynamic farms (many in Europe, some in New Zealand, Australia, the U.S. and ?)

anthroposophically extended medicine: includes doctors, nurses, art therapists, therapeutic eurythmists, rhythmical massage, etc.

adult education programs (besides waldorf teacher education, includes studies in goethean science, biodynamic farming, eurythmy, music, painting, art therapy, medicine, spatial dynamics)

businesses (flowforms [a special type of fountain], lazure wall painting [a type of multi-layered glaze, sometimes used in waldorf schools], several toy manufacturers, community supported agriculture initiatives, publishing companies, a travel service...)

non-profit organizations (Rudolf Steiner Foundation, support communities for the elderly, associations of professionals such as doctors and nurses)

My point: waldorf education is not the main goal of anthroposophy. It is one of many activities arising out of a fairly fruitful approach to spiritual development. I've always been fascinated by the combination of inner work and outer work that is central to anthroposophy.

Yeah, anthropops mess up big time and regularly. They also do lots of great stuff. Human, like the rest of us.

Here are a few web-sites:

Anthro Society America
http://www.anthroposophy.org/

Directory of initiatives
http://anthro.webhost4life.com/

Medical initiatives
http://www.spiritworking.org/dir/Home.html

Physicians association
http://www.paam.net/aem.htm

some background on waldorf education and links to a discussion of the waldorf critics
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/waldorf/links1.htm

an archive of books and articles by Rudolf Steiner
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/

the lending library of the Anthro society, including a huge collection on various spiritual streams, and other occult movements (it is a truly amazing library with a very specialized and unusual collection [I'm a librarian, sorry for the digression])
http://rslibrary.elib.com/

Spirit Working: web site of the Council of Anthroposophical Organizations
http://www.spiritworking.org/

and, one of my favorites: The Rudolf Steiner Foundation
http://www.rsfoundation.org/

I'll shut up now,
Nana

Thanks for all the insights. There is so much out there about Waldorf that people dont investigate for themselves what is true and what is heresay. Thanks for the links and your post!

Thanks for all the insights. There is so much out there about Waldorf that people dont investigate for themselves what is true and what is heresay. Thanks for the links and your post!

You are very welcome!

Nana ;)

PS I welcome PM's on waldorf education or on anthroposophy!

I must be feeling close-minded today ...

because I keep going back to "gnomes???" :LOL

This has been a great thread to read, though. Very informative.

For a great rebuttal to the Waldorf Critics site, check out this article:

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html

That's a great article rhonwyn. Thanks for sharing it ...
all sceptics - go read it right now and realize what an evil group PLANS really is!!

frand, thank you for posting pretty much what i would've liked to, but am too busy with a toddler staring at my boob, lol (his eyes are closed, actually!)
the part that grated on me, rhonwyn, was not the early weaning (cough. well, worldwide and throughout history that certainly would be true!) was the statement about 'how you would get them to do it' (sorry for paraphrasing, i am in a bit of a rush.) a nursing 4 yr old does not have to be persuaded to nurse, trust me! and he can be mobile with his sippy and still want a snuggle-nurse when going to sleep.

i like our local one but besides it being too far of a drive and 10 grand a year, i did get a weird vibe talking to one of the teachers when i was buying some stuff at the gift shop... she was really, really interested (i'm not sure i can think of an appropriate word) about our jewish last name (she was looking at my check.) maybe just making conversation, but it was weird conversation, like 'you're a JEW and want to come here?' (i'm not, but dh is.) anyway, we get no weirdness from the typical southern baptists i let sam go to a mother's day out with twice a week (his idea, so i said sure), and we are in a more rural area... i had thought the more cosmopolitan 'city' upper-class waldorf place would have been more- comfortable- with jews. (there IS a synagogue reasonably close to them! we do have jews here in the south!)

anyway, i think a lot of it is neat, and i try to work in what i feel are the better ideas, and go to the elve's fair (it's not like i ran into overt antisemitism or anything, just- weirdness), but i did read a lot about steiner awhile ago (parsifal! klingsor! yikes!) and i don't think i want to get that involved (even if i did have the $) like montessori, there are great plusses (esp compared to standard public education), but also drawbacks i'm not willing to compromise about.

the boys do have a guardian gnome on their shelf, tho', lol.

suse

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. :eyesroll

But this is what I really don't understand either! I have heard (on this board and elsewhere) of many Waldorf schools that forbid the color black, have all white students, and have only white Christian art on their walls. Yet pro-Waldorf folks claim each and every example is "just one misdirected exception."

Same with the EBF- people from several different Waldorf schools -on this one thread alone!- have shared their expereriences with Waldorf schools being anti-EBF- but again, pro-Waldorf people claim each and every one of these schools is a misguided exception.

There are close to 1,000 waldorf schools in the world and I don't know how many start-ups: probably at least another 1,000, maybe 2 or 3 thousand. If someone at each of those schools does something really dumb once a year that turns into a lot of incidents. And since people keep bringing up things that happened years ago (which is their right) these incidents accumulate. Now, in real life, having something go wrong once a year in an institution with anywhere from one to eighty staff, 5 to 500 children, 10 to 1000 parents is an unrealistic expectation. Once a week is a lot more likely. So yes, you will hear plenty of negative waldorf school stories and no, they don't necessarily mean that waldorf education is a bad idea. It does mean that you have to look carefully at the school you are considering, you need to look carefully at the educational approach to see if it fits your child, your lifestyle and your beliefs and you need to look carefully at the teacher to see if this person is actually a competent teacher. There are people teaching in waldorf school and in other schools who should not be teaching.

Cheers.

Nana

frand, thank you for posting pretty much what i would've liked to, but am too busy with a toddler staring at my boob, lol (his eyes are closed, actually!)
the part that grated on me, rhonwyn, was not the early weaning (cough. well, worldwide and throughout history that certainly would be true!) was the statement about 'how you would get them to do it' (sorry for paraphrasing, i am in a bit of a rush.) a nursing 4 yr old does not have to be persuaded to nurse, trust me! and he can be mobile with his sippy and still want a snuggle-nurse when going to sleep.


suse


Honestly, I tried to keep them nursing as I wanted to nurse until at least 2 but I gave it up after they pretty much refused to at around 15 months. Both did it at around the same age so seriously, I have always been baffled by 4 year olds nursing. I just chalked it up to personality and moved on. Now potty training, that's a different story! My son was 4 and my daughter was 2.5.

britishmum thanks for such a thorough post -- yes, that whole thing about reading being related to the teeth is what I was referring to in my post about 'thus and such happens at age 7' -- that art of the delayed reading is based on a principle that children aren't ready to begin reading until the permanent teeth started coming in at age 7 -- I don't have the exact quote right but that was the gist of it. I remember thinking, how can this possibly be stated and applied across the board so confidently? Isn't this going to frustrate some children? Plenty of children are ready and eager to begin reading before then, why on earth . It reminded me of the long explanation I got at our school as to why children don't use the word "I" until a certain age, and when I said, but my daughter used it quite a bit before that age, the person stared at me as if I'D said something odd.

Of course, to give this all perspective, I vividly remember being told about my guardian angel in second grade in Catholic school and being told if I wanted to do something nice during the day I could scootch over in my sit to give my angel room to sit down.

Wanted to throw out there that our Kindergarten teacher said that children are starting to lose their teeth sooner. This was in conversation in regards to the tooth fairy pouches they give the kids. They used to give them at the 7th birthday and now they give them at 6th birthday. My kid is 6 and a quarter and hasn't lost one yet but has one tooth that is wiggly.

Also wanted to say, our school doesn't discourage early readers if they teach themselves. They do discourage parents from actively trying to teach it to them. Some kids are ready and some aren't but sometimes parents push too hard. They also don't discourage you from telling a kid what the letter or word is when the kid asks.

LOL This is like the funniest thing I have read for days!!!!


:rotflmao :rotflmao



whats with no black crayons?? that's ridiculous! and what is wet on wet painting? what's wrong with fingerpaint? or clay? sounds wonkier by the minute.

i met a reaaaaaaaaaaaal strange woman in the park once, she came up to me and dd and without saying a word, busted into a dance, started moving her arms and hands, i didnt know whether to kick her in the leg, grab dd and run, or crack up laughing. dd was entranced (and almost immedietly began to imitate her arm motions), i was totally weirded out. my aunt was with us and she started talking to the woman, who was very floaty and strange, and found out she was a waldorf teacher in san francisco. now she's a childrens storyteller. ok, so one lady doesnt speak for the whole lot of waldorf teachers, but it was really strange. she did her funky dance for at least a minute before speaking. and she kept invading my personal space while she was talking...it wouldve been really neat, had she *spoken* like a reg. person before busting out her moves..

I had my own bad experiences with Waldorf education, and have described them on other threads here.

Basically, I see a lot of people having bad experiences with Waldorf because Waldorf schools try to hide or downplay anthroposophy from parents. Waldorf schools are *not* secular schools; that's fine but I don't like hidden motives. It would not be well received if a Jewish primary school tried to hide its prosyletizing by saying 'you don't have to be Jewish to go here, but science has proven wearing yarmulkes and lighting the menorah is helpful to brain development,' etc. Can you imagine Catholics doing this? Anthroposophy has many a priori assumptions one must swallow, and as such I do think it is a religion.

I think it's too bad that PLANS seems to have a mixed agenda, because I think there is certainly room out there for a Waldorf critics website based entirely on the writings of Steiner, Waldorf philosophy and Waldorf education in practice. One thing PLANS is good for is getting at the core quotes from Steiner's own writings that underpin anthroposophy. But I do wish there was more attention drawn to things like what parents can expect re:

- discipline (have heard lots of parents express concerns about bullies, have heard about and seen kids sit out entire terms in front of the principals office)
- germ theory (all washing in community water)
- psychological evaluation and categorizing of kids based on a theory of 'humors'
- treatment of fairies and gnomes as real entities
- attitudes towards civics and politics

These, plus the fact that Waldorf schools are mostly homogenous groups of kids from middle-class, well educated homes. It seems rather isolationist to me, not something I want for my child.

I had my own bad experiences with Waldorf education, and have described them on other threads here.

Basically, I see a lot of people having bad experiences with Waldorf because Waldorf schools try to hide or downplay anthroposophy from parents. Waldorf schools are *not* secular schools; that's fine but I don't like hidden motives. It would not be well received if a Jewish primary school tried to hide its prosyletizing by saying 'you don't have to be Jewish to go here, but science has proven wearing yarmulkes and lighting the menorah is helpful to brain development,' etc. Can you imagine Catholics doing this? Anthroposophy has many a priori assumptions one must swallow, and as such I do think it is a religion.

I think it's too bad that PLANS seems to have a mixed agenda, because I think there is certainly room out there for a Waldorf critics website based entirely on the writings of Steiner, Waldorf philosophy and Waldorf education in practice. One thing PLANS is good for is getting at the core quotes from Steiner's own writings that underpin anthroposophy. But I do wish there was more attention drawn to things like what parents can expect re:

- discipline (have heard lots of parents express concerns about bullies, have heard about and seen kids sit out entire terms in front of the principals office)
- germ theory (all washing in community water)
- psychological evaluation and categorizing of kids based on a theory of 'humors'
- treatment of fairies and gnomes as real entities
- attitudes towards civics and politics

These, plus the fact that Waldorf schools are mostly homogenous groups of kids from middle-class, well educated homes. It seems rather isolationist to me, not something I want for my child.


I totally disagree with your post. I think the schools vary a lot as do the teachers. I do not believe that Anthroposophy is a religion, it is a philosphy. The children are not taught Anthroposophy and they do not receive religion classes. Our school is constantly having classes on Anthroposophy and how it relates to Waldorf schooling for the parents. Hardly anyone ever shows up! This stuff is not swept under the rug at our school. During parent evenings the teacher often answers questions about why thus and such is done and the teacher is always very open and honest in answering the questions. Maybe we are very lucky, but I look around the school and their are many happy families. Some are third generation Waldorf and are not Anthroposophists. (I am sure I mispell that word more than I spell it right! Spelling is not my strong point even though I am a public school and Catholic school product.)

Bullies have been a problem from time to time as they are in all schools whether public or private. The school has developed a program of social inclusion to address this issue. It doesn't rely on kids working it out on their own but rather it is about learning respect for one another. Any bullying behavior is recognized and addressed. It is not tolerated.

Germ theory - In the Kindergarten the kids wash their hands individually before lunch at separate sinks. In the grades, the kids often rinse their hands of sand in a communal wash tub and then wash their hands inside before lunch.

Disicpline is an ongoing work in progress. It involves a lot of help from parents. Yes, sometimes children do sit out classes or parts of classes if they are being too disruptive to the other students. I know as a parent, that when this happens I get a phone call or email about it. We know what motivates our child and we use the appropriate consequences for bad behavior. Many of the kids go through this from time to time.

Humors - The teachers have cautioned us from using these to catagorize our own kids so I highly doubt they are classifying kids in set humors. Everyone has these characteristics and some are more pronounced than others at different times in their lives.

Fairies and Gnomes - Believe me, fairies and gnomes disappear at around 9 years of age. They are treated as real up until that point just as the Tooth Fairy. I have yet to hear a teacher actually answer that they are real to a child's question. All questions like that are turned around and asked of the children. Usually the teacher will reply to whatever the child has answers, 'Well there you go.' Many questions are treated like this so that the child comes up with their own answer. This of course does not continue in the grades when the children are actually studying something such as weather. I think, if you have a problem with Santa, the Tooth Fairy or other imaginative creatures and you feel like they are lies and that you are lying to your child if you say they are real, then you will have a problem with Waldorf. Waldorf is about protecting the magical times of childhood which naturally begin to end around the age of 9.

Civics and Politics - That comes later in 7th or 8th grade and especially in high school. Until that point the children are building up themselves and who they are. The idea is to develop independent thinkers.

I also totally disagree with you statement that: "One thing PLANS is good for is getting at the core quotes from Steiner's own writings that underpin anthroposophy." PLANS is really good at taking things out of context and saying this is the whole truth. I would read the rebuttal from the Swedish site that I posted earlier.

Diversity is an issue we are working on. We have economic diversity but not as much cultural and racial diversity as I would like to see. Also, I would like to see more tuition assistance. Too many families leave due to financial considerations.

Lastly, Waldorf is not for everyone, just as Montessori, Sudbury, Catholic and Public schools are not for everyone. Whatever school you are considering, check out that particular school as even ones of the same type can vary radically. I found that out when I looked at Montessori schools. I am also sorry this turned out so long!

One of the ideas I've encountered as to why Waldorf is a good choice is because it is more "natural"... the soothing colors, the wooden toys, and especially the avoidance of computers and almost all electronic media. (This "being natural" is not an official Waldorf idea, but it seems to be prevalent in the AP community.)

Well what exactly is "natural?" It seems to me that if computers and TV were created by human beings, then they are just as "natural" as anything else that human beings make.

Of course, I am not advocating watching TV and playing on computers 24/7; balance is key. As my mother always said: Water is natural, too, but if you imbibe too much of it, you'll die.

Well what exactly is "natural?" It seems to me that if computers and TV were created by human beings, then they are just as "natural" as anything else that human beings make.

Of course, I am not advocating watching TV and playing on computers 24/7; balance is key. As my mother always said: Water is natural, too, but if you imbibe too much of it, you'll die.

Most computers and TVs are not handmade by a human being nor are they found lying on the ground in nature.

Natural materials (wood, wool, cotton, beeswax, etc.) are used almost exclusively in the younger grades. Children learn the whole process and where things come from. Ideally, when children learn to knit, they will make their own knitting needles and they will see where wool comes from, card it, spin it and then begin to learn how to knit with their needles and their wool. Our children made their own needles in the last year of Kindergarten and all of the children learned how to card wool and they learned how to felt. I have taken my kids to a sheep shearing where they were able to card and see spinning.

TV never really enters the picture in Waldorf except that by around 12 the kids are allowed to watch it along with movies. They are also then allowed to start using a computer. (When I saw allowed, I mean the teacher approves of it. These are the ideals and some of us do a better or worse job than others in living up to it. Teachers are usually the strictest with their own families because they are suppossed to be models and good examples.)

Computers enter the picture officially in Waldorf education at around High School though there is some movement to introduce them in 7th or 8th grade. Traditionally, in 9th grade the kids build their own computer almost from scratch. (They don't solder the boards or build the monitor but the do assemble the CPU.) In 10th grade, they learn to write software for their computer. In the 11th and 12th grade they may learn about specific software programs. It is kind of like reading in 1st grade. The kids learn to write before they learn to read so ususally the first thing they read is their own work.

The whole natural thing and hand made thing is to connect children with humanity. Something means a lot more if an actual human being made it. As adults, we know this from gifts we receive. A handmade baby blanket means so much more than a Carter's receiving blanket, especially if it was made by a good friend or loved one. Natural and handmade items also just usually feel better and smell better than plastic.

I think, if you have a problem with Santa, the Tooth Fairy or other imaginative creatures and you feel like they are lies and that you are lying to your child if you say they are real, then you will have a problem with Waldorf.
This is probably a big reason that Waldorf seems uncomfortable for me. I'm one of those non-santa parents. :hide: 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.

Thanks Rhonwyn, for you vigorous defense of your Waldorf school. I feel about the same as I did before about Waldorf in general (i.e. not for me), but I have leared a lot from you about the possibilities at a school that takes the best of Waldorf and sheds the outdated stuff. Have a great summer!

Thanks Rhonwyn, for you vigorous defense of your Waldorf school. I feel about the same as I did before about Waldorf in general (i.e. not for me), but I have leared a lot from you about the possibilities at a school that takes the best of Waldorf and sheds the outdated stuff. Have a great summer!

To each his own. I can't imagine life without fairies, gnomes and Santa. I have become very adept at answering questions with questions so I never have to outright lie. When my oldest really asks me and I know he really wants to know about Santa, etc. I will level with him and then he can join in the fun.

Also, I should mention that there are adults who believe in fairies. They are ususally Pagans. I have seen some strange things happen with stuff disappearing and reappearing in our house, so sometimes I wonder. :)

wow. a lot to absorb.
i would like to actually spend a day in a classroom, see how the particular school my dd would actually attend feels to me, to her, before i absolutely decide. i am leaning away from it though. the rigidity of the non-rigidity is really unsettling to me. i don't like the exclusion of technology, it is a very valuable and big part of our world, and imo, it doesnt create unhealthy kids to allow them access to it before some specific age. the age thing really goads me. such homogony, that every child would be ready (or not ready) to do a certain thing at a certain age. i read that it is not so strictly "enforced", esp. the reading, but that's a really big issue with me-i fully expect my 21 month will be reading in the next year, self taught, the way she's progressing on her own, as i was at her age, also self taught.
i am not about to pay out the equivalent of a mortgage payment so she can feel like she's strange or bored or out of place.
speaking of mortgage payment, how much diversity can you get with a place that costs $10000 a year??? really? i'm more than a bit unsettled by the type of atmosphere that sort of money and homogony brings..
homogony. keep going back to that. (i think i spelled it wrong, too...) and the fairies and scarves and gnomes.
it's not just you that keeps going back the gnomes, daryllll ;)
i love the hearthsong catologue, it's so lovely, and i want all the toys in it. but that's not really that pertinent to the consideration of sending my dd to a waldorf school...

i know, i'm rambling, forgive me, it's 3am...

it's nice that there seems to be some support of a balance b/n fantasy and reality at some of the schools; i don't think tv is evil, for us, it, like most everything, is ok in moderation.

the ebf thread is really really interesting...i understand montessori (some of them) push that early weaning crap too. staring at the boob...i know you weren't trying to be offensive, rhonwyn, and i really appreciate your hard work on this thread, but that was pretty offensive to me as well. my dd is never mindlessly staring at my breast, trapped; she's twiddling my bottom lip, looking into my eyes, we're laughing at each other, sharing smiles and bumping heads, she's putting her feet into my hair, talking with her mouth full, telling me "jokes", petting my arms. it's certainly not something i'm forcing her to sit still and do...

she was pretty busy at 9 months, i had to remind her to nurse, same thing at 14 months...i think it's easy to confuse self-weaning with busy. not that your babes weren't self weaning...


you know the white, mythological stuff, and the lack of real, concrete, history until such an older age is really not something im comfortable with either.

i would like to find out a little more about montessori, i think. and if that's not what we're looking for, well. sudbury? no...*bangs head on wall* i don't know what to do.

meant to add that thanks to your thoughtful posts, rhonwyn, i feel a whole lot more informed about waldorf, from a parents perspective. thank you!

Well, I aodre fairies, Santa, Rudolph. I love Harry Potter and LoTR and dragonflies. But I just find I don't need fairies to explain digestion and gnomes to explain math!

We unschool, BTW.

My husband and I are both Engineers. We work daily with people who could be classified as eggheads. Very intellectual and mechanical but not many social skills and very little creativity unless it is mechanical or electrical or software. One of the reasons we chose Waldorf because of the emphasis on the whole child - head, heart and hands. We wanted our children to be more well rounded than we are and more well rounded than many of the people we work with daily. Both of our children are very bright and our ds is a natural engineer. Our dd is reading on her own and determined to keep up with ds. We saw a real danger of them becoming one sided, in their heads kind of people.

My ds' teacher provides strong academics (you have to stay on top of this, some teachers are better than others) while also rounding out the rest of my child with lots of artwork, movement, singing, foreign languages and handwork. The computers can wait until later. Ds will pick them up fine. Ds would have been in a gifted program at public school and he would have done well at a very academic private school but he would have missed out on so much. He would have only done what he really likes, academics. Waldorf has made him more well rounded. Also, ds is surrounded by children that are good at different things. Some are academic like him, some are very artistic, some are very athletic, etc. At a gifted school he would have only seen one side. He and his classmates appreciate each others strengths.

The $9800 a year bugs me too but there is not much that can be done about it. The vast majority of the tuition money supports teacher salaries and medical insurance. The teachers don't make as much as public school teachers but we try to pay them a decent working wage. What we are seeing at our school is a loss of the lower middle class families due to tuition. The lower middle class doesn't qualify for tuition assistance and can't afford the tuition. So we have working poor supported by tuition assistance, upper middle class and some rich families. There are some lower middle class families who are lucky enough to have grandparents to pay tuition. Also, there is a sibling discount so only the first child costs $9800.

Whatever you chose, I wish you good luck and I hope your family finds a good fit.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/05/26/waldorf/index.html

Just saw this.

It isn't only PLANS that has a problem with Waldorf education.

Quoted from this article:
"Steiner's remarks on religion and race have caused an outcry among Waldorf critics, who say that Waldorf schooling cannot escape Steiner's bigoted roots. "Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable," said Steiner in an 1888 article in the German Weekly. Steiner's theory of reincarnation states that souls travel an upward path of consciousness, beginning with the "sub-races" (Africans) and ending with Aryans -- the most "enlightened" race. Said Steiner, "If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense ... Blond hair actually bestows intelligence." "

Yes, I know you have to place Steiner in historical context. But I'm sorry -- :Puke

Quoted from this article:
"Holland thinks these issues could be resolved if Waldorf educators and administrators would simply be honest about the inherent racism and anti-Semitism of some of Steiner's philosophies. A simple acknowledgment of Steiner's less-than-politically-correct viewpoints, along with a unified statement denouncing those viewpoints, is all Holland believes it would take for Waldorf schools, teachers and supporters to rise above accusations of racism and anti-Semitism."

Absolutely, I think it would help very much.

Yes, I know you have to place Steiner in historical context. But I'm sorry --

Yeah, but even in 1888, not everyone thought like that. He *could* have known better. Just because many whites would have been sympathetic to his views back then, doesn't mean he gets a pass. I know that no one here is suggesting that -- I'm just expanding on the point.

Like Mr. Holland (from the article), I have wondered why the national Waldorf organization (I believe there is such a thing) doesn't address the race issue head on. What possible controversy could there be about that? :confused:

I thought it was a decent article except for the end. She didn't like Waldorf, so she just dropped all her educational ideals and settled for public school as "good enough"? :scratch 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! ;) ) Perhaps she didn't care for Sudbury or Montessori either, and maybe homeschooling just isn't for her (she didn't mention hs as an option) but gee whiz! She seems to have really lowered her standards in the final analysis -- simply happy that her kids weren't turned into instant drones. Hmm.

That was a great article, breathless...I thought it would be an outright attack but it seemed pretty balanced. Though yeah I don't get her justification of her final decision. But you know if the values of waldorf don't fit with your own, of course it makes no sense to have your children there. I feel like it would be totally confusing to my Ds to suddenly be in a situation where the values at play completely clashed with our home life, and at the moment it feels like that's the way public school would be.

But this thread has been so helpful and has got me thinking more and more. I feel pretty strongly now, and always sensed before, that I like Waldorf for 3-4 and maybe Kindergarten and after that it really turns me off. I don't know what the answer will be, but I can't see us staying with it for that long.
The diversity issue is probably the number one issue for me. Once a child is 6 or 7 I think it's so important for them to be around all kinds of people with all kinds of backgrounds - not just race, culture, class, etc but also simply different personality types, family lifestyles, etc etc....

I've been thinking about my own experience: I grew up in a lower middle class artist/unconventional background (pretty typical of waldorf parents I know now). I went to a state school in London and my best friends were from all backgrounds; S, working class living with her single mother and grandmother in a council house; H, Pakistani girl in middle class suburban immigrant family; A, black british working class living with her dad.....Not one of these kids would have "fit" into a Waldorf school, none of their parents' would have been attracted to it or resonated with the values, but these were my best friends that I spent all my time with and learned so much from in ways that I didn't recognize at 7 yrs old.

So then when the one black parent in our parent toddler group says "No way!" would he send their bi-racial daughter to school there (for whatever reasons) I wonder, then why would I be comfortable sending Ds there, and why would I deprive him of the rich diversity I grew up around?... :eyesroll

I guess I've been wondering about it all and going back and forth and am now feeling a lot clearer.

I lean towards waldorf in its imaginative play, natural fibers, and activities for the most art but I think DaryLLL said it REALLY well.

For a great rebuttal to the Waldorf Critics site, check out this article:

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html

you will see that Steiner was in a different place in 1890 than he was in 1920 when he started the Waldorf schools after WWI. Also, the quotes often listed are out of context and do not contain the entire essay. Steiner believed in man moving beyond race and ethnicity to form a whole humanity together. Also, I believe that Holland has resolved the issue with anti-semetism (spelling?) and Waldorf and ruled in Waldorf's favor. The article above talks about the man who brought the whole issue up in Holland and how he has lost credibility.

I'm of Jewish descent, although the last religious Jews in my family were my great-grandparents. I've been an anthroposophist for many years and read lots of books and articles by Steiner. Nope, sorry, neither a racist nor an anti-semite. I don't have time to analyze the whole thing, explain where these accusations come from, point out exactly where and why they are wrong: I'm moving in less than two weeks and I have two sets of visitors coming and my graduation at McGill within those two weeks. I just hope I survive!

So here are some tidbits and one example.

On another list, one of the people who like to accuse Steiner of being a racist said, well what about the time Steiner said that blacks don't belong in Europe? Another participant pointed out, rather sadly, that Steiner was referring to black soldiers from Senegal being forced to fight on the French side in WW I. Steiner was actually saying that it was a bit unfair for people from another continent, with no interest in the outcome, being dragged into a war where they would mostly die for no reason at all. But this humanist remark was being misrepresented as racist. Low behavior? Yup.

In the 1920's Steiner was attacked by anti-semites. They accused him of being a Jew.

A quote from the Dutch report that Rhonwyn mentioned:
"In total the Commission examined and evaluated 245 quotations from the 89,000 page collected works of Rudolf Steiner, 145 of which were reported in the interim report. This is more than twenty times as many as the approximately one dozen statements that had been quoted in this discussion in the media about Anthroposophy. The great difference in the number of quotations is, by itself already, evidence of the fact that the debate about the question whether Anthroposophy embodies racism and racial discrimination has been conducted on the basis of grossly incomplete information. This incompleteness has led to a distorted picture – in the negative sense – of both Steiner’s ideas and the reputation of the anthroposophical movement in Holland today.

The conclusion of the Commission is that sixteen statements, if they were in public by a person on his or her own authority, could be a violation of the prohibition of racial discrimination under the Criminal Code of the Netherlands. The relevant article in the Criminal Code closely resembles article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. These sixteen statements are four more than the twelve that had been identified as discriminatory in the interim report. As is described in Steiner’s autobiography, one of these had been experienced as offensive by a Jewish connection of Steiner even in his own time.

The Commission finds again that any suggestion that racism is an inherent part of Anthroposophy, or that conceptually Steiner helped prepare the way for the holocaust, has proven to be categorically wrong. As a matter of fact, the investigation of the Commission shows that, beginning in the year 1900, he clearly spoke and wrote against the dangers of anti-Semitism, including in the periodical of a then existing German association against anti-Semitism existing at that time."

http://www.info3.de/ycms/artikel_190.shtml
Here is the url for anyone who wants to read a summary of the report

A quote from the Nazis on the incompatibility of Anthroposophy and Nazism:

"To briefly summarize my judgement," wrote Jakob Wilhelm Hauer, Professor of Religion at the University of Tuebingen and member of the Secret Service of the S.S.,

"every undertaking and activity of anthroposophy necessarily arises out of the Anthroposophical world view. The anthroposophical world view is in the most important points directly opposed to National Socialism. Therefore, schools which are built out of the anthroposophical world view and led by anthroposophists mean danger to true German education."(3)

another example:

Baeumler's hope was to find means to adopt aspects of Waldorf pedagogy into National Socialist education. He concluded, however, that the principles underlying anthroposophy contradict the aims of the National Socialistic State.
"The fateful distinction", he wrote, "occurs through the fact that Steiner replaces the theory of heredity with a different, positive theory. Steiner does not simply overlook the biological reality, but rather consciously converts it to its opposite. Anthroposophy is one of the most consequent antibiological systems." In that race and Volk are discounted in ahroposophy as the essential determining factor of individual capacity, Bauemler realizes that the objectives in Waldorf education, according to Steiner's principles, "can only be humanistic, and not based on race or ethnic group."(4)

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/waldorf/links1.htm
the url if you want to read the entire article

Nana

I'm moving in less than two weeks and I have two sets of visitors coming and my graduation at McGill within those two weeks. I just hope I survive!


Good luck with the move and visitors! Congratulations on your McGill graduation Deborah! Thanks for thoughtful responses.

Waldorf isn't for everyone but it really bums me out when it gets blackened with what I believe are false accusations. I believe that there is good and bad in all forms of education and that you can find stuff you don't agree with in any of them. You have to find what is right for your child and your family. You have to evaluate the particular school and it's community.

Thanks Rhonwyn. I'll survive the move and all that. The exciting challenge is finding a job in my new field.

I'm really fine with people not wanting waldorf schools, but I agree with you about the false accusations and distortions. I'm not crazy about montessori schools or public schools or free schools. I don't feel any need at all to go scrounging around trying to find the dirt on their founders or whatever. People can go for whatever sort of education they like for their children and it is fine with me!

The usual justification for the attacks on waldorf are people claiming that the real truth about the occult background of waldorf education is concealed, etc. What about doing a little bit of research before you put your children into a school? Steiner's books are in print. Hundreds of titles. A significant number have titles that indicate occult content. He is listed in many encyclopedias. Again, he is described as an occult researcher and titles of his main books are included in the article. Nowadays you can go searching on the Internet and find lots of stuff, some of it weird and incorrect, but still there is no shortage of information.

Waldorf schools are not supposed to be teaching parents about anthroposophy, but any parent who wants to find out about anthroposophy is certainly welcome to do so and none of the material is hard to find. My heavens, it is available in public libraries! You can buy books by Steiner in Borders. His books are in second-hand bookstores. You can buy them on Amazon.

Sorry for the rant...

Back to packing.

Deborah

Ita!

Okay my turn again ;)

Yes, information is available and parents should research their educational options. I don't have much sympathy for folks who didn't put in their due diligence but then cry about their choices afterwards.

BUT, I do have an issue with Waldorf schools that conceal their anthroposophical foundations. Granted, children in a Waldorf school do not have little Steiner "bibles" that they open up and study, so no one can accuse Waldorf schools of concretely teaching anthroposophy in the curriculum. But replicating art that represents spiritual symbols of souls and reincarnation, etc? C'mon -- that's like a school having children make little crucifixes out of clay but not mentioning Jesus, and then claiming that they "really aren't teaching anything directly" about Christianity.

It seems to me that Waldorf schools are following the letter of the law, but not the spirit. If anthroposophy is so open and humanistic, why aren't the schools more open about their foundation in it?

Okay Alohamom. Not my experience of waldorf education. Please say, what school and what symbols.

Thanks,
Deborah

DB, Is there anything Steiner wrote that you disagree with?

Thank you OP for this thread. I did not know a lot about Waldorf until I saw this thread. Reading this thread led me into a little research on my own. I now know that Waldorf is not for me and my ds. Thanks for getting me off my butt and making me find out more about Steiner and Waldorf.

Susan

Not sure what you mean by "Not my experience of waldorf education."

Do you mean that in your experience, you haven't personally seen artwork that represented anthroposophic spiritual concepts?

Or do you mean that the Waldorf schools in your experience have been completely open and forthright about anthroposophy?

The school I visited was in Wauconda, IL. Here is its website:

http://www.watersedgeschool.com

There is NO mention of anthroposophy anywhere that I could find on this website. When I attended the harvest festival / open house, there was no mention of anthroposophy anywhere in the school's literature. There was not even an oblique reference to "if you are interested in learning more about the philosophy of Waldorf, check out Steiner's books" kind of thing.

Im sending my dd to a Waldorf Charter School in 2 years. Ive been doing nothing but reading books about their cirriculum and their philosophies. A good friend of mine is a teacher at a school in California. She said Anthroposophy isnt taught in the school, or even mentioned to the children. The teachers read Steiners philosophy while they are being trained as a Waldorf teacher.

If you have concerns bc you are thinking of sending your dc to a Waldorf school or one just inspired by Waldorf, I would recommend talking to teachers, visiting a school, and asking the questions you are asking here, instead of assuming its a "cult" bc of things youve read on a website that is based on spreading the idea that Waldorf is weird. I went and talked with the director of the school, met the kindergarten teacher and they answered all my questions.

"But replicating art that represents spiritual symbols of souls and reincarnation, etc? C'mon -- that's like a school having children make little crucifixes out of clay but not mentioning Jesus, and then claiming that they "really aren't teaching anything directly" about Christianity.

It seems to me that Waldorf schools are following the letter of the law, but not the spirit. If anthroposophy is so open and humanistic, why aren't the schools more open about their foundation in it?"

- by AlohaDeb


They make replicas and artwork of all different spiritual and religious backgrounds. When they studied the creation story, for example, they did clay/"earth" figures of Adam. When they studied Judaism, they replicated the Star of David. It only makes sense that the idea of reincarnation would also be incorporated into the artwork :confused:

What is so wild to me is that I instinctively *felt* all the things Waldorf taught growing up. I never even knew anything like it existed until I read some New Age mag. and it discussed Waldorf!

And no, sorry, Deb, but being in awe of creation and beauty is not anthroposophy. It is a state of wonder and respect for this world that everyone should hold. If that's how anthroposophy is, um, "taught" in schools......... then........... yeah, I guess it's anthroposophy, then.

but I never found our school to be hiding it. The school through Sound Circle (a Anthroposophical group) offers classes on Anthroposophy ever so often to the parents but hardly anyone ever goes. The children study lots of different religions and philosphies during their years in Waldorf. They make lots of symbols during their time from crosses, to the Star of David, to Thor's Hammer and some Anthroposophical symbols that are used during form drawing.

I think how much Anthroposophy you encounter at a school depends on the school. Our school does mention Rudolph Steiner in the literature they give to parents. Here is what is on our website:

Our goal is to provide Waldorf education for the diverse Seattle community. Waldorf education is based on the understanding of the developing human being as given by Rudolf Steiner. His insights are the foundation for our curriculum and methods. In our school, academics are enlivened and balanced with artistic and social activities. Each lesson engages the students' capacities for doing, feeling and thinking. This learning is inspired both by the teachers' genuine curiosity and dedication to life. The teachers recognize and embrace each child's unfolding awareness.
To support our mission, together we attempt to create a healthy social environment which is a living model for the children. We seek a responsible, creative financial base within and beyond the school community.
At the Seattle Waldorf School, we have graduated twelve classes of 8th graders. Those students have traveled on to a variety of places; some to Waldorf High Schools, many to public high schools, some to private high schools and some to "Running Start" programs in local community colleges. These students exhibit a remarkable sense of self-confidence, initiative, and ability to learn. They are able to adapt to different environments with relative ease. Many students have attributed this to the social experiences and strong self-esteem they gained through their Waldorf education.

"Our highest endeavor must be to develop free human beings, who are able of themselves to impart purpose and meaning to their lives."
-Rudolf Steiner

"The need for imagination, a sense of truth, and a feeling of responsibility; these are the three forces which are the very nerve of education."
-Rudolf Steiner


Waldorf schools, which began in the esoteric mind of the Austrian philosopher, Rudolf Steiner, have forged a unique blend of progressive and traditional teaching methods that seem to achieve impressive results - intellectual, social, even moral.

Todd Oppenheimer, "Schooling the Imagination," Atlantic Monthly Sept.1999


The Seattle Waldorf School welcomes students of all races, religions and national origins and does not discriminate in the administration of its educational policies, admission policies, tuition assistance programs, staff hiring or other school programs.




Anthroposophy is not mentioned specifically because it is not a school for Anthroposophy but it would easy to take Rudolf Steiner, philospher and find it anything you wanted to know.

Perhaps the Waldorf school experiences you have had were not the same as mine (and many others, as evidenced by this thread). The diverse curriculum Candiland mentions was not evident at all in the school I visited.

"And no, sorry, Deb, but being in awe of creation and beauty is not anthroposophy. It is a state of wonder and respect for this world that everyone should hold. " by Candiland

I am glad that you have found ideals that you feel should be dictated to all who are less enlightened. I do not presume to have done so. Furthermore, are you really denying that Waldorf has its roots in anthroposophy?

Perhaps, as many have suggested, some Waldorf schools are quite open about their philosophical foundations in anthroposophy. However, MANY ARE NOT. And so, I began this thread to inform others about the anthroposophical roots of Waldorf, of which I had been naively unaware when beginning my search for educational options for my child. (And NO, my personal research did not consist only of the PLANS website.) I figured if I had been surprised, others might well be too.

I am actually very glad how this thread has been going. I tip my hat to Rhonwyn and Deborah for their thorough posts, as well as their pro-Waldorf links so that others reading here might get a balanced view of the pros and cons of Waldorf.

Thanks for the hat tip AlohaDeb! I agree that waldorf is not for everyone and that schools can differ a lot. I know that people have had bad experiences at waldorf schools. My experiences as a student, a sibling and a parent were almost all really great, especially in contrast with my time in public schools as a student. My experiences as a business manager at a waldorf school were fairly painful, (also great fun much of the time, as I really enjoyed the parents, the children and my colleagues) but I don't think the problems arose from anthroposophy being either hidden or displayed. Any non-profit organization struggling with the changes and challenges the school was struggling with in those three years would have been a hard place to work.

The school you mentioned, waters edge, is quite new and may not be typical (but what in the world can be typical amongst 800+ schools in 40+ countries?) in some ways. I am still curious about the spiritual symbols incorporated into the artwork. I gather they weren't appropriate to the general content of the coursework in some way?

Deborah

Perhaps, as many have suggested, some Waldorf schools are quite open about their philosophical foundations in anthroposophy. However, MANY ARE NOT. And so, I began this thread to inform others about the anthroposophical roots of Waldorf, of which I had been naively unaware when beginning my search for educational options for my child. (And NO, my personal research did not consist only of the PLANS website.) I figured if I had been surprised, others might well be too.

I am actually very glad how this thread has been going. I tip my hat to Rhonwyn and Deborah for their thorough posts, as well as their pro-Waldorf links so that others reading here might get a balanced view of the pros and cons of Waldorf.

The school you mentioned, waters edge, is quite new and may not be typical (but what in the world can be typical amongst 800+ schools in 40+ countries?) in some ways. I am still curious about the spiritual symbols incorporated into the artwork. I gather they weren't appropriate to the general content of the coursework in some way?

Deborah

The school is for 3.5 to 6 years of age. I don't remember any form drawing until 1st grade. In our Kindergarten, the teachers would have children draw houses to see where they were at developmentally. It was one of the criteria for 1st grade readiness. They only asked like maybe twice a year otherwise the kids drew whatever they wanted, brown and black crayons included!

House drawings help indicate where a child is developmentally. More complete houses (i.e. windows, curtains, chimney's, smoke, people in the windows) help the teachers determine if the child is ready for 1st grade. Another picture they look for is spontaneous drawing of mountains. Children often begin to draw pointy mountains when they start losing their teeth.

As moderator here, I would like to commend everyone who has been participating in this discussion with open mindedness and balance. I've had to keep an eye on it, even though I don't know enough about Waldorf to actively participate, just to make sure no one got too ticked off!! (but of course there has been no need for me to step in :D

Knowing what I know about some of the other forums (through my contact with the other mods) I must say, our Learning at School forum here has some of the most intelligent AND thoughtful, respectful participants of any of the Mothering forums, and I am so glad to learn from everyone here! I have also learned a ton about Waldorf through the threads that come up from time to time debating the pros and cons of this approach. I think it is a gift to visitors and learners to be able to make these threads part of their research, because members here really do their homework about this option.

Kudos!

AlohaDeb, my post wasn't meant to be snarky. I posted right before I went to bed and wasn't careful with how I worded my thoughts.

I didn't mean to insinuate that "all enlightened ppl hold creation and beauty in reverence", assuming you did not, or whatever. I thought that this idea was the base from which we ALL try to live our lives..... Trying to remain present, in that child-like state of wonder of the world that surrounds us. If that doesn't hold true for you, forgive me for the assumption.

From what I've gathered, this is the main focus of anthroposophy...... and I automatically assumed that this was the focus that we all want ourselves and our children to live by. Apologies if that isn't so.

i would like to mention a waldorf experiece i had... my friends daughter goes to a waldorf school and yes, i know that they are all different and i would love to here from pro waldof mamas as to if this is universal among schools, but she had a letter sent home about the fact that she had Hello Kitty shoes on. she had gotten them in a bag of hand-me-downs. this isn't a kid that watches tv and she just liked them... i understand the no media thing and thats fine, we don't do tv with our kids either. my concern with waldorf as well as montissori and sudbury model schools is that they are completly limeted to middle/upper class people. financial aid sometimes helps but the difference between 4 abd 10 thousand dollars per year isn't that helpful if you are lower class. my friend struggles fiancially and the shoes were free! so even if you can swing the $$$ to go there you then have to face up against the same crap i see in PS like your kid not having the "right" clothes. i know i put my kids in all kinds of hand-me-downs and i also avoid plastering cartoon media images all over them. i get that, i just think that things like this aren't gonna help with the diversity issues.

i teach at a free school located in the inner city of albany. before i found this place i considered lots of other alternitives. i know a lot of people that are involved in waldorf communites, and i like most of them very much. my biggest reasons for choosing this type of model are these: the diversity thing. my kids are 1/2 afghani and i wanted them to experience true diversity. i grew up where diversity meant an adopted chinese girl, and two mullato families who where being raised by single white mom's cause the black dadies took off, just to add to any sterotypes people might already have. lots of families we have at our school can't afford more than 20$ a month. some don't pay at all. others pay a couple hundred a month. it is all income based. my othe problem is that in my experience, in a lot of alternative models of school it is okay for the kids to explore and talk about their feelings as long as they are within a certin range of comfortability, but when they are something other than happy, sad, scared, nervous, etc... than they aren't okay. what about anger or hate? what about helping that "bully" as a community instead of sheltering our own children from him/her. not only can we help that child, but i find my children learn alot of compassion along the journey. i'm not trying to knock waldorf, i see a lot of people very happy with it, heck if i could have afforded it when i was looking at schools i might be sending my kids there right now. my question is that what happens to the kids that are too "imperfect" for these elite schools, let's just let them go to public schools, why not, they aren't our kids. well i have to say i feel pretty differently. my almost three yr old son has a good pal who lives in the neighborhood. his mom and dad who are off and on crack addicts left him with his nana when he was 3 weeks old. she has a bad back and he is a very active little 31/2 year old who has to stay inside with her a lot of the time. some days when he comes to school, he can be really angry, other days he's non stop smiley. they did't send him to our school because they were reasearching alternative schools on the internet (like i did) or because they heard we were a cheaper alternative than waldof (which some people do) they just ran into people around the neighborhood and someone who saw there need mentioned to her she should come check it out. kids like this deserve alternatives to the reg. PS tv watching life, too. not just kids who can afford to buy shoes that are PC.

sorry for the rant. it's late and i am soo excited to find somewhere to discuss this stuff that i think about all the time.

Know that your friends experience may not be what is happening in other waldorf schools. Guess thats why the responses here are so varied.

Being a person of color (Im 1/2 mexican descent) and living in a very small, mostly white town/community......I can expect to find lack of diversity in most of the schools where I live, public and private. Thankfully, the Waldorf school in town is a public-charter school.....so all can attend. :)

In Jan a little boy (age 3.5) joined my dd's mixed kinder, this little boy needed a lot of help. He had been in daycare from 3 months of age (not a Waldorf one). He hit, he bit, he spit, he used foul language (in context), he would curl up his fist before taking a good slug at any of the other children even the 6 yr olds! Do you know that the teachers put so much time and work into this little guy that by June he was a different child. Even my dd would say "x__ has changed so much, I love playing with him now, he doesn't spit at me and he doesn't hit anymore". He still has his moments, but the improvement in this child is amazing! He was dealth with by the entire group of children, the remedial teacher, and the 2 kinder teachers, not cast off as "a promblem". My own dd is looking forward to seeing him again in Sept and helping him everyday, she will be 6 yrs old.

Our Waldorf school is by no means perfect (far from it) but I think we have an absolutely wonderful staff of teachers who really really care about any kid that comes to our school.

There are some parents who really struggle financially to send their kids to our school but it means the world to them that their children have a Waldorf education.

About the Hello Kitty sneakers, my opinion is that the parent should have used better judgement, kept the sneakers for any other time but school time. I've seen children show up with flashing sneaks at our school and get turned right back around and sent home if they don't have other shoes in their cubby. My dd has clothes that are not exactly "Waldorf", they never leave home, if I know its not appropriate, she knows it too, no matter what it cost or if it was a gift from granny or a hand-me-down. Some people send thier kids to these schools specifically because of the policies, so when parent violates (for whatever reason) it needs to be addressed immediately. Just my opinion.

I agree with your point about imprefect chidlren...but I would extend that to include almost ALL private schools, not just waldorf. For truly difficult children, many schools with limited resources will try to send them elsewhere. But some choose to really put themselves out for a child. I think it depends a lot on the administrator and the teacher.

As for the shoes...my school was very clear in the handbook from the beginning. If it's truly a matter of money I would have covered over the characters with duct tape or tried to trade them for others. Or looked for handmedowns through the school bulletin board. walmart, target and payless sell character free shoes too, so I don't think you need to spend big money to get "pc shoes". In fact some urban public elementrary schools are getting just as strict and adopting uniforms or dress codes for some of the same reasons. Sure she's outraged...but probably, it was the mom that forgot the rule.

In regards to imperfect children: Our school tries to work with children that are imperfect but sometimes the resources are just not there and the children would have more help in a public school. Several kids with dyslexia and other learning difficulties have left for 1 - 2 years to attend special schools for their difficulties. They often come back to our school to finish out middle school. If the problem is behavorial, the teacher works with the child and the family. Ultimately though, if the child is disrupting the whole class and especially if the family is not working to improve the situation, the child will be asked to leave. You may see private schools as wealthy and elite but the budgets are usually very tight so there isn't a lot of resources to help truly difficult children. The majority of the budget goes to salaries, health care, maintenance on buildings and tuition assistance in form of reduced rates or sibling discounts.

In regards to dresscode: We have more problems with dresscode than anything else. Hello Kitty is a great example. Some teachers consider her media and others don't so you get mixed messages. When in doubt, it is better to ask ahead of time. Our biggest problem with the dress code is with the middle schoolers who are pushing the boundaries. I haven't seen any must have clothing items. Many of the families (even the wealthy ones) shop at 2nd hand stores because they believe in reduce, reuse, recycle.

Years ago,I went for a pre-school "interview" at a(very pricey) Waldorf school with my oldest son,who was then 4.I was working at the time and took off early for this appt.The person that I was supposed to be meeting with (at a specific time) wasnt even there and they suggested we walk around while we waited.We waited about 45 minutes and then an older kid jumped out of a tree and landed right on my son!He was bruised and scared & crying but thankfully wasnt badly hurt. I was amazed that they were letting these kids climb big trees unsupervised and there was all kinds of other bedlam going on.This man came & told me he would try the person who I was supposed to be meeting with at home and I said:You know what?Lets just forget about it !And I left. My experience with Waldorf was not a positive one - needless to say! Hugs,Catherine

i did make the point that it is a lot of private school, not just waldorf that tend to brush off hard kids...just to clarify... anyway, i hope there are more stories out there like cuqui's, but from a post i read on another discussion about waldorf here, someone was praising the fact that a four year old who watched lord of the rings wouldn't be coming back, i can't imagine that she would have been very tolarant towards the little boy i discribed above...i know, for every waldorf school/family, they feel and act different, but lets just say there were plenty of people agreeing that this little boy should go to school elsewhere..plus, i guess we all get to pick our own battles in life, for *me* i just choose to let there be a place for people in mine and my childrens lives even and sometimes especially when they aren't perfect.

This is a complicated problem. It is true that private schools often have limited resources for children with learning and behavioral difficulties, so even though they are seen as "rich" it doesn't always work out that way in practice. The waldorf school I worked at had one remedial teacher who was spread very thin.

How far teachers will go to help and work with a child depends on many factors. Are the parents strongly committed to keeping their child in the school? Will they work on the remedial activities on their own time? Can they make changes in the home environment (less or no TV, improved diet, earlier bedtime)? As public school teachers sadly comment, there is a limit to what teachers and schools can do to balance out a difficult home environment.

Many years ago at the WS my daughter attended, there was a mother with a drinking problem who abused one of her children. The school managed to rescue the kid from juvenile hall (that experience was apparently more destructive than the abuse!) find a family to take the child in, arrange for extra tutoring to help overcome some learning difficulties and bring the parents of the rest of the class onboard in being patient with some horrendous behavioral problems. The core of this effort was the class teacher who was determined to help, but was rightly concerned about the potential damage to the rest of the children in her class if she had an out of control child to deal with on a daily basis. I haven't seen this level of commitment from waldorf schools in general nor from other private schools, nor from public schools, nor from child protective services.

Ah well...I should talk. I barely managed to raise my own kid. Of course I was a high school drop out and a 17 year old unwed mother, so the fact that she is an excellent person in spite of me is comforting!
Nana

In regards to imperfect children: Our school tries to work with children that are imperfect but sometimes the resources are just not there and the children would have more help in a public school. Several kids with dyslexia and other learning difficulties have left for 1 - 2 years to attend special schools for their difficulties. They often come back to our school to finish out middle school. If the problem is behavorial, the teacher works with the child and the family. Ultimately though, if the child is disrupting the whole class and especially if the family is not working to improve the situation, the child will be asked to leave.

I just want to point out that in dewlady's original post, she used scare quotes around the word imperfect. She wasn't actually saying that children with learning disabilities are imperfect, like seconds at a clothing factory.

I believe the saying goes, "Nobody's perfect."

I can't say that reading your post has me falling all over myself to investigate Waldorf.

but from a post i read on another discussion about waldorf here, someone was praising the fact that a four year old who watched lord of the rings wouldn't be coming back, i can't imagine that she would have been very tolarant towards the little boy i discribed above...

I actually posted about the 4 yr old watching Lord of the Rings, let me clarify, why I was glad he wasn't returning. This boys parents made no effort to adhere to the school's media policy. The boy watched tv throughout the entire school year. If he had only watched, I would not have had a problem, but I was present when he told anther child "let's play Lord of the Rings, and kill everybody", it was the result in his play from watching violent films that I was horrified by. I do not believe his parents ever intended to use the school for more than a yr until he could go to public kinder. So I guess I should rephrase, I'm glad that the family is not returning to the school.

The 3.5 yr old I posted about earlier today, his parents have obviously made many changes at home and the dad has even taken a couple of mornings off from running a very busy business to go hiking and visit a local farm with the class. Apparently he grew up in a big city and has never gone on a hike or petted live farm animals, this is what he told us on the trips. This family is committed to Waldorf, it works for them.

To sum it up, it comes down to the parents and whether or not they truly have the child's best interest in mind. This can be achieved in any school, public or private, given that you have the parents, teacher & school on board.

About the Hello Kitty sneakers, my opinion is that the parent should have used better judgement, kept the sneakers for any other time but school time.

And what, pray tell, should she have worn to school? There have been times when my children have only had one pair of shoes that fit at a given moment (although they usually have two). For someone who is "struggling financially" as this mother is said to be, being sent that letter could be stressful and humiliating. Even "cheap" sneakers seldom run less than $15 a pair, and a pair that fits your child properly might not be available at all at that price. (BTDT, myself.) So it *is* a subtle form of elitism to ban Hello Kitty sneakers or make the child cover them with tape, as someone else suggested. It sounds like the school didn't attempt to talk the the parents in person before firing off a potentially hurtful letter. It seems as though they just assumed that a parent could procure new shoes at a moment's notice. As for "bad judgement", I wouldn't have thought of Hello Kitty as a media figure. I don't believe there is a Hello Kitty cartoon, is there? Isn't it just a brand, like Nike? Are swooshes considered unacceptable?

talk about embarassing, can you imagine how that would make a 3 yr old feel to have to wear duct taped shoes all day, as if that wouldn't draw more attention than smiling kitty cats.

about the "imperfect" thing... i wasn't at all refering to children with learning disabilities, because our culture seems to veiw these issues with a lot more acceptance than what i was referring to. by "imperfect" i was being slightly sarcastic in describing a kid that might not meet the standards that seem to be the expected norm at waldorf and other private schools...

my point that i am trying to *discuss*, because i don't claim that i know all the answers, is should a child that comes from a family that is mainstream or even dysfunctional, have less of a chance to experience good things in life. in trying to make our own kids childhoods perfect are people making an even bigger dividde between races/classes? i mention this because i feel that it is counterproductive to talk about wishing that there was more diversity but than not being willing to accept those diversities when they are there.

i mention this because i feel that it is counterproductive to talk about wishing that there was more diversity but than not being willing to accept those diversities when they are there.


Good point......but arent we only talking about TV/Movie watching.......and not allowing character clothing? I dont see how that is about diversity. Im thinking about sending my dd to waldorf, but do allow her to watch an hour of PBS in the morning.......and sometimes a video. She's seen Shrek, Nemo....(not LOTR!). So maybe this will be somewhat of an issue for me when I get there......though the thought of eliminating her TV viewing completely, is something I would comply with, or try to.

My friend had her ds attending waldorf charter school in my town this past year. THere was one child who had some serious behavior problems.....was hitting and bullying the other dc's. Every evening, this is all her ds talked about, this boy in his class that got all the attention. She finally pulled her ds out of school.........and right after that, while removing the boy from class, he bit a teacher right thru her clothes and broke the skin. The school told her they were upset about losing her ds......"we're losing the most difficult dc, and the best dc in the class". Now she homeschools.

Bc this school is a charter public school.......all dc's can attend. Its not limited by the money factor. But I dont think all kids are suited for waldorf either. Thats why reading about it and seeing for yourself how that particular school is run is so important, instead of making sweeping judgments about things youve heard or read on the internet. JMHO

I just want to point out that in dewlady's original post, she used scare quotes around the word imperfect. She wasn't actually saying that children with learning disabilities are imperfect, like seconds at a clothing factory.

I believe the saying goes, "Nobody's perfect."

I can't say that reading your post has me falling all over myself to investigate Waldorf.


I am not perfect either. ;) The school does its best with its limited resources. It doesn't have the money or the system that public schools have. I think it is very telling that many children who do leave due to difficulites do return after a couple of years. They don't want to go and they can't wait to get back.

Some teachers consider Hello Kitty media (she does have cartoon DVD's) just as they consider Barbie, Bratz and Polly Pocket as media characters. Some schools go so far as to eliminate all cartoon looking characters.

In general, all Waldorf schools have some sort of dress code that prohibits media characters (Micky Mouse, Pooh, etc.), often sports teams, cartoon characters, etc. The dress code is understood beforehand. Perhaps in this instance it was a bit harsh to send the letter but it may have been standard procedure at the school. If anything, I have seen our school as being too lax in the enforcement of dresscode. If the dresscode isn't enforced then what is the point? I send my kids to the school so they are not inundated (spelling?) with media. We very, very rarely watch TV. My kids do see some movies in the summer and on school breaks but never on a school night. My kids don't play computer games or game boys. It is what is expected if you go to the school. Why would you send your kid there if you don't support the policy? In this instance, the child was wearing hand me down clothes so perhaps another pair of shoes could have been found. Lord knows our lost and found is regularly overflowing and donated to Good Will.

As an aside, in my child's class there is a boy who is perpetually ripping a hole in the knees of his pants. Ripped or ragged clothes are not allowed. The family is not poor but they are stretched thin with sending 4 children to the school. The boy is of average size and many of the boys in the class are taller so the class has been handing down clothes to this boy and other smaller children in the class. Every little bit helps. We are a cohesive and close community and we are very supportive of each familiy's needs. That is why I love it here!

i understand that there are awesome ways for communities to pull together for struggling families, thats the best way, of course, i am just trying to show things from another angle...if people on the top half of society, which is the "norm" among families that can afford private schools, aren't willing to look out for the other 1/2, especially the ones a the bottom, then how can we truly make the world a more peacefull loving place? is it our responsability, or if we just seperate our kids from them enough and shelter them from everything that is not perfect, will those other ones just dissapear? or can we at least rest assured that our children will be different than them.

i think in the end we all want the same thing for our children...caring, understanding, peaceful citizens that can help others, love and see good in others while at the same time being thier true imaginative creative selves, free from the hurtful images of themselves and others brought on by the influence of media.

i guess i am just saying that i think that this should be avalible for all little kids, not just mine... obviouslly i can't save every child, but the ones that cross my path deserve what i can offer. i just try to constantly make sure i am really doing all i can.

here is something i have witnessed at the free school i work at... one day i was watching some of the preschoolers playing in the corner together. my daughter, along with 3 other kids were sitting at a toy picnic table. there is a large supply of wooden blocks and peices of random materiel, (not silk, just scraps) avalable to the kids, all aquired over the years for *free*. the kids had spread a lage peice of fabric over the table and were laying out various shaped wooden blocks on top. they were fully imersed in a grand feast. my immediate thought was, "i sure wish we could afford some of those really cool wooden waldorf toys, they would love them!" but then as i watched i realized something. (the wooden fake food and kitchens are very cool, even if expensive, BTW) i realized that to these kids, it didn't matter at all. there imaginations were ultimitly engaged. it was beautiful to watch the power of imagination at work. then i started to see other examples. there is a large wooden junge gym in the "big room" (also the preschool) of our school. the older kids come in and out of this space throughout the day often stopping to play with the little kids along the way, much to the delight of the preschoolers. over the spring semester this year it became a really fun activity for all to tie up old sheet/peices of fabric like hammoks all over the wooden structure. the big kids were petitioned to tie the fabric and all the kids, 2yrs-8th grade, enjoy the intricate web of swings and hiding spots. all this for free!

maybe kids use even more imagination when they have to.. it can be beautiful.

i'm not saying everone else shuold do it the way we do, but i have to argue that each school uses it's resources the way they choose, i am only trying to portray another way.

... So it *is* a subtle form of elitism to ban Hello Kitty sneakers or make the child cover them with tape, as someone else suggested...

I don't think it is a subtle form of elitism that Waldorf promotes. I think it's right out there in the open. From the approved toys to the tuition to the dress code, I think Waldorf wears its elitism right on it's sleeve. But it does it under the guise of "natural" learning, so it often seems to be an elitism that parents who would normally avoid private schools can feel comfortable with.

Add that to the fact that so many Waldorf schools are not completely open about the influcence that anthroposophy has had on shaping the Walforf philosophy and you have, in a nutshell, my objections to Waldorf.

I think Waldorf wears its elitism right on it's sleeve. But it does it under the guise of "natural" learning, so it often seems to be an elitism that parents who would normally avoid private schools can feel comfortable with.

Yeah, I would fall into that category, and I'm starting to question it more and more. As Ds gets older and I think needs less "protecting" from the world, I feel quite odd about him being in that elitist, closed world of Waldorf. Just the selection process for the playgroup (3-4 yrs) turns me off big time. We have friends who's daughter goes there, who are fantastic parents, extremely conscientious, and the dad is a big believer in Steiner. Still they barely scraped through a second interview because they let their daughter watch one half hr video (carefully selected) a day. And I know for sure our neighbor's son won't get in because he watches TV constantly, but his mom has chronic fatigue syndrome, dad is out supporting family, and this is a kid that could really use the waldorf environment to give him extra support due to his mom's illness. But he won't match up to what they're looking for, no way. How do I explain that to DS, down the line? "A**** can't go to your school because they don't want him"???

Totally not trying to start a debate here....but I don't get how not wanting the children to wear character clothes (ie Hello Kitty) and not watching television is elitist. It is a philosophy about childhood and parenting...how they don't want their children exposed to commercialism and media. Waldorf isn't saying "we don't accept you" or "you aren't good enough" it's that they have a policy on media and commercialism and ask that parents follow this. It isn't for everyone, but I don't think it is elitist on that basis.

I guess I don't understand how this is any different than say for example, AP. Is it elitist to co-sleep, cloth diaper, etc. and want to find other moms who practice your similar beliefs? Are we elitists because we frown upon those who CIO?

here is something i have witnessed at the free school i work at... one day i was watching some of the preschoolers playing in the corner together. my daughter, along with 3 other kids were sitting at a toy picnic table. there is a large supply of wooden blocks and peices of random materiel, (not silk, just scraps) avalable to the kids, all aquired over the years for *free*. the kids had spread a lage peice of fabric over the table and were laying out various shaped wooden blocks on top. they were fully imersed in a grand feast. my immediate thought was, "i sure wish we could afford some of those really cool wooden waldorf toys, they would love them!" but then as i watched i realized something. (the wooden fake food and kitchens are very cool, even if expensive, BTW) i realized that to these kids, it didn't matter at all. there imaginations were ultimitly engaged. it was beautiful to watch the power of imagination at work. then i started to see other examples. there is a large wooden junge gym in the "big room" (also the preschool) of our school. the older kids come in and out of this space throughout the day often stopping to play with the little kids along the way, much to the delight of the preschoolers. over the spring semester this year it became a really fun activity for all to tie up old sheet/peices of fabric like hammoks all over the wooden structure. the big kids were petitioned to tie the fabric and all the kids, 2yrs-8th grade, enjoy the intricate web of swings and hiding spots. all this for free!

maybe kids use even more imagination when they have to.. it can be beautiful.

i'm not saying everone else shuold do it the way we do, but i have to argue that each school uses it's resources the way they choose, i am only trying to portray another way.

I think you would be pleasantly surprised to see how simple the toys are in the Kindergartens. In my children's kindergarten, most of the toys were found at second hand stores (dishes, etc.), made by parents (capes, cradle, tree blocks, felted fruit, felted dolls, Waldorf baby dolls in many skin tones) or donated by parents (wooden kitchen, trestles, etc.). Everything is well loved and used. Most of the fancy wooden toys you see in catalogs are bought by parents for their homes. The schools prefer to have things made by the community. The children in the Kindergarten often play as you have described above. Trestles become houses, stores, planes, pirate ships, castles, etc. Horse chestnuts (buckeyes) and acorns are used as currency and pretend fruit.

I think you have found a wonderful school. It seems to have many Waldorf elements in its simplicity of toys and the natural materials used.

I don't think it is a subtle form of elitism that Waldorf promotes. I think it's right out there in the open. From the approved toys to the tuition to the dress code, I think Waldorf wears its elitism right on it's sleeve. But it does it under the guise of "natural" learning, so it often seems to be an elitism that parents who would normally avoid private schools can feel comfortable with.

Add that to the fact that so many Waldorf schools are not completely open about the influcence that anthroposophy has had on shaping the Walforf philosophy and you have, in a nutshell, my objections to Waldorf.

What you see as elitism, I see as reality. It costs money to run a school. Our teachers earn a decent salary that is less than public school teachers that takes up a large part of tuition. Our teachers receive health care which also takes up a large part of tuition. We have to pay for our buildings and maintenance. Materials for the classrooms cost more than regular Walmart materials because they are usually natural materials (beeswax crayons) and organic. Every year we struggle with the budget. A large part of the budget goes to lowering the tuition for families with multiple children and for lower income families. It is a financial sacrafice for many of the families that attend our school. Tuition for us is a second mortgage. We don't own fancy cars or vacation homes, we don't go on fancy vactions, and we both work to pay tuition. Our school has a very good financial diversity in the families who attend. Some are wealthy and some are downright poor. The wealthy may not sacrafice as much but they are supporting the poorer families by paying higher tuition and by donating large sums of money to the operating budget and the capital budget.

All private schools and many public schools have approved toys, dresscodes and culture. Montessori schools have their special toys for learning. Catholic schools have uniforms as do many public schools now. If you don't like the culture or the rules, you are free to go elsewhere. For our family, the culture at Waldorf with the emphasis on letting kids be kids, natural toys, no media, organic food, choice on vaccination, recognizing the spiritual in the child without being overly religious suits our family.

Totally not trying to start a debate here....but I don't get how not wanting the children to wear character clothes (ie Hello Kitty) and not watching television is elitist. It is a philosophy about childhood and parenting...how they don't want their children exposed to commercialism and media. Waldorf isn't saying "we don't accept you" or "you aren't good enough" it's that they have a policy on media and commercialism and ask that parents follow this. It isn't for everyone, but I don't think it is elitist on that basis.

I guess I don't understand how this is any different than say for example, AP. Is it elitist to co-sleep, cloth diaper, etc. and want to find other moms who practice your similar beliefs? Are we elitists because we frown upon those who CIO?

Waldorf schools ask for parental support of the culture. If the parents can't support it, why do they want to send their kids there anyway? When we started my son watched TV and before we started the teachers asked us if we could give it up. We said yes we would, they took our word and my son got in. We gave up the TV. I am sure if we said 'No way!' we love TV and can't live without it!, then they would have said 'I don't think Waldorf is for you.' Every year we have more children apply than there are spaces. Naturally those parents who are supportive of the culture are given priority.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that there are Waldorf snobs just as there are Montessori and other private school snobs. I just haven't seen them at our school. What I have seen, is a school that bends over backwards to support the family of the children with difficulities. They are often asked to have homelife that is supportive of Waldorf culture. Most comply because they see the benefit to their child.

i do think that you seem to have a very beautiful community, i don't doubt that. i guess the bottom line is that of course you have a right to choose that world for your children...
i guess i don't choose that because i disagree that if a child dosen't have a family that can/will comply to these rules, that they deserve to be cast out of my or my childrens lives. they don't make those decisions...they are just little kids. '
i hear that you guys are really putting yourselves out for "poor" families, that is also awesome. i get it that $$ goes. salaries at our school are 8000$ a year. thats what we all make. we have a ramshakle old building that is well loved, and beautiful in it's own way.. i also am not trying to suggest that everyone be like us.. i am just trying to put things into perspective. i just question what is really important in life for OURSELVES. this is just ME. i reiterate.
the word ELITISM defined:conciousness of or pride in belonging to a select of favored group.
as an AP mom, i do not look down upon the way other people do thing, just as i hope they won't look down upon me. we are all doing the best we can for our little guys, i trully beleive that.

You are very fortunate to have found a school like you have. 25 years ago when our school started the teachers made similar salaries to your teachers. They taught for love alone and the parents gave everything to start and build the school because they wanted a Waldorf education for their children.

In a perfect world, I would be able to go to a Waldorf Public School and all children would be accepted because the school would have the resources to help all children. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in my children's school years. Too many people who don't understand or like Waldorf, label us cultists, religious or worse. For us, it was a choice of choosing a pubic school that totally assaulted our values of simplicity, reverence for nature, recognizing that all humans have a spirit and that children should be allowed to be children and develop at their own pace or paying for a school where we found all of these elements and a supportive parent body to build the culture. In Seattle, there is one public school that comes close to this and their waiting list is a mile long. My big question is, why don't they replicate this school program in other neighborhoods? I willingly pay my taxes for public schools and vote for all levies, why can't I have the public school that I want for my kids?

Anyway Dewlady, I don't have any angst about what you have written. As you have stated, we are both choosing what we feel is best for our children. I would like to have more diversity at our school but we all have to choose the best of an imperfect situation.

Peace.

Rhonwyn...(and others),
i agree, no hard feelings, just exploring my own thoughts, actually it was a helpful dicussion. just feelin' love for all those little ones out there, regardless of who thier parents are...they deserve the world...they'll have the world...i just want it to be a peaceful, beautiful, gentle loving one for them all...especially since that is where my kiddos will be and i love them unceassingly. peace right back at you.

Sorry- I am new to this and still learning to use these boards- just wanted to comment on my (brief) Waldorf experience...

Sorry- I am new to this and still learning to use these boards- just wanted to comment on my (brief) Waldorf experience...

Not all schools are the same. My children have black and brown crayons available to them and they had them avalible in Kindergarten. Their teachers said 'How can we exclude those colors when we have children of those colors who need them to draw people like themselves?' This is paraphrased. Also, parents are allowed in my son's main lesson. Several parents help during the day because it is a large class.

I must say beautifulaltadena that your responses are rather trollish especially since this is a thread that has been dead for sometime. Makes me wonder why you bring it up?

Wow! A racially diverse Waldorf school! Where do you live? You can just say the general region if you are comfortable! That sounds awesome.... we chose a different school here in the greater Los Angeles area rather than the Waldorf school... even though we liked some of what we saw at the local Waldorf school we decided against it- due to weirdness we saw and weirdness we just heard rumors of from others. The Waldorf school here is more culturally diverse than some in SoCal but that ain't sayin' much-- it definitely DOES NOT reflect the demographics of the neighborhood in which it is located.

Sorry if you consider me trollish... this thread is on the first page of topics towards the very beginning of the posts on education outside the home. I am new to your forums and don't know about the etiquette of replying to "dead" threads etc. I will try to exercise more care in the future. As for my motives, having just been through an agonizing process choosing a school, and having visited three local Waldorf schools and heard secondhand stories about others, I suppose I am rather passionate about the subject. Excuse me if I have offended you in any way. I have deleted my comments about the black crayons and issue of rote imitation and memorization-- two "red flags" from our Waldorf visits. I am very sorry to upset you. I am sure that you are much like me, a loving and devoted mom trying to do the best for our kids in a very complicated and difficult society!

Hi there--just a clarifying point. A thread is never "dead" until a moderator pulls it or sends it to the pen for review. In fact, many times I will pull up an old thread if a member is asking for more info or repeating a question that already had a 6 page thread on the topic! If you haven't read the guidelines on the opening boards, they are pretty simple, and I encourage you to do so. However, I don't think you were in violation. This thread was clearly started for those who wanted to discuss some unhappinesses about Waldorf. When I read your post (I read all posts for Learning at School as mod) I didn't consider it trollish in context of the whole thread. If you had posted on a thread called "reasons why I love Waldorf" it would have been different. Does that make sense?

:)

Perhaps a better term than dead thread would be a dormant thread. The whole Waldorf thing had been pretty well thrashed out so I was surprised to see it surface again. As a Waldorf parent, I have a real problem with the Waldorf Critics site and the accusations they throw around. A person gets tired of being told they are in a cult. I don't see the same level of animosity toward Montessori, Catholic or other private schools but I may not be as sensitive to that. Being a Waldorf parent can be a constant struggle against the mainstream much like being an AP parent.

The school my children attend is in Seattle WA and it is not as racially diverse as I would like it to be but then again, Seattle has a pretty low African American population especially in the north end where the school is located. We do, however; have several African American children, several Hispanic children and a good population of Asians children in the school. Crayons and pencils of all colors are available to the children. My son regularly used a black crayon for rigging on his pirate ships he drew in Kindergarten. He also used brown and black to draw Martin Luther King Jr. for the January page of his calender he made this year.

Anyway, don't judge all Waldorf schools and Waldorf education by what you have seen in one or two other schools. We have 3 schools in the Seattle area, 2 I like and 1 I do not. Had that 1 been the only one in the area, we would probably be in public school now!

Again, I am sorry for jumping on you beautifulaltadena.

i'm surprised to see waldorf bashed so much on mdc. i don't know why, i just am...

rhonwyn and deborah, i am extremely impressed by your patience in answering these posts!

eta, i didn't realize this thread was so old :blush :blush :blush i am very sorry to bring it back up...i had read through the whole thing and just felt like commenting.

i'm surprised to see waldorf bashed so much on mdc. i don't know why, i just am...

rhonwyn and deborah, i am extremely impressed by your patience in answering these posts!

Thanks for the compliment.

I really appreciate the way Mothering manages to combine a considerable degree of free speech with a high level of courtesy and consideration. It is a very tricky balance and one that I haven't experienced in any other online forum. :thumb
:thumb :thumb :thumb

Nana

I have always felt so comforted by a waldorf atomosphere. I have met many teachers at womens groups and waldorf fairs. I have taken my todler to a group
and I loved the candle for story time, and the singing, and the crafts. I do agree that if you child is not used to that at home they will take longer to feel comfortable in that setting.
I am planning to beggin Waldorf Tescher Training so I will get the whole story
before my children are enrolled. We can't afford it anyway! I think on the whole most of the waldorf staff feel torn about the high tuition fees. But it cost a lot of money to run a school and pay the staff and insurance!

I have always felt so comforted by a waldorf atomosphere. I have met many teachers at womens groups and waldorf fairs. I have taken my todler to a group
and I loved the candle for story time, and the singing, and the crafts. I do agree that if you child is not used to that at home they will take longer to feel comfortable in that setting.
I am planning to beggin Waldorf Tescher Training so I will get the whole story
before my children are enrolled. We can't afford it anyway! I think on the whole most of the waldorf staff feel torn about the high tuition fees. But it cost a lot of money to run a school and pay the staff and insurance!

Good luck on your training! The whole tuition thing makes me sad too. I wish I could pay for everyone who wants to attend Waldorf and can't. You do know, that most Waldorf teachers receive free tuition for their children as a part of their benefits?

We tried Waldorf, but the more I read about Anthroposophy the more uncomfortable I felt with it. I am Native American, Ivy League-educated and my husband is the same. I grew up in the 1970's and watched my mom, a Navajo woman who grew up in a traditional matriarchal society, happily join the ERA movement and try to bring the rights that we take for granted in traditional Native American cultures to women in a America. I remember how she cried when the ERA bill died. My father, a Yankton Nakota Sioux (NOT a patriarchal tribe, as some would-be shamans would try to tell ya) supported my mother 100%. With this said, I come from a line of women accustomed to a certain respect and I am highly educated about my own traditions, both at home (I come from a line of medicine people) and in college (I studied Native American cultures in college and made documentaries up and down the Americas). BTW, I feel silly even having to give my qualifications, but the Waldorfian response had me so shaken. So, when I had questions about things I had read at the Waldorfcritics website (I was particularly concerned about parental complaints about the teaching of history, one African American mom saw her child copying pictures of Africans with paternalistic quotes beneath, negative Anthroposophic views on the art of filmmaking by a filmmaker mother, and another mother's experience with her daughter being corrected for mistakenly drawing a woman with black hair, it was changed to blonde.) I went to the administrator of my Waldorf school with pages of printouts that were heavily footnoted and marked passages from Steiner books demonstrating Aryan bias I had purchased from the school and he laughed at me to my face. He refused to even deign to look at the material and refused to answer my questions in a meaningful way. I was confused and bewildered, I was not expecting this reaction. When I spoke (tentatively) to other parents and teachers they were equally dismissive. They did not seem to care about these things because they enjoyed the overall effect of the Waldorf environment more than the truly troubling accusations against it. They chose not to do the research. My husband wondered why such freethinking individuals could not just disassociate themselves with Steiner and build their own school system that more accurately represents their ideals and wants and needs. I have to ask myself the same question. When I tried to speak to my daughter's teacher she simply looked scared and did not want to talk to me at all. It was such a different reaction than what my mother had received at my public school in the 1970's. The principal had listened to her concerns about the teaching of Native American history and had told her they would change it and they did. The teachers were completely supportive and totally welcomed her input. The strange silence and the closing of the doors on our family made me feel strange about the whole thing. I really made me think of the parameters of race relations in this country. It is subtle, but interesting. I took in San Francisco a class taught by Betitia Martinez (author of 500 Years of Chicana History) called Challenging White Supremacy and a bit part of it was getting white liberal activists to understand, truly, the parameters of their own priviledge being white. It was fascinating and continues to give me grounding and I believe made those activists more effective in the good work they do.

I am sorry you had such a bad experience Bahesmama. I can only speak about my own particular school and my own experiences.

Our school fairly regularly has Native Americans come to the school for blessings and presentations. The school has a multicultural committee that has seen that all classrooms have skintone pencils for the whole rainbow of humanity as well as books and pictures reflecting all of humanity. The school has tried to expand from the Northern European background of Waldorf to encompass all of humanity. This has been done very successfully at many Waldorf schools overseas.

I read about the black crayon thing on the waldorf critics site and asked my children's Kindergarten teacher about it. He said that his Kindergarten had black and brown crayons so that all of the children could draw people of different backgrounds and draw people that looked like themselves.

I hope that you find a school that works for you.

I know this lady who started a Waldorf school down in the states somewhere about 20 years ago, and now she doesn't like them. She told me that they are good for little girls who are all "fairy-like" and want to please everyone with their paintings and such, but it's definately not for every kid.

I haven't researched Waldorf much..... the little I know was enough to turn me off.

I think a Waldorf school can be just as limiting as a regular public/private school. Things like arts and music are seriously under-represented in traditional schools, but academics are seemingly forbidden in Waldorf schools.

Some kids LIKE academics. My oldest boy was begging to be taught to read at age four. He read the first Harry Potter book on his own, cover to cover, at age six. He loves numbers and knew all his multiplication tables up to the twelves by age seven. According to Waldorf philosophy, he wouldn't have been allowed to learn that. I think that's twisted; people should be able to learn about whatever interests them.

Thank you for your post Bahe.

jumping in here for the learning experience.

I liked academics and I am toying with the idea of Waldorf...but Dar will learn to read when she wants too & no school is going to prevent that.

I recently attended a parent evening at our Waldorf school and someone asked about teaching their 6 yr old to read.
All the teachers answered the same: ' if your child asks to learn the alphabet, teach them but do not you initiate the teaching'. I'm happy with that. My 6yr old has been asking about the alphabet since the summer so I got the Oak Meadow Kindergarten cirriculum and started teaching her the alphabet. I only do this when she initiates it, I never force or push. She is doing great and her teacher is quite okay with it.

Teaching your child to read is not discouraged in Waldorf, just be sure it is the child initiating the lesson no the parent wanting to keep up with the kid next door. Follow your childs lead. BTW, my 4yr old usually goes off to do something else when I homeschool my 6 yr old, she has no interest, she will ask the ocassional ? about this word or that letter, but for the most part she'd rather go off and pretend, put on a puppet show, or finger knit.

Like Rhonwyn & Nana have mentioned many times, every school is different, if you have choices in Waldorf schools, check them all out.

Thanks Cuqui. I'm thinking about it. :)

I haven't researched Waldorf much..... the little I know was enough to turn me off.

I think a Waldorf school can be just as limiting as a regular public/private school. Things like arts and music are seriously under-represented in traditional schools, but academics are seemingly forbidden in Waldorf schools.

Some kids LIKE academics. My oldest boy was begging to be taught to read at age four. He read the first Harry Potter book on his own, cover to cover, at age six. He loves numbers and knew all his multiplication tables up to the twelves by age seven. According to Waldorf philosophy, he wouldn't have been allowed to learn that. I think that's twisted; people should be able to learn about whatever interests them.


Actually in the higher grades, Waldorf is very academic and many children come out of 8th grade ahead of their peers in public school.

We were never told not to teach our children to read. What were told is that it should be initiated by the child and be balanced by other things. My oldest is a case in point. At the age of 4 all they wanted were fact books but it was limiting their growth. So we made an agreement, 1 fact book and 1 story book. My oldest now loves story books which they read by themselves and we also read at bedtime. My oldest is very academic and if they were at public school they would be very one sided like many engineers with whom I work.

Waldorf stretches my children and makes them more well rounded. If you get a good teacher, your child will receive a very good academic education along with a very good arts education making for a very well rounded individual.

at our waldorf toddler class the instructor does a few little "puppet plays", nothing creepy... just a story about some puppet shining the stars before bed...

Also, before we start eating our snack and enjoying our tea she does light a candle in the middle of the table and we say a quick thanks to mother earth / mother nature for our food and time.

Not too wierd. The kids enjoy it all.

...academics are seemingly forbidden in Waldorf schools.

Now in my tenth year as a waldorf parent, and with my second child finishing eighth grade this year, I can say there are definitely academics in Waldorf schools. Not in kindergarten, not too much in first grade, but it increases throughout, and my high schooler was certainly well-prepared for her transition from Waldorf grade eight to Catholic high school a couple of years ago.

For 2tadpoles: Our school is pretty close to you. After all, it's a small state!

David

I've been reading through the critics discussion list archives (usually called the WC) and I've checked out their web site. I find them a bit frustrating because they have been at this criticism of waldorf education and anthroposophy thing for 10 + years now. They seem to feel that it is really important to warn people about how terrible it all is. And yet...if you look through the articles on the site...how much is anecdotes and personal stories? How much is just negative articles copied from other people's research? Do you find anything with footnotes? Are the footnotes the sort that can be followed up?

Is the criticism of waldorf education based on any sort of methodical research? Are there facts or just stories? Do they substantiate their claims that the problems with waldorf are fundamental?

As you can see from the various responses on this list, waldorf schools vary a lot. There are over 900 schools in the world, plus thousands more preschools. It would make sense that a significant number of people would have bad experiences with the waldorf schools just based on the numbers of schools.

I won't say that there are never any problems at waldorf schools. I will argue that there are no deep, fundamental, weird, nasty, horrible racist principles represented by the waldorf schools and if there were, the critics would have managed to document them by now. I mean 10+ years of frantic criticism and they haven't actually built a simple, presentable case with scholarly footnotes?

At this point I'm beginning to feel that waldorf education is very fortunate in its critics...

Is the criticism of waldorf education based on any sort of methodical research? Are there facts or just stories? Do they substantiate their claims that the problems with waldorf are fundamental?
[snip]
It would make sense that a significant number of people would have bad experiences with the waldorf schools just based on the numbers of schools.

I won't say that there are never any problems at waldorf schools. I will argue that there are no deep, fundamental, weird, nasty, horrible racist principles represented by the waldorf schools and if there were, the critics would have managed to document them by now. I mean 10+ years of frantic criticism and they haven't actually built a simple, presentable case with scholarly footnotes?


Hi Deborah, I saw footnotes listed in the Articles section, which has some pretty methodical research demonstrated. These were the articles I had printed out and double checked with some of the Steiner books I had purchased. These were the pieces that the administrator at my school refused to acknowledge. One of the concerns at the Waldorfcritics site was just what you noted. There are no numbers, the Waldorf schools do not keep them and do not conduct exit interviews with parents that leave the school. There was also a concern over testing. There are no hard numbers to support some of the assertations made by Waldorf literature concerning students. The only study conducted was done in Germany and found that Waldorf students actually performed poorly compared to other students from similar backgrounds. Being trained as a social scientist myself I found this information pretty incredible, especially considering what the tuition was costing us!

The link to the articles section is:
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles.html#Racism
and the article that I had questions about was:
2001
The Art of Avoiding History. This is a reply that Peter Staudenmaier wrote to Göran Fant's article The Art of Making White into Black. Both articles were originally published in the Swedish skeptical-humanist magazine Folkvett in 2001.

I went to the school looking for coherent answers and received what I can only describe as a chilling effect to inquiry. I just wanted to be treated in a courteous manner and be comforted. I also checked out the Waldorfanswers site and was put off by the repeated assertations that the Waldorfcritics were accusing Steinerism of being akin to Satanism, as that was nowhere in anything I had read. It just seems like the leadership of Steinerism (I think this is a more accurate name) are unbending and refuse to look critically at all at their founder. I believe we should look at our elders. My husband and I couldn't help but see a comparison to the Founding Fathers, particularly, Washington and Jefferson, who spoke and fought for freedom, yet, were slaveowners. Why can't we look at Steiner as a man of his times? He published anti-semitic tracks and was fired by his employer (who was Jewish and a friend and terribly hurt by the hatred when he read the article). The Waldorfanswers site seems to try to defend Steiner by saying he wasn't anti-semitic but anti-Zionist. It seems like maybe we should spend less time defending a 19th century European man, Steiner, and more building the kind of schools we want for our children and our world, now in the 21st century.

I also did research on German Kindergartens and Steiner's approach was hardly original, it was the norm at the time. It was another fellow, I can't remember his name right now, that developed much of the approach used by by Waldorf schools. It was also demonstrated at the Worlds Fair in (I believe) St. Louis and inspired many young SAHM's at the time to take charge of their children's early education.

I would like to see a natural environment and intent for my children's education but without Steiner and his Atlantis hokum. It was cool in the early 20th century, with occultism, but now, I want something more true to who I am. Yes, I am a sundancer and participate in traditional ceremonies of my people, but I am, I don't know what, just different than occultists of that time period and Steiner just read silly to me.

Bahesmama, which school did you get this response from in regards to your questions? Just curious as my questions have always been answered in a friendly manner here in Seattle.

Hi Deborah, I saw footnotes listed in the Articles section, which has some pretty methodical research demonstrated. These were the articles I had printed out and double checked with some of the Steiner books I had purchased. These were the pieces that the administrator at my school refused to acknowledge. One of the concerns at the Waldorfcritics site was just what you noted. There are no numbers, the Waldorf schools do not keep them and do not conduct exit interviews with parents that leave the school. There was also a concern over testing. There are no hard numbers to support some of the assertations made by Waldorf literature concerning students. The only study conducted was done in Germany and found that Waldorf students actually performed poorly compared to other students from similar backgrounds. Being trained as a social scientist myself I found this information pretty incredible, especially considering what the tuition was costing us!

http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Studies.htm

Here is a list of some studies from the waldorfanswers site. So the information is not only “pretty incredible” it is also incorrect. I will admit that some of the studies are old, some are available only in German, but nevertheless, there is a body of research. You could also contact the Rudolf Steiner Library at 518 672-7690. They collect doctorate theses on anthroposophy and/or waldorf education and have a substantial collection at this point. In addition, there are, I believe three Masters programs in Waldorf Education in the U.S.: one at Antioch New England, one at Sunbridge College and possibly one at Rudolf Steiner College. In order to complete the degree, each student has to present a thesis. More research.

The link to the articles section is:
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/articles.html#Racism
and the article that I had questions about was:
2001
The Art of Avoiding History. This is a reply that Peter Staudenmaier wrote to Göran Fant's article The Art of Making White into Black. Both articles were originally published in the Swedish skeptical-humanist magazine Folkvett in 2001.

So, you read Staudenmaier’s reply, but not Goran Fant’s article. Okay.

Here are a couple of quotes from a rebuttal to an article by Staudenmaier. First a bit from Staudenmaier, then the reply/critique.

Staudenmaier says: Paragraph 13:
Anthroposophy's Racialist Ideology
Building on theosophy's postulate of root races, Steiner and his anthroposophist disciples
elaborated a systematic racial classification system for human beings and tied it directly to their
paradigm of spiritual advancement. The particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is
difficult for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important to understand the
pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine has had on anthroposophists and those they've
influenced.PS5

His matching footnote: PS5 Steiner's racial teachings, a crucial element of the anthroposophic worldview, are spread throughout his work. The most concentrated and most chilling presentation is to be found in volume 349 of his collected works, published by the International Anthroposophic Society in Dornach, Switzerland. For a concise overview in English see Janet Biehl's section on Steiner in Biehl and Staudenmaier, Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, San Francisco 1995, pp. 42-43.

Daniel Hindes comments: The preposterous claim that Steiner's racial teachings are a crucial element of the "Anthroposophic" worldview is easily made and makes for alluring copy, but proof of such an allegation has not been offered here. <skip a bit> Aside from the minor point that Staudenmaier cites the wrong publisher (which is actually the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung in Dornach) and misnames the General Anthroposophical Society, also located in Dornach (accuracy in details, I find, is the mark of serious scholarship). Why should the reader settle for a 2-page overview of the subject in an openly hostile secondary source when the primary sources are available?

(Between these two quotes is another paragraph where Staudenmaier talks about the aryan race. Since I had to limit the amount I quoted due to the rules on this board, I skipped it, with, alas, some loss of coherence.)

A second example from the same article by Daniel Hindes.
Staudenmaier states: Anthroposophy's promotion of this ridiculous doctrine is disturbing enough. But it is compounded by Steiner's further claim that—in yet another remarkable coincidence—the most advanced group within the Aryan root race is currently the nordic-germanic sub-race. Above all, anthroposophy's conception of spiritual development is inextricable from its evolutionary narrative of racial
decline and racial advance: a select few enlightened members evolve into a new "race" while their
spiritually inferior neighbors degenerate. Anthroposophy is structured around a hierarchy of
biological and psychological as well as "spiritual" capacities and characteristics, all of them
correlated to race.

Daniel Hndes comments: So first it is claimed that anthroposophy promotes the discredited idea of an Aryan race. This turns out to be untrue – based on a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the source material combined with a willful ignorance of the historical context. Now it is claimed anthroposophists believe the nordic-germanic sub-race to be the most advanced within the Aryan root race. This cannot even be called a misunderstanding; Steiner has not combined the words “nordic” or “germanic” with “sub-race” anywhere. I repeat, there is no such phrase as the “nordic-germanic sub-race“ anywhere in Steiner's complete works. There are a few references to nordic-germanic mythology, and a few to nordic-germanic peoples, but nowhere is there such a sub-race. (Nor does such a sub-race exist anywhere in Blavatsky's work.) This then culminates in Staudenmaier's claim that anthroposophists believe in some sort of nordicgermanic superiority. Given that the nordic-germanic sub-race doesn't exist, it is not surprising that this, too, is nowhere present in any of Steiner’s work. And it certainly is not in Steiner's book The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls, where we hear him praise the importance of all races in human development and tell his listeners that they will reincarnate in every race. The description in the above paragraph can only be characterized as a complete fabrication. And this is the only way to make a racist out of Steiner: to fabricate quotes.

The complete document analyzing Staudenmaier’s article is available at:
http://www.defendingsteiner.com/refutations/index.php

If you want to scrutinize Staudenmaier’s original article it is on the PLANS site in the articles section: the title is Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

Daniel’s article is 68 pages long and only responds to ½ of Staudenmaier’s article. It is a pdf file.

I went to the school looking for coherent answers and received what I can only describe as a chilling effect to inquiry. I just wanted to be treated in a courteous manner and be comforted.

I’m sorry they were unable to respond to your concerns. As you can see from the examples I gave, refuting some of these stories is not a simple matter.

I also checked out the Waldorfanswers site and was put off by the repeated assertations that the Waldorfcritics were accusing Steinerism of being akin to Satanism, as that was nowhere in anything I had read.

This particular section is referring to a specific incident at a charter school. I think the account is based on a newspaper article. It happened a number of years ago. The most likely explanation is that the “Satanism” accusation has been abandoned in the intervening years. I think that spending a little more time on the waldorfanswers site might be helpful. Note the list of studies I point to above, for example.

It just seems like the leadership of Steinerism (I think this is a more accurate name) are unbending and refuse to look critically at all at their founder. I believe we should look at our elders. My husband and I couldn't help but see a comparison to the Founding Fathers, particularly, Washington and Jefferson, who spoke and fought for freedom, yet, were slaveowners. Why can't we look at Steiner as a man of his times? He published anti-semitic tracks and was fired by his employer (who was Jewish and a friend and terribly hurt by the hatred when he read the article).

Well, actually Steiner’s Jewish employer did not fire him. He wrote a book review of a book written by an anti-semite. Included in the book review is one paragraph which can be construed as anti-semitic. Steiner’s employer was upset and said so. The story is recounted in Steiner’s autobiography. I've noticed before that people who read the PLANS material offer up inaccurate anecdotes about Steiner, or describe him incorrectly (for example another poster talked about Steiner as being a member of the wealthier level of society, when Steiner's parents were, in fact, peasants who had risen to the very bottom of the middle class. His father was a stationmaster with the Austrian railway system.)

The comparison to the Founding Fathers is interesting. The equivalent situation would be if someone wrote an article claiming that all of Jefferson’s writings were “racist to the core” and that he spent all his time writing about the inferiority of the blacks and the biblical support for slavery. Jefferson scholars would not agree with this description because it is FALSE. Why should anthroposophists agree with false descriptions of Steiner? If Steiner never used the term, for example, “nordic-germanic sub-race” and if he never proclaimed that this race was “superior” why in the world should anthroposophists be expected to reject and apologize for these non-existent statements?

The Waldorfanswers site seems to try to defend Steiner by saying he wasn't anti-semitic but anti-Zionist. It seems like maybe we should spend less time defending a 19th century European man, Steiner, and more building the kind of schools we want for our children and our world, now in the 21st century.

I agree with you. So do most anthroposophists, who actually spend very little of their time defending Steiner. Actually they are criticized for not spending enough time defending Steiner...by PLANS. So, to finish, here are a few web-sites with examples of anthroposophical undertakings:

http://www.rsfoundation.org/index.asp?page=home.htm

http://natureinstitute.org/

http://southerncrossreview.org/

http://www.steinerbooks.org/new_back.html

http://www.artemisia.net/athena/eurythmy.htm

http://www.awsna.org/index.html

http://www.waldorfworld.net/

http://www.biodynamics.com/

http://www.camphill.org


I would like to see a natural environment and intent for my children's education but without Steiner and his Atlantis hokum. It was cool in the early 20th century, with occultism, but now, I want something more true to who I am. Yes, I am a sundancer and participate in traditional ceremonies of my people, but I am, I don't know what, just different than occultists of that time period and Steiner just read silly to me.

That’s fine. Please feel free to start any sort of school you would like, based on any philosophical or spiritual or intellectual tradition you find satisfying.

Cheers,
Nana

Just a little background: I’m 54 years old, recently completed my Master’s in Library and Information Studies at McGill University (my undergraduate degree is in history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison). I went to a waldorf school for a couple years as a teenager and then was introduced to anthroposophy by my aunt, who among several other careers was a waldorf handwork teacher. Two of my siblings also attended a waldorf school, as did my daughter (for 13 years) and now my granddaughter (just started nursery school). I’ve been studying anthroposophy on and off for 30 years or so, and would like to just mention that it is possible to read Steiner for years and years without ever encountering a racist quote... :)

:D Deborah,

That was AWESOME!!!!! Thank you!

Thank you Deborah, that's the kind of answer and response I had expected when I went to my school's administrators. Thank you for taking the time to put all of that together, I will definitely check it out.

There were some other assertations that also concerned me in the stories by former Waldorf parents. One was that the ideas of child development by Steiner in the early 20th century do not hold with recent child development research (i.e. covering the head to prevent loss of brain energy) and that adherence to Steiner's ideas can cause conflict with liberal parents' basic ideas, like the filmmaker mother being told by her daughter than her filmmaking constituted the representation of a bad spirit (I can't remember the name here, was it Ahirim?). Also, the reliance on gnomes to understand the behavior of the students and the teachers, using gnomes as an excuse for bullying behavior? I think also the argument that since Steiner's theories deal so much with the development of the soul through his teaching (derived from trance states) that parents' have felt that this is sometimes seen in teacher behavior in unwelcome ways. They also feel that it is not clear where this soul training system begins and ends. Doesn't this also go beyond simple liberal idealogy of justice and building a sustainable society? Some of the things parents encountered seemed even regressive, like female teachers being expected to wear skirts so that their feminine energy can flow from between their legs properly. I know I am not recounting these all terribly well, but you can see how it all sounds a bit intrusive. I find it strange, too, that if Steiner is such a giant why we have never heard of him? I mean, I sort of wish there were more schools built around the ideals of Martin Luther King, whose work more directly brought the freedoms that I as an American Indian and a woman enjoy today.

Thank you Deborah, that's the kind of answer and response I had expected when I went to my school's administrators. Thank you for taking the time to put all of that together, I will definitely check it out.

You're welcome.

There were some other assertations that also concerned me in the stories by former Waldorf parents. One was that the ideas of child development by Steiner in the early 20th century do not hold with recent child development research (i.e. covering the head to prevent loss of brain energy) and that adherence to Steiner's ideas can cause conflict with liberal parents' basic ideas, like the filmmaker mother being told by her daughter than her filmmaking constituted the representation of a bad spirit (I can't remember the name here, was it Ahirim?).

Certainly, if Steiner is taken as a guru and his indications are applied without consciousness or consideration, silliness and even damage can occur. This is equally true of current ideas about child development. Just because something is the latest and greatest doesn't mean that it is 1)correct or 2)safe to apply dogmatically and thoughtlessly.

When I was working as business manager at the Chicago Waldorf School I occasionally handled a call from a education major who wanted to visit the school. Many were able to schedule appointments to observe classes and generally the comments I heard repeated by the teachers were positive. For example, two such observers spent part of a day in the early childhood program. They were excited to see some of the current theories they were being taught actually applied in a classroom. The early childhood teacher involved was, I'm afraid, faintly amused by this.

The film story above is as good example of "Steinerism" in action as I've come across. Too bad people do that sort of nonsense.

Also, the reliance on gnomes to understand the behavior of the students and the teachers, using gnomes as an excuse for bullying behavior?

I've been involved in waldorf on and off since 1964. In that time I've never heard gnomes used to explain behavior nor gnomes as an excuse for bullying. I don't think this is actually a common approach in waldorf education. Have any of the other waldorf parents on this board run into this in real life?

I think also the argument that since Steiner's theories deal so much with the development of the soul through his teaching (derived from trance states) that parents' have felt that this is sometimes seen in teacher behavior in unwelcome ways.

Steiner strongly opposed mediumship and trance states as a means of gaining spiritual knowledge. None of his work was attained by these means.

Certainly teachers can get bad ideas from reading Steiner, but that doesn't mean that Steiner's work necessarily contained the bad ideas. I've done a fair bit of misunderstanding and misinterpreting in my time, of Steiner and of many other authors. There are two different bodies of work which need to be studied in different ways. First, there are his philosophical and "how-to" works, which involve thinking and practice. He offers various exercises to learn how to concentrate and so forth. I can provide links if anyone is interested in doing the reading to find out what he actually suggests. Most of it is neither weird nor cosmic and it certainly isn't dangerous. Second, there are a large body of lectures (almost 6,000) on a wide variety of topics, including education. The lectures are easily misinterpreted because they are based on the assumption that people have done the basic work of training their thinking and that they are also familiar with the anthroposophical terminology. Further, some of the lectures were given to professional audiences, doctors or farmers. These lectures assume that the listeners have the necessary background in their field, in addition to the anthroposophical foundation work and the familiarity with the terminology.

The experience and background of waldorf teachers vary. There are some who just take Steiner as the "authority" and I feel that this leads inevitably to bad teaching practice and is the exact opposite of what he was trying to achieve in founding the waldorf school.

They also feel that it is not clear where this soul training system begins and ends. Doesn't this also go beyond simple liberal idealogy of justice and building a sustainable society?

Yes, it does. Like many other thinkers, Steiner felt that human beings needed to transform certain aspects of themselves for a just and sustainable society to become manifest. This is hard, but I personally am aware that insofar as I can treat people I actually encounter fairly, thoughtfully, honestly and truthfully I am participating in transformative acts. To do this requires a constant struggle, because, like many people, I have a selfish, self-indulgent side. I am capable of being rude, of hurting people's feelings, of speaking without thinking and sometimes I do so. I am capable of bending the truth to win an argument (this is a temptation most people are aware of in themselves, but the greatest danger is the people who are not aware that they are bending the truth).

Some of the things parents encountered seemed even regressive, like female teachers being expected to wear skirts so that their feminine energy can flow from between their legs properly. I know I am not recounting these all terribly well, but you can see how it all sounds a bit intrusive. I find it strange, too, that if Steiner is such a giant why we have never heard of him? I mean, I sort of wish there were more schools built around the ideals of Martin Luther King, whose work more directly brought the freedoms that I as an American Indian and a woman enjoy today.

I have heard of the skirt one too, but I don't know where it originated or what the real story is. Nowadays most waldorf schools expect teachers to dress as professionals, and early childhood teachers usually wear aprons when they are doing domestic activities around the children, but I don't think there is a long flowing skirt rule. Eurythmists usually like to wear flowing clothes, plus a scarf around the neck, but this isn't forced on them by any higher authority.:eyesroll

When Steiner died in 1925 it made the front page of the New York Times. He was a well-known figure in his own times and is becoming better known once again, mostly due to the growth of the waldorf movement. As a European it makes sense that he wouldn't be a household word in the U.S. There are only a few who are: Churchill, Darwin, Marx and a few more.

As I said in my previous post, people are free to start whatever schools they wish around whatever ideals attract them. It just doesn't seem quite fair to criticize waldorf schools because the people who founded them were attracted by a different set of ideals.

Good luck with your research.

Nana

Hi Deborah, I found this article online. I know you said that Steiner's ideas are not weird or strange, and I have to say, I still find the whole Lemuria connection odd. Also, how did he read the Akashic record? (Didn't the Mormon founder also purportedly read clairvoyantly from an Akashic record?) Other sources also cite him as seer and clairvoyant. I also noticed at Powells.com that Light for the New Milennium: Rudolf Steiner's Association with Helmuth and Eliza Von Moltke Letters, Documents and After by T. H. Meyer concerns his "medium" work channeling a dead WWI German general from the afterlife. These things do not mesh with your description of his negative opinions of mediums.

Are Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf Schools 'Non-Sectarian?'
Magazine article by Judy Daar, Dan Dugan; Free Inquiry, Vol. 14, Spring 1994

Doctrine

In Steiner's doctrine, Christ is a sun god come to earth, not to redeem humanity from sin, but to help the human race balance between the influences of the Zoroastrian gods of light and darkness, Lucifer and Ahriman. Steiner's revelations typically blur religious, scientific, and historical topics. His version of history includes epochs on the lost continents of Lemuria and Atlantis, which he claimed to have read with "clairvoyant vision" out of the mythical "akashic record."

Steiner derived some of his central concepts from Hinduism (via Theosophy): reincarnation, karma, and polytheism. He mixed in the dual gods of light and dark from Zoroastrianism, and fit it all into the geocentric cosmology of medieval Europe, where humanity is positioned in a cosmic hierarchy below nine classes of supernatural beings. The occultist doctrine of correspondences, expressed in the formula "as above, so below," is the unifying principle. Seven planets correspond to seven epochs of history, twelve constellations of the zodiac to parts of the body, four elements to human temperaments, and so on, in elaborate detail. These magical correspondences describe the universe as one living spiritual web of being.

Steiner's mystical world view is deeply pessimistic. He foretold, among other things, the reincarnation of the dark god Ahriman early in the twenty-first century. In this respect, Anthroposophy is not unlike evangelical Christianity with its propensity for millennialism.

After World War I, having failed to inspire world leaders to adopt his utopian political system, Steinerfounded a school system so that Anthroposophy could at least start the process of raising the evolutionary stage of souls who would be reborn in future generations. Steinerstates emphatically, in the manner of all religious dogmatists, that his revelation is the only truth, and that all other traditions and ways of knowledge are erroneous.

The Attractive Qualities of the Schools

How and why do non-Anthroposophists choose to send their children to schools that disseminate these unusual ideas? Waldorf schools hold open houses for parents, but the sect's stranger beliefs are invisible unless one knows where to look. A visitor sees beauty everywhere and dedication in every staff person. Colors, lighting, and artwork are carefully chosen with loving attention to human feelings. The walls are painted in blended pastels, using a special wet layered technique that yields a shimmering effect. Prints of great works of art adorn the walls, along with student art, and collections of beautiful natural objects change with the seasons. The arts of storytelling, drawing, music, and drama are incorporated into lessons in all subjects. The teachers are as dedicated as Catholic nuns. They greet each student with a handshake and eye contact every morning. Primary teachers stay with their classes up through the grades, becoming surrogate parents. It isn't surprising that the physical beauty and nurturing atmosphere of the schools, and the idealism of the teachers, prove to be almost irresistibly attractive to parents.

What's an Akashic record? I was raised Mormon and have studied church history beyond the "party line"/ church version but have never heard of this.

Bahesmama and Leaves are Brown,

I'm sorry, but I simply don't have enough time to keep replying to the various questions about Steiner. I'm happy to point to resources where you can read his works directly, if you are interested. I think I've seen a critique of the article you cite Bahesmama and if I happen to come across it I'll post the link.

I need to write my library column and I need to work on a thesaurus for some journal indexing and dinner needs to come out of the oven and the bathroom is looking pretty grungy...you know.

Nana

"I also did research on German Kindergartens and Steiner's approach was hardly original, it was the norm at the time. It was another fellow, I can't remember his name right now, that developed much of the approach used by by Waldorf schools. It was also demonstrated at the Worlds Fair in (I believe) St. Louis and inspired many young SAHM's at the time to take charge of their children's early education."




Froebel. ;) Others interested in the origin of "kindergarten" might want to read more about Froebel and the Froebel "gifts." Quite useful it seems in the teaching of the building blocks of math- Frank Lloyd Wright credits the Froebel gifts with much of his later success. Totally OT from Steiner, Anthro, racism, antisemitism et al, but there you have it!

Are Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf Schools 'Non-Sectarian?'
Magazine article by Judy Daar, Dan Dugan; Free Inquiry, Vol. 14, Spring 1994

Doctrine

In Steiner's doctrine, Christ is a sun god come to earth, not to redeem humanity from sin, but to help the human race balance between the influences of the Zoroastrian gods of light and darkness, Lucifer and Ahriman. Steiner's revelations typically blur religious, scientific, and historical topics. His version of history includes epochs on the lost continents of Lemuria and Atlantis, which he claimed to have read with "clairvoyant vision" out of the mythical "akashic record."

Steiner derived some of his central concepts from Hinduism (via Theosophy): reincarnation, karma, and polytheism. He mixed in the dual gods of light and dark from Zoroastrianism, and fit it all into the geocentric cosmology of medieval Europe, where humanity is positioned in a cosmic hierarchy below nine classes of supernatural beings. The occultist doctrine of correspondences, expressed in the formula "as above, so below," is the unifying principle. Seven planets correspond to seven epochs of history, twelve constellations of the zodiac to parts of the body, four elements to human temperaments, and so on, in elaborate detail. These magical correspondences describe the universe as one living spiritual web of being.

Steiner's mystical world view is deeply pessimistic. He foretold, among other things, the reincarnation of the dark god Ahriman early in the twenty-first century. In this respect, Anthroposophy is not unlike evangelical Christianity with its propensity for millennialism.

After World War I, having failed to inspire world leaders to adopt his utopian political system, Steinerfounded a school system so that Anthroposophy could at least start the process of raising the evolutionary stage of souls who would be reborn in future generations. Steinerstates emphatically, in the manner of all religious dogmatists, that his revelation is the only truth, and that all other traditions and ways of knowledge are erroneous.

The Attractive Qualities of the Schools

How and why do non-Anthroposophists choose to send their children to schools that disseminate these unusual ideas? Waldorf schools hold open houses for parents, but the sect's stranger beliefs are invisible unless one knows where to look. A visitor sees beauty everywhere and dedication in every staff person. Colors, lighting, and artwork are carefully chosen with loving attention to human feelings. The walls are painted in blended pastels, using a special wet layered technique that yields a shimmering effect. Prints of great works of art adorn the walls, along with student art, and collections of beautiful natural objects change with the seasons. The arts of storytelling, drawing, music, and drama are incorporated into lessons in all subjects. The teachers are as dedicated as Catholic nuns. They greet each student with a handshake and eye contact every morning. Primary teachers stay with their classes up through the grades, becoming surrogate parents. It isn't surprising that the physical beauty and nurturing atmosphere of the schools, and the idealism of the teachers, prove to be almost irresistibly attractive to parents.

Dan Dugan has an axe to grind with Waldorf education so he is not unbiased. I too am not unbiased as I am a Happy Waldorf Parent.

As a Waldorf parent, I have heard talk of gnomes and fairies but it is in regard to Fairy Tales. They are never used as excuses for bad behavior. In my experience, the school is spiritual and non-sectarian. If one were to only experience the Kindergarten and 1st and 2nd grades, one would think the school was Christian with a heavy dose of European cultural rituals leftover from Paganism i.e. Maypoles, Morris dancers, etc. If one were to look at 3rd grade, one would think the school was Jewish. The children celebrate Sabbath every Friday as well as all of the Jewish Holidays. Christian Holidays continue to be celebrated. 4th Grade are the Norse Tales, 5th Grade the Greeks, 6th Grade the Romans and Middle Ages, 7th and 8th grade take history from the Middle Ages to Present. Islamic Holidays are added in 6th grade when Mohammad is studied.

Bahesmama and Leaves are Brown,

I'm sorry, but I simply don't have enough time to keep replying to the various questions about Steiner. I'm happy to point to resources where you can read his works directly, if you are interested. I think I've seen a critique of the article you cite Bahesmama and if I happen to come across it I'll post the link.

I need to write my library column and I need to work on a thesaurus for some journal indexing and dinner needs to come out of the oven and the bathroom is looking pretty grungy...you know.

Nana

Bahesmama
Just wanted to add to this: I have provided evidence that some of the critics of waldorf, anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are not always scrupulously accurate. In each of your posts you repeated stories (from the PLANS site?) which were inaccurate. If someone is spreading incorrect information, in my mind, everything they put forward needs to be considered with extreme care.

The only way to find out the real stuff is to read something by Rudolf Steiner. I would recommend one of the basic books, so you can acquire a bit of a foundation. Theosophy is good, or Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment.

I don't see my purpose in life as contradicting, one by one, all the weird rumors that float around the Internet. I think providing two substantial posts on the topic is a quite fair response to your concerns.

Best wishes and I hope everything goes well for you.

Nana

Steiners work may have not been the only of its kind like you said there is that other guy...but why is it that Steiners Waldorf school is the only one we still have? I have to put some creedence to the sheer survival of it, especially with so many folks criticising it for so long. I truly believ that this is mostly a case of people fearing the unfamiliar. Once it becomes familiar to them it becomes the norm. Give it a chance I think you will really be pleased that you did.

What's an Akashic record? I was raised Mormon and have studied church history beyond the "party line"/ church version but have never heard of this.

Records of past lives that can be studied in between incarnations.

Criticism over Waldorf is certainly nothing new. This very interesting and informative thread with almost 10,000 views demonstrates that people who visit this forum are interested in a lively, respectfully conducted debate about the pros and cons of Waldorf. I suspect a lot of people come here looking for exactly this type of debate.

Pete

I sort of wish there were more schools built around the ideals of Martin Luther King, whose work more directly brought the freedoms that I as an American Indian and a woman enjoy today.

Funny you should mention it....
I recently discovered this place, and it's practically in my backyard!
It looks quite extraordinary, and their connection with Dr. King is intriguing.
WThttp://www.fellowshipfarm.org/index.htm

I went to the school looking for coherent answers and received what I can only describe as a chilling effect to inquiry. I just wanted to be treated in a courteous manner and be comforted. I also checked out the Waldorfanswers site and was put off by the repeated assertations that the Waldorfcritics were accusing Steinerism of being akin to Satanism, as that was nowhere in anything I had read. It just seems like the leadership of Steinerism (I think this is a more accurate name) are unbending and refuse to look critically at all at their founder. I believe we should look at our elders. My husband and I couldn't help but see a comparison to the Founding Fathers, particularly, Washington and Jefferson, who spoke and fought for freedom, yet, were slaveowners. Why can't we look at Steiner as a man of his times? He published anti-semitic tracks and was fired by his employer (who was Jewish and a friend and terribly hurt by the hatred when he read the article). The Waldorfanswers site seems to try to defend Steiner by saying he wasn't anti-semitic but anti-Zionist. It seems like maybe we should spend less time defending a 19th century European man, Steiner, and more building the kind of schools we want for our children and our world, now in the 21st century.
...
I would like to see a natural environment and intent for my children's education but without Steiner and his Atlantis hokum. It was cool in the early 20th century, with occultism, but now, I want something more true to who I am. Yes, I am a sundancer and participate in traditional ceremonies of my people, but I am, I don't know what, just different than occultists of that time period and Steiner just read silly to me.

:clap :clap :Bow :bow :nod :clap :clap

Funny you should mention it....
I recently discovered this place, and it's practically in my backyard!
It looks quite extraordinary, and their connection with Dr. King is intriguing.
WThttp://www.fellowshipfarm.org/index.htm

This place sounds really great! Thanks!

Pete

I know that the contentious threads have been locked, but is it really necessary to bring back threads from february to keep the debate going right now? Cynthia Mosher wrote in her sticky:
So, until we can do this, and we will try to do so as quickly as possible, we are closing and/or removing some threads for review and asking for a pause on debate and discussions with a critical tone.

It is interesting to see how nicely this board debated in the past, though.
Janine

I know that the contentious threads have been locked, but is it really necessary to bring back threads from february to keep the debate going right now? Cynthia Mosher wrote in her sticky:


It is interesting to see how nicely this board debated in the past, though.
Janine

You are so right! I wonder what changed? Look at what Lauren said back in 2004...

Serena



05-31-2004

As moderator here, I would like to commend everyone who has been participating in this discussion with open mindedness and balance. I've had to keep an eye on it, even though I don't know enough about Waldorf to actively participate, just to make sure no one got too ticked off!! (but of course there has been no need for me to step in :D

Knowing what I know about some of the other forums (through my contact with the other mods) I must say, our Learning at School forum here has some of the most intelligent AND thoughtful, respectful participants of any of the Mothering forums, and I am so glad to learn from everyone here! I have also learned a ton about Waldorf through the threads that come up from time to time debating the pros and cons of this approach. I think it is a gift to visitors and learners to be able to make these threads part of their research, because members here really do their homework about this option.

Kudos!

I know that the contentious threads have been locked, but is it really necessary to bring back threads from february to keep the debate going right now?
I'm not debating anything here - but by bringing this thread back I am demonstrating that debate is relevant and has precident.

It is interesting to see how nicely this board debated in the past, though.

My point exactly! :thumb

Pete

Hi Peter,

You quote an earlier posting by a Bahesmama as contribution to support a further disussion in this thread:

Bahesmama:
I also checked out the Waldorfanswers site and was put off by the repeated assertations that the Waldorfcritics were accusing Steinerism of being akin to Satanism, as that was nowhere in anything I had read. What Bahesmama writes, and that Peter quotes it not correct.

At no place does the site of Waldorf Answers (http://www.waldorfanswers.org) state that WCs (WaldorfCritics) accuse 'Steinerism' of being akin to Satanism.

The quote by Bahesmama, that Peter lifts to the surface here for discussion, can only refer to my personal site on PLANS at http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html And the public accusations of wicca at Waldorf schools by PLANS' central representatives are well documented.

http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html does not not only describe, but also documents a number of instances since 1997, where central representatives of PLANS in media or public discussions have alleged, or supported allegations that Waldorf education practices or supports wicca and Satanism as part of its anti-Waldorf campaign since many years.

This is documented by the Sacramento Bee, that on 16 May 1997 commented on a picketing of the Oak Ridge Elementary School at the time. The picketing took place after a number of them had read leaflets distributed by PLANS people outside the school, protesting that Waldorf methods had been implemented at the school in September 1996.

The Sacramento Bee wrote on this http://www.sacbee.com/content/links/story/12266380p-13130448c.html

"Several pickets said they were 'in the dark¨' as to what was happening at Oak Ridge until PLANS - People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools - began distributing leaflets outside the school."

"Marjie Espinoza said she walked the picket line to stand up for five nieces and nephews who attend the school. They and their classmates are being taught satanic beliefs and witchcraft, she said. 'One of the teachers who is against Waldorf showed me some lessons plans,' Espinoza said. 'To me, they were like satanic, witchcraft.' *

An effort by PLANS to connect Waldorf education with Satanism is also documented by the California Aggie in an interview with Mr. Dugan, central coach and driving force of the WCs, published on May 22, 1997.

In the inverview, he comments on the Waldorf School in Davis, CA.:

"They believe that there are spirits behind everything. I know there are people who would call that evil. (They) would consider anthroposphy a satanic religion."

Mr. Dugan publishes the article himself in the archives at the WC site.

I also tell that when Mr. Dugan was asked if PLANS had contacted the Sacramento Bee to correct the allegations of teaching of witchcraft at the Oak Ridge school, Debra Snell, President of PLANS since at least 1997, commented on 26 May 1997 regarding the public (and untrue) allegations of wicca at Waldorf schools spread to media at the time:

"We did not phone the Sacramento Bee to dispute Sac. City Unified School Officials statement that PLANS claims is based on rumor either..."

"Anyone who knows PLANS claims, knows that witchcraft has not been our handle."

[But] "We're frankly happy to see the issue in the news, and it has certainly been there lately."

http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html also tells that when Mr. Dugan was criticized in discussions for his and PLANS' way of spreading allegations of Satanism at Waldorf schools, he defended this on June 9, 1997, answering:

"What I say 'in defense of the Waldorfians' is that 'they don't eat babies." and "Am I pandering to the prejudices of Christians? Personally, yes I am!"

Media reports of the false allegations of wicca at a Waldorf school were then used by an evangelical legal organization (Pacific Justice institute), naming Debra Snell, President of PLANS as client, in support of an application for $15.000 from an evangelical organization to finance litigation by PLANS against two public school districts in Sacramento for "advancing religion" http://www.waldorfanswers.org/ADFApplication.html

When Mr. Dugan, Secretary of PLANS, during depositions for the trial was asked if he actually thought that the two Waldorf methods schools, targeted in PLANS' litigation, were teaching the pupils withcraft, and that Waldorf education is the work of Satan, something told by Sacramento Bee at the time as being the view of PLANS, he denied these allegations, that had been used in the application on behalf of the President of PLANS for the financing of PLANS's litigation, http://www.americans4waldorf.org/History.html

After seven years of preparations by PLANS, the trial - whose central allegation was that anthroposophy is a religion, and that Waldorf methods schools "advance religion" - finally came to take place some weeks ago in Sacramento, on 12 September. But it came to a quick end after only half an hour, when it turned out that PLANS did not present one acceptable evidence or witness to support its case in the court, http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Press.html

The history of the lawsuit is documented at http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Lawsuit.html For a shorter overview, see http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Litigation.html

I also tell that at my personal site on PLANS that Debra Snell in public discussions on 24 May 2000 defended an allegation that Waldorf teachers after school practice voodoo at the wool dolls made by the children. Reading not only the allegation, but then in addition Ms. Snell's defense of the allegation at the time, sent alternating cold and hot chivers along my spine when reading that she actually defended the allegation, and I will never forget it.

But that is not found at the site of Waldorf Answers, but at my personal site on PLANS, that I set up after I had discussed with representatives of the group for a number of years, gotten tired of it and started to set upsection on the group at my site, to save others from spending unnecessary time in the same sorts of discussion to find out what the group is about.

For more on the wicca myth about Waldorf education, spread in anti-Waldorf campaigns, see http://www.americans4waldorf.org/Myth7.html

Sune

Bahesmama also writes in the quote, reposted by Peter, to initiate further discussion in this thread:

"Why can't we look at Steiner as a man of his times? He published anti-semitic tracks and was fired by his employer (who was Jewish and a friend and terribly hurt by the hatred when he read the article)." Steiner was not fired by his employer for writing what Bahesmama describes as anti-semitic tracks, but continued to work for the family as before. The incident is described by Steiner himself in his autobiography, and his own description of it is the only instance I know of when someone at the time experienced anything he said or wrote as anti-Semitic.

A closer look at the historical context of the seeming anti-Semitic comment, referred to by Bahesmama points in the completely opposite direction. See http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html

The article shows that nothing indicates that it was an expression of anti-Semitism on Steiner's part, but an expression by the young Steiner (27 years) of a full support for the Jewish Enlightenment at the time (the Haskalah), and that other, Jewish, supporters of the Haskalah expressed themselves in much dire words about Judaism at the time. The article also documents that Steiner repeatedly critizised the anti-Semitism of his time in a way that indicates that it not was anti-Semitic, but made in the spirit of the Jewish Enlightenment.

In 1881, at age 20, Steiner condemned the philosophy of Eugene Dühring, one of the most prominent German anti-Semites of his time, who argued for the physical annihilation of the Jews, as "barbarian nonsense".

Steiner also expressed his vehement opposition in the 1890s to what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, and he denounced the “raging anti-Semites” as enemies of human rights.

In 1897, he wrote:

"Value should be attached solely to the mutual exchange between individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German ... This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!"

As an active participant in and supporter of the "Association against Anti-Semitism" in Berlin at the turn of the 20th century, Steiner again criticized the anti-Semitism of the time, writing in 1900:

"I have never been able to see anti-Semitism as anything except a view that indicates in those who hold it an inferiority of spirit, a lack of ability to make ethical judgments and an insipidness […], that is a blow in the face for every person with a normal way of thinking."

And in 1901:

"Anti-Semitism is a mockery of all belief in ideas. It is a mockery especially of the idea that humanity rises above any specialized form (tribe, race, nation) in which this humanity expresses itself."

“Anti-Semitism is not only a danger for Jews, it is also a danger for non Jews. It arises out of a way of thinking that does not seriously strive for sound, straightforward judgments. Anti-Semitism promotes this way of thinking. And anyone who thinks philosophically should not just observe that passively. The belief in ideas will only return to prevalence if we oppose the contrary unbelief in all areas as energetically as possible.“ .

Except for one mentioned instance of what at the surface at first stands out as an anti-Semitic statement and described by Steiner himself in his autobiography, no other documentation to my knowledge from the numerous people of Jewish origin that he met throughout his life, such as the later famous author Stefan Zweig, or Hugo Bergmann http://www.jewishgen.org/BohMor/hugo.html (later the first Rector of the University of Jerusalem), indicates that they experienced the slightest trace of anti-Semitism in what Steiner said or in his work.

This holds also for the numerous people of Jewish origin with which he cooperated in developing anthroposophy and the daughter movements of anthroposophy. The allegations in anti-Waldorf campaigns that Steiner was anti-Semitic are also contradicted by the number of notable people of Jewish origin whom he invited to become teachers at the first Waldorf school, and by the prominent place of Judaism in the curriculum of Waldorf schools, at the specific suggestion of Rudolf Steiner.

The important role played by people of Jewish origin at Waldorf schools, in connection with anthroposophy in general, and at the Goetheanum as the center of anthroposophy, was also one of the reasons leading to the prohibition of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany in 1935 by the Nazis and the prohibition for the Waldorf schools. The prohibition also argued that Waldorf education, as an individualistic and human-oriented education, had nothing in common with principles of National Socialist education, and that anthroposophy, as the basis of Waldorf education constituted a threat to the National Socialist State.

In 1935, this anti-racist and anti-nationalist stance of anthroposophy and Waldorf education made the Nazi authorities in Germany prohibit and dissolve the Anthroposophical Society and prohibit the Waldorf schools from taking on new pupils, after extensive investigations writing on Waldorf education in the prohibition http://www.waldorfanswers.org/AnthroposophyDuringNaziTimes.htm

"The methods of teaching developed by its founder, Steiner, and followed in the anthroposophical schools still existing today follow an individualistic and human-oriented education, which has nothing in common with the principles of National Socialistic education.

"As a result of this opposition to the National Socialistic idea of Volk (Voelkische Gedanke), the continued activity of the Anthroposophical Society imposes the danger of injuring the National Socialistic State. The organization is therefore to be dissolved on account of its subversive character and the danger it poses to the public."

Recently, a study (2002-2005) of several hundred Swedish Waldorf students, who had attended a Waldorf school for the majority of the normal (in Sweden) twelve years, comparing them with pupils in the corresponding grades in municipal (public) schools, showed, among other things, that the majority of the pupils in both types of school repudiated Nazism and racism.

However, the proportion of pupils who suggested anti-Nazi and anti-racist solutions, i.e., solutions that involved counteracting or stopping Nazism and racism was considerably greater among the Waldorf pupils than among pupils at municipal schools. See http://www.waldorfanswers.org/SwedishWaldorfSchoolEvaluationProject-Summary1-4.pdf

It all contradicts that Steiner was an anti-Semite and that Waldorf education is anti-Semitic, one of the favorite myths cultivated in anti-Waldorf campaigns.

Sune

In this "hot" thread, that Peter has reactivated after it has been dead for eight months, after all other "hot" threads have been closed for further discussion, Bahesmama that Peter quotes to further the discussion has also published parts of an article by Dan Dugan, Secretary of PLANS and Judy Daar: "Are Rudolf Steiner Schools Nonsectarian?" in the Spring 1994 issue of Free Inquiry

The article was answered the same year by Norman Davidson in the Fall/Winter 1994 issue of Renewal, A Journal for Waldorf. It can be found at http://www.thebee.se/comments/articles/renewal_nonsectarian.htm

Norman Davidson writes:

*********************************************

The fact that Waldorf schools work out of a spiritual understanding of the human being and the world, does not make them "religious" schools or church schools. They have no connection with a church. Anthroposophy, on which Waldorf education is based, is a spiritual science which is independent of any religious doctrine or system. It freely investigates the merits or otherwise of various doctrines, be they Christian, Judaic, Buddhist, Hindu, material scientific, humanist, or whatever. If Anthroposophy finds wisdom in any teaching (as it does in all of the above), this does not make it an adherent of this teaching or a part of any group which promulgates it.

Despite this, there are occasionally people who claim that Waldorf schools are church schools, religious schools, and sectarian. This is a charge which arises either out of misunderstanding or antagonism, not from a free, objective inquiry or an in-depth experience of spiritual science. The latest to put the charge forward are Dan Dugan and Judy Daar in their article "Are Rudolf Steiner Schools Nonsectarian?" in the Spring 1994 issue of Free Inquiry.

Free Inquiry is a journal published quarterly in Buffalo by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism. Dan Dugan is an audio engineer whose son attended the San Francisco Waldorf School in sixth and seventh grades in the late 1980's. Judy Daar is a secular humanist and a board member of the East Bay Skeptics Society.

The Spring 1994 issue of Free inquiry carries a front-cover statement which reads:

"American democracy draws its special vitality from the First Amendment, which incorporates the principle of the separation of church and state. In essence, the United States is a secular republic; this means that the government cannot establish a religion. It cannot favor religion over non-religion. The unique character of the American experiment is the existence of a wide diversity of creeds, sects, and voluntary organizations, each free to flourish on its own terms without any special encouragement by the state, with tolerance for a wide range of beliefs and values."

The statement then continues in a defensive mood:

"We therefore deplore the growing hostility toward secularism that has emerged across the political spectrum. Leaders from the center and left, including President Bill Clinton, have recently joined the familiar voices on the right in scapegoating secular ideals. It is naive to indict secularism for the alleged decline of society..."

This is the context within which the anti-Waldorf article by Dugan and Daar appears. It states that because Waldorf schools are "openly sectarian" and operated by a "cult-like religious sect," Waldorf schools should not receive public funding, as they do in "Milwaukee and Detroit." Dugan and Daar go on to say:

"The establishment of publicly-funded Waldorf schools should be cause for alarm for anyone who is concerned with preserving the separation of church and state, because these schools are the missionary arm of a religious sect hiding behind a facade of propaganda and dissimulation."

Real cause for alarm for an open-minded person would be:

1.That there exists the prejudice that Anthroposophy is a religion or religious sect.

2.That there are people who want to keep Waldorf schools with their spiritual and human values, out of an education supported by the general public.

The plays of Shakespeare or the works of Jung could equally come under the scrutiny of Dugan and Daar and be condemned as "religious" in their meaning of the word. Waldorf schools seem to have been caught in the crossfire between humanism and religion, yet the schools are party to neither. In fact Anthroposophy is far from such sectarianism and, from its independent position, is free to extend its understanding to diverse teachings, religious or otherwise. For example, The Academy of Humanism has goals which include:

"...furthering respect for human rights, freedom, and the dignity of the individual; tolerance of various viewpoints and willingness to compromise; commitment to social justice; a universalistic perspective that transcends national, ethnic, religious, sexual, and racial barriers...;"

and these tenets are admirable.

There follow some of Dugan and Daar's specific statements (in italics) with my comments:

"The group's [the Anthroposophical Society's] activities include... a church, the Christian Community."

The Christian community is not part of the Anthroposophical Society. Rudolf Steiner did not found the Christian Community. It was founded and headed by a former Lutheran pastor who became involved with Anthroposophy and asked Rudolf Steiner for spiritual advice for this separate initiative.

"Steiner's mystical world view is deeply pessimistic."

Despite the article's mention in this context of the "reincarnation of the dark god Ahriman," this charge of pessimism reveals the poverty of the authors' knowledge of, or understanding of, Steiner's work. His world view has as its basis a picture of human life and consciousness evolving to higher levels.

"Steiner states emphatically, in the manner of all religious dogmatists, that HIS revelation is the only truth, and that all other traditions and ways of knowledge are erroneous."

This is completely contradicted by Steiner's continuous appreciation of, and positive insight into, a wide variety of philosophies, religions, and work of individuals. Dogmatism was the very thing which Steiner fought.

"The [Waldorf] teachers are as dedicated as Catholic nuns."

Waldorf teachers are not Catholic nuns, but they are dedicated. So are members of Congress. This does not mean that Congress is a religious institution.

"Besides their seductive beauty, these schools use deliberate deception about their purpose and organization to attract the children of outsiders. From the beginning, Steiner planned to attract the general public by systematically concealing the objectives of the schools and the contents of their curriculum."

If this is true, then where did the authors get their information for the article? As the article states, "Steiner's world view can be found in books from Anthroposophical presses on sale at Waldorf schools." Also, Steiner opened the first school specifically for non-Anthroposophical parents.

The authors then quote Steiner on the question of establishing an independent school movement in the State of Württemberg. Steiner had earlier mentioned the need for a "certain mental reservation" in negotiating with the authorities of the Weimar Republic (which succumbed to Nazi dictatorship within little more than a decade).

Steiner then added, in the context of mental reservation, that the authorities would inwardly be made fools of. The intention was not inwardly to make fools of the authorities. That, though, would be an objective consequence of the need for inward reservation. Dugan and Daar, however, pull Steiner's words (spoken at a private meeting and taken from shorthand notes in German) out of context for their own purposes.

"Any knowledge that conflicts with Steiner's eccentric doctrines is simply omitted [from the science curriculum].... Waldorf graduates are unlikely to have a clear notion of the electromagnetic spectrum, despite having taken physics in both grammar and high schools."

Any Waldorf school worthy of its name will teach the theories of conventional science along with an imaginative approach which penetrates the subject with lively human experience. Countless Waldorf graduates take up college studies successfully.

"The use of the word "God" in Waldorf class prayers was already, in the 1920's, a conscious accommodation to public sensitivities [sic]. Anthroposophical writings usually refer to "the gods" rather than "God." These changes were consistent with Steiner's policy of camouflage."

Anthroposophical writings do indeed refer to "God" when appropriate, as here. This was no accommodation to the public. Also, the morning verse is not a "prayer," as Steiner explains in another quotation cited by the authors.

"Waldorf painting classes have nothing to do with creativity or self-expression. Their secret intention is to work on the student's subconscious by meditation on pure color and symbolic images."

Nonsense. This statement is more fantastic than anything the authors are accusing Anthroposophy of. Waldorf painting classes introduce the student to the laws of color and form through creative artistic activity, as any good art class should.

"Waldorf schools ... have their own methods, which they have received from their master. Since Steiner is dead, there can be no modification or development."

Untrue. Steiner was against any two teachers teaching the same thing in the same way. Waldorf teachers are continually researching their subjects and developing the curriculum. I have a research paper from a Waldorf teacher on my desk right now. The training institute for which I work graduates, every year, students taking an official New York State Master's Degree which requires free and independent research projects on Waldorf Education.

"Waldorf primary school students never touch a computer. The public explanation for this is that a child shouldn't use anything before he can understand how it works. The private reason is that computers are believed to be an incarnation of the evil spirit Ahriman. This is a good example of how concealed doctrine has a deleterious effect on the curriculum."

Not so. The computer, as all of modern science, justifiably has its main focus in the upper rather than the lower grades of school. This has nothing to do with keeping Ahriman, or anyone else, out! Waldorf educators consider, along with many non-Waldorf educators (such as Dr. Jane Healey, author of Endangered Minds: Why Our Children Can't Think and What We Can Do About It, and Professor Joseph Weizenbaum of MIT) that work with computers is not appropriate for younger children and even may adversely affect their intellectual development.

Thus the article continues, and I do not have the space to cover it all. Nevertheless, I would like to salvage something positive. First, there is the question of whether a full-fledged Waldorf school can exist within a governmental school system. The fundamental characteristic of Waldorf education is that it must operate in cultural freedom, independent of state control concerning its curriculum, methods and organization. Also, the faculty of such a school must have trained or genuine, Waldorf-committed teachers who freely handle the curriculum and the affairs of the school in mutual responsibility. Even given the teachers' freedom, where will they come from? Already we do not have enough trained teachers to go round the growing number of Waldorf schools which are independent of the state.

Secondly, I think that Dugan and Daar make a valid point when they ultimately say:

"It might be possible to establish schools that take many of the good Waldorf school ideas into a secular environment, but this could only be done by people not indoctrinated by Anthroposophical training."

This is a fair comment, with the exception of the word "indoctrinated." The authors also suggest that "school boards are looking for creative alternative solutions to educational problems."

Countless inquiries asking for help from Waldorf methods have come to my training institute over the past few years. I think that an important way in which public schools can benefit from Waldorf education is for certain external techniques regarding, for example, the curriculum, classroom methods, and faculty co-working to be integrated into the public school system. This could be done in response to the stated needs of the public school teachers. Steiner himself lectured to public school teachers and already courses and counseling for public schools are taking place through Waldorf training centers in the United States. This could be developed further.

Before arriving at their final and important point about non-Waldorf schools taking up "many of the good Waldorf school ideas," Dugan and Daar seek to discourage public funding for Waldorf with an attack against the very spiritual science which inspired the good ideas. They assert that Anthroposophy is a "cult-like religious sect" and Waldorf schools are "sectarian." If this were true I would not have spent the last twenty years or so working within these schools and within the Anthroposophical movement, and doing the work I am doing now. I am simply not the type, and neither are my colleagues.

*********************************************

Sune

In this "hot" thread, that Peter has reactivated after it has been dead for eight months, after all other "hot" threads have been closed for further discussion, :blah

Thanks Sune, I'm sure you will succeed in shutting down this thread too by demonstrating that having a civil and respectful debate is no longer possible as long as certain members are allowed to post here.

Warm wishes,

Pete

:nut

:flipped

:flipped
:nod

Thanks Sune, I'm sure you will succeed in shutting down this thread too by demonstrating that having a civil and respectful debate is no longer possible as long as certain members are allowed to post here.

Warm wishes,

Pete

And I have yet again. :nod

Surprise, surprise--the concerns that began this thread, continue to run throughout, and are reborn anew in the post by Bahesmama Pete quotes above--all come a single website.

Any guesses? One is all anybody needs.

Linda

Y'all guessed it right....... here comes the lock. Sorry....


PLEASE RE-READ CYNTHIA'S STICKY IN WHICH SHE PLACES A MORATORIUM ON DEBATE AND CRITICAL THREADS.