Waldorf Doubter's Thread

[Alexander]

There are those as adamently opposed to Waldorf as those in favour. And it is sometimes difficult for us to all rub shoulders together without some upset.

This thread is to allow us to express clearly objections raised against Waldorf, and to discuss ideas and the misconceptions that are brought up in other threads.

a

[Britishmum]

I'm on neither side of the fence on Waldorf, but interested in the discussion. I asked a question on the other thread that was lost in the debate:

I understand that Waldorf teachers believe that neurologically the left side of the brain, believed by some to be responsible for more formal learning such as literacy, doesn't develop until the age of about 7. Have I understood this correctly?

Good idea to open a new discussion, Alexander, thank you!

[sanna]

BritishMum,

I wish that I had more time to answer your question regarding your question. One book I highly recommend is 'Smart Moves' by Carla Hannaford. She speaks of this change in a child around the age 7 mark in a neurodevelopmental way. She has a PHD and is very knowledgeable of how and why we learn.

Interestingly, the Waldorf method of introducing reading and writing to children around the changing of the teeth corresponds to what is being discovered scientifically via brain research!

Hope that this helps!

By the way, Carla Hannaford is not a promoter of Waldorf philosophy in any way..:)

[momofgurlz]

British mum and everyone else here --

I am short on time right now, but want to thank Alexander for creating this thread. My only concern about it is that those who want to accept Waldorf without question will simply avoid coming here, and thus miss out on information that may be important to them later. Oh, well ...

I wanted to respond to Britishmum's question about Waldorf's view of brain development. I have been researching Waldorf education and anthroposophy for close to 10 years now (counting the almost 6 my children were in a Waldorf school) and to my knowledge, Waldorf does not view children's development from a scientific viewpoint such as you expressed. In other words, Waldorf teachers are not taught to think of children's development in terms of brain capacity, wiring, etc. They are instead taught to view the child as an emerging spiritual being which is coming into the physical world from the heavens (or whatever you call the "other" realm!). Anthroposophists believe that small children are not entirely "of this world" and therefore, not completely "human" yet. They believe that children are contained in several invisible "bodies" called the etheric and the astral, one of which is in an "envelope" which "opens" at the age of 7 (around the time that baby teeth start to fall out.)

Your question about left-brain, right-brain development and neurology are not of interest to Waldorf teachers, who are looking at where the child is *spiritually*. A good example of this is evident in the way Waldorf teachers handle/react to children who are left handed. Left handedness is considered, in Waldorf, to be a sign that the child had a very tough past life ... that he or she may have been a manual laborer. Left handedness is viewed as something that MUST be changed, in order to alter the negative karma that the child carries with him or her. That is why Waldorf schools are probably the only schools in the developed world who insist that left handed children write with their right hands! (How that effects the children is an interesting neurological question.)

I will try to post more later. Suffice to say, however, that almost any question about Waldorf schools can be answered by studying the tenets of anthroposophy. And as Alexander pointed out, much of anthroposophy is a knee jerk reaction to the materialism of the Industrial Age.

Warm regards,

Lisa

[mjakka]

Just figured I'd let you all know, especially Britishmum, who has many questions. There is a CD-ROm out by Eugene Schwartz which covers, in depth, the Waldorf science curriculum in the elementary years. It is a power point presentation and also has word documents as a supplement. It is very well done. My husband, Mechanical Engineer, Network Engineer, my fil, PHD Aerospace Engineer and bil, MS Elect Eng. all took a look at the content and said there was nothing wrong with the way the science curriculum was being presented. Maybe some of us are being confused with anthroposophy's views on things and what is ACTUALLY taught in a Waldorf school. Anyway, I would encourage anyone interested in REALLy knowing about Waldorf curriculum questions go to the Millenialchild.org website, and of course, in researching a school, to be sure to extensively interview the teachers, faculty and staff. I sat in, all day, in a 1st grade class, 3rd grade class and the kindergarden class and had no problem. I also went to the Winter Faire, Spring Faire and didn't find anything unusual or "spooky" hiding in the wings! As in ALL schools, there are going to be some pecuiliar beings, of course, that is all biased according to our own objectivity/subjectivity and experiences. For all we know, WE are the weird ones.
I went in to that school looking for the "Spanish Inquisition" reincarnate (excuse the pun! *L*), and found quite healthy people. I wouldn't say normal, as WHAT is normal???? More than half the people that I encounter in daily life, who are, according to popular culture, normal, I consider quite strange?
By the way, my family is NOT Christian, but Hindu, we are Indian, from India, not Native American's, and I found the school we "interviewed" to be quite progressive and multi-cultural.
Mjakka

[Britishmum]

momofgurlz - thank you, I think you answered my question. I have done some reading and nowhere could I find reference to the philosophy on child development being backed up by recent research into the brain and learning.

This stance seems, in fact, to contradict what is being discovered about the brain. I can't marry it in any way with anything that I have read or know about the way that the brain develops in the earliest years. Sanna, if you have links or references, though, to contradict this, I'd be very interested to follow them up.

thanks for your answers!

[momofgurlz]

Pardon me, mjakka, if I am skeptical about trusting that an organization that is set up and run by a leading figure in the Waldorf movement -- Millenial Child (run by master Waldorf teacher Eugene Schwartz) -- would give parents the complete, unadulterated truth about Waldorf science. Upon brief questioning, Waldorf teachers will say that the only thing different about Waldorf 'science" is the method by which it is taught. That is not true. The content is also different, and teachers (at least in my experience) will finally admit this when pressed to the wall. (I did so when my older child was in 3rd grade and having her first "science" unit, and the material was just plain weird. People have 12 senses that correspond to the signs of the Zodiac?? Humans originated on Atlantis? Of course, the Waldorf school called these subjects by ordinary, scientific names, such as zoology, botany, etc. It was only when I pressed the point at a public meeting -- which I cassette taped -- that the teachers admitted that yes, the science taught in Waldorf schools is different!)

Mjakka, I am not sure how familiar you are with Waldorf in reality. My older girl spent almost 6 years in a Waldorf school -- from early nursery school thru half of grade 4, at which time she was so bored and so miserable that she cried every day before school. We also were appalled by the slow pace of the class -- many of the 4th graders could barely read Dr. Seuss, a number of parents were saying they thought their children had learning disabilities, etc. We actually had our daughter tested by an educational pyschologist whose first question was "Where the heck has she been going to school? Wherever it is, get her out -- now!" Turns out our daughter tested in the gifted range, but there was such a spread between her ability results and her achievement results that the psychologist called it "a teaching disability." He told us that the school was trying -- obviously deliberately -- to hold her intellect in place and that he was frankly disturbed by what he saw. We spent a half year homeschooling our daughter to give her the basic knowledge to catch up with her peers, and now she is an honor student at a very rigorous college prep school. She looks back on the Waldorf experience and says "I thought something was wrong with my brain. I thought thinking was bad!" She now delights in questioning things, researching them, and challenging herself intellectually. (The Waldorf teacher, on the other hand, told us that we had to "move her from her head into her trunk" or else she would have "hardening" in her "organs" in later life.)

Interestingly, Eugene Schwartz (Millenial Child guy) is rather a hero with we Waldorf critics because he is the only, to our knowledge, Waldorf establishment person who has said publicly that the Waldorf movement MUST stop deceiving parents. At a conference at Sunbridge College in 1999, he told an audience of Waldorf teachers, parents and others that the movement was putting itself in peril by not revealing to parents that Waldorf schools ARE anthroposophical thru and thru, and not just, as the admissions folks and brochures tell you, BASED on the ideas of anthroposophy. Schwartz gave such a strongly worded directive to his fellow teachers that he ended up losing his place as head of the teacher training program there. Though various other Waldorf officials deny this happened, Schwartz himself told people on the Waldorf critics internet discussion list that that was what happened.

People always seem to accuse critics like myself of being mean spirited, or wanting every Waldorf school to close, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Though knowing what I know now, I would never send a child of mine to a Waldorf school, I affirm the right of every family to choose for itself. I ask only that Waldorf schools tell the truth, that they tell parents that they are the parochial schools of anthroposophy, and that each and everything done inside their four walls is dictated by anthroposophy. I ask that they tell parents that the system is based entirely on the views of Steiner, who was not a scientist and teacher (as they claim outwardly, to the uninitiated public) but a mystic and clairvoyant (which is what they call him among themselves.) I want parents to know that Waldorf's view of child development is often at odds with what modern science and educational theory knows about human development, and that Steiner based Waldorf on VISIONS he had. Steiner had extremely limited experience with children; he tutored a boy with hydrocephalus (or what seems to have been hydrocephalus) for a short time, and that is it. In Waldorf, Steiner designed the school that he -- a white child born in the 19th century in a rural area -- would like to have attended.

Lisa (who again wonders why I am the only one who uses her real name)

[sanna]

Britishmum,

All I said was that I have been researching from a neurological point of view how the brain develops and according to this, when learning best occurs. I referred you to Carla Hannaford's book which is just a springboard into this type of research. Then I mentioned that it is interesting that Waldorf presents reading and writing at the time that now brain research is proving is the appropriate time to introduce those things. I never said that Waldorf researched this or presents this material as a backup to their way. It was I who made this connection for myself. I am surely not the first to do so..

By the way, in Denmark, they have 100% literacy rate, and they too do not introduce reading and writing until 7,8, and 9 years old. Until then schooling is much more loose and about alot of play especially outdoors!

[Britishmum]

Sanna, I wasn't implying that the research should have been done by Waldorf - sorry if you misunderstood. I said that I could find no reference within what I had read about Waldorf to modern research on brain development. It worries me that an educational philosophy doesnt seem to take into account what is being discovered about how children develop and learn.

I am familiar with Brain Gym and used it extensively in the past, with children from much younger than seven, and I will read Carla Hannaford's book about it for insight into the idea that there are windows of development opening later than I had thought. Thanks for the recommendation, this is a book I've flicked through before but never read thoroughly.

[momofgurlz]

Hi again, guys! (Dontcha love these lively discussions!)

I wanted to clarify something. My point was not that everything about Waldorf educational methodology is contraindicated by modern understanding of and research into brain development. Rather, I meant only to point out that Waldorf's methods and approach (and content) were set up based NOT on any scientific understanding, but on Rudolf Steiner's clairvoyant visions of the way he believed that human beings unfold. I am not saying that all Waldorf ideas are wrong -- as sanna points out, many countries who do not introduce reading and writing until age 7 and 8 have high literacy rates -- but just that one should not confuse Waldorf's spiritual point of view with a scientific one. (I do feel compelled to point out, however, that just because Denmark has a high literacy rate and they introduce reading/writing at age 7 and up does not necessarily mean there is a direct correlation between the two! I feel quite certain that other things also must be taken into account, such as the socioeconomic conditions of the majority of the children, their parents' level of education and achievement, the quality of the public school system, etc. Cause and effect is much more complicated than a one-on-one correlation!)

Waldorf's promise not to "push" children to read and write at "early" ages is, in fact, one of the things that most parents find really attractive. (I certainly did!) In fact, I still support the idea of not pushing children to read and to write at very early ages (preschool, kindergarten, for instance.) But what Waldorf fails to tell parents is that not pushing children to read when they are not ready (and it is impossible to do so, anyway --- ask any reading specialist!) often translates, at Waldorf schools, into an environment that is hostile toward children who ARE ready to read! In cases where children do read early, Waldorf teachers are known to try to STOP the child from reading, which results in the child feeling bad about herself or himself. It is actually (risking hyperbole here!) a form of intellectual bondage. I know of children who read at 5 years of age who were so proud and happy with what they had accomplished and who were made to feel terrible, as if they had done something wrong, when they showed what they could do, or told the teacher about it! Parents are warned (as I was) that early reading would translate into illness later in life. Some of us were given articles that said early readers had a higher suicide rate than other children!

Lisa

[mjakka]

Lisa,
I appreciate your posts, most of all those on this thread, as they seem less defensive and more open-minded. I hope you find ours to be as such as well.
There must be a large disparity between Waldorf schools...as I have noticed from, sitting in classrooms, speaking on the phone with other Waldorf schools around the world, Sloka in India,one with a Micahel name (can't remember it)in Argetina,also from looking at the website of some French ones (DH and I may be going to Switzerland or France in the next several years because of work), and reading your posts (I don't discount your experience and believe you and your children did go through what you did), I find that they must ALL be very different. The one in Argentina introduces singing in German in Kindergarden, for fun. At Sloka, most of the children who enroll in it don't speak English as a first language; although, English is the school's medium of instruction, meaning most of the children speak another language at home other than English for the majority of the time.
I know for sure at Three Cedars, for instance, in Bellevue, Washington that the teachers don't discourage the children from reading, but rather single out and encourage the faster learners to assist the slower children to participate in the "sounding" out process when reading picked out words from sentences on the board. I can't see that as discouraging children from reading when they are ready. That was a 1st grade class. I understand that some Waldorf schools are more dogmatic than others, maybe that is the case with the problem schools. One cannot question what is scientific fact...the CD-Rom which was sent to us was very scientifically and gramatically accurate. It paralleled the Main class books that I saw at the schools I interviewed.
Your experiences and what I have seen are quite revealing. I wonder what the different variable is.
Sincerley,
Mjakka
(I never write my name online, as my dh is a network engineer with a security background. If you'd like you can call me Mo. He had to publish an article on the internet at a secure website, and still was badly pursued and spammed later...so, it is not a lack of trust with those I communicate, but just a knowledge that the information we share is for all to see. So, the truly personal stuff, stays personal.) Have a great day.

[Britishmum]

momofgurlz - I quite understood what you had said, and like you am not rejecting the entire Steiner philosophy, or saying that modern science disproves everything that Waldorf promotes. However, there seem to be some contradictions in what I know about brain development and what Waldorf seems to promote.

Like you, I am not convinced that there are pure and direct links from the age of starting formal teaching to literacy results. There are too many other factors to be taken into account. There is also a huge difference between not starting formal teaching of literacy, and not fostering literacy development. I'm sure that in Denmark literacy development is fostered, if not directly 'taught' before age seven.

I agree that formal teaching of literacy can start too young, but not that before seven is too young. For some children, it is far too late, in my opinion. I see it that there will be a normal curve in learning to read, just as there is in learning to talk, walk, crawl, roll over, and all over developmental milestones. Some children will be wired to learn to read earlier than others. Personally, I can't see that there will be a connection between where one falls on this normal curve and one's future emotional or physical wellbeing.

I would argue that to stifle a child who is learning to read through self-motivation is equivalent to pushing a child who is not showing signs of reading readiness.

[MomtoMia]

Mjakka,

Have you gone to an open house at Three Cedars? I live in the area and have begun to do some research on Waldorf and would like to visit the school - noticed there is an open house coming up in April.

Do you have specific knowledge of the teachers encouraging reading before 1st grade? Children are typically 6/7 years old in 1st grade and your post only mentioned reading in the 1st grade - what about before that? And do they wait until the 1st graders turn 7 before they are allowed to pursue reading? I'm really trying to get a handle on the reading/age issue as relates to anthroposophy and how it manifests in the actual Waldorf schools because I'm adamantly against discouraging or suppressing a child's natural inclination to begin reading.

This thread is fascinating - I had no idea when I first heard about Waldorf education that it was so controversial. I just didn't have enough information. I'm so looking forward to begin reading about Steiner . . . and a little afraid of what I'll find out! Thanks to all . . .

Mary

Mary

[MomtoMia]

p.s. Mary - my real name:)

[Alexander]

Originally posted by momofgurlz
Lisa (who again wonders why I am the only one who uses her real name)

Not the only one ;)

a

[Cookiemomster]

Great thread:thumb

I just lost my post so I'll try to be quick this time.

I would encourage everyone that is interested in waldorf education to go to the toddler class.I think most schools have them?These classes are for the mothers(caretaker)and children.This is a great opportunity to see the philosophy in action.

I was so surprised at the difference btwx what I had read from them and what actually went on.There were a lot of things that I liked but it just didn't make up for the things I didn't.I had no idea that the philosophy influenced every little thing that went on.:eek

I'll point out a few things that surprised me.

The teacher would tell my ds "good"when she liked what he was doing.I hate that word and didn't think anyone in education still used those kind of words.

The teacher would explain that we couldn't do something because we had to wait for the fairies to do such and such.There was lots of fairy talk.I thought when they said they taught children about fairies that it was kind of cute and I was expecting tales or books about fairies but not that they would be involved w/every simple thing we did.

I felt that at times the class was really more for me then my ds and that they really wanted to teach me the philosophy and more importantly teach me how to parent in a waldorf style.If this happened or if I could do this then we would be welcome to stay and if not then maybe this ain't the school for you.

I also peeked into other class rooms and thought the "art work" was really strange.I mean it all looked like the same person did it.And what is with the lack of faces in the work?

I think that you can't even compare these schools to catholic schools because not only do you know what catholic schools believe in but also I don't think that their curriculum is that different than any other school.Thier science,math,english,ect is pretty much the same.Of course,there is religion class and probably some morals thrown in here and there but essencially it is not that different.

Silly me I thought it would just be fun to go to a mommy&child class.It felt too heavy for me.I am not saying that It wasn't worth while or that I didn't learn anything,just that there seemed to be a lot more going on then I expected or wanted.Someone brought up (on the other thread)that maybe there should be a neo-waldorf movement and that sounds great to me.

Sorry I'm kinda rambling and saying what others have said but just wanted to add my .02

[momofgurlz]

Thanks for your insightful post, Cookiemomster (great name, by the way! Wish I had thought of it myself! <g>)

Your observations during the parent-toddler classes make exactly the point I was trying to make here: that Anthroposophy, which is a religion/sect, influences everything at a Waldorf school, down to the smallest details.

"Fairy talk" is just one example. Like most parents coming into Waldorf, I was initially charmed by all the references to gnomes and fairies ("How quaint! How old fashioned and wonderful!"). But after hearing teachers refer over and over again to gnomes and fairies, the whole thing takes on a strang-ish aspect. You can tell that the teachers themselves *believe in* and even *see* these creatures, and they want the children to, too. I vividly recall my daughter getting very upset because *she* couldn't see these beings, when the teacher had said that "good" (there's that word again!) children *could* see them! At one point right before we withdrew our daughter from her former school, I told the teacher I objected to her teaching my children that gnomes and fairies were real. She angrily retorted "My beliefs are none of your business!" I calmly told her that her beliefs indeed *were* my business when she was pressing them on my kids without my express consent!

Cookiemomster's observation that the Mother-Child class seems designed to appeal more to the parent than to benefit the child is an extremely apt one. In fact, the more I ponder the issue, the more I realize that Waldorf is set up to appeal to adults' idealized notions of childhood and how it should be. The adults like the idea of children playing only with "natural" toys of wood and wool, whereas children are generally genuinely happy with toys of many materials, including plastic. (A preschool teacher on one Waldorf internet list recently bemoaned the fact that the children in her class preferred their plastic babydolls with open-and-shut eyes and plastic hair to the "beautiful" wool and cotton Waldorf-style dolls she had so lovingly provided. This teacher was worried about the children's reaction, because she had been told that Waldorf dolls are BETTER for children.) The adults like the idea that the young children are not singing things like "Wheels on the Bus" (can't have that -- it's about a machine! <g>) and instead learn lovely verses about "Mother Earth" and "Brother Wind." Young children often just want to sing the theme song from "Dragontales!" <g>

Once you study Waldorf education thru the lens of anthro., all of the ways that it influences -- dictates -- Waldorf become obvious. Almost nothing in a Waldorf school is done without an anthroposophical reason behind it. (The more anthroposophically devoted teachers, in fact, dress in the appropriate "color of the day" which is determined by an anthro chart of the planets and moons. This chart also dictates what grain is appropriate to eat on which day.) Even the tone the teachers use when speaking and singing derives from anthroposophy and Steiner's ideas about human spiritual development.

Again, I am not saying that it is bad that Waldorf is dictated by anthro. My complaint is that most parents enrolling their children don't know this. If the schools were open and honest about all of this, if they called themselves anthroposophic schools and informed parents of the important differences between their school and others (too numerous to mention), I would not enroll my kids, but I would not be spending time here criticizing Waldorf. I believe strongly in freedom of religion, and freedom from it.

Yours for truth,

Lisa

[heartmama]

I admire a lot about anthroposophy and it's beliefs about children.

However I have a few area's that differ markedly from my own feelings about parenting and have kept me from embracing waldorf.

Most prominent is the push for separation between parent and child. Germany invented the modern "kindergarten" which tranfered quickly to america and beyond. I have read numerous articles which point out that the entire motivation of putting young children in government run schools was to "homogonize" the culture. In Germany now, homeschooling is illegal. The very idea is considered rather dangerous (thus the illegal status), something only religious extremists or anti social parents would even consider. (We homeschool, in case you could not tell :) )

I find that anthroposophy and Waldorf, being German in origin, reflect strongly the idea that a child, around the age of 3, needs the introduction of a non parent *teacher*, and the beginning of parental separation.

As wonderful as many waldorf schools are, I cannot get away from the fact that most truly devoted to waldorf probably believe "school" meets the "needs" of a child, in a way that being at home never could.

This flies in the face of virtually every anthropological account of how humans have raised children since the beginning of recorded history. There is virtually no precedent for such early separation from the mother, and a *much* more common age to begin formal training of *any* kind is 7 or 8 years of age. Even then the child may still spend much of their day with a biological parent.

It strikes me as ironic that Waldorf kindergartens devote much time to baking, gardening, and other domestic activities...one's that normally would occur in the home with mother. In my opinion, the ideal function of "school" is to train an individual in those topics "not" easily found in their home life. Not to simply replicate the home in a new setting...

In many ways I think anthroposophy cannot co exist with attachment parenting (a theory I feel more in line with). I have been told that in anthroposophy, weaning begins when the child starts walking. You would never nurse past one year. Co sleeping is not prefered as the child needs their own space to identify with. There is a strong sentiment of avoiding "holding the child back" which seems impossible to me, if the child is happy where they are at.

These are my problems with the theory, and the reasons I have not investigated Waldorf schooling for my child.

Heartmama

[zinemama]

I've been quite fascinated with this thread. Although others have said it, it bears repeating that not all Waldorf schools are alike, and that it's best to check them out individually.

I went to an old, well-established Waldorf school for many years (Green Meadow omn NY state). While I do have some issues about that particular school, I want to say that though I am left-handed, no one there ever suggested to me that I write with my right hand! And though I came into that school in 2nd grade already reading, my teacher, awful as she was in some ways, never tried to get me to stop or slow down, though the other kids were still reciting the alphabet.

The science aspect of what Momofgurlz has been talking about is also really interesting. The 12 senses? Humans from Atlantis? Maybe our teachers believed that (who can say?), but it's all news to me. Neither in elementary nor in hs were such ideas ever presented. Sure, we had botany, but all we did was go outside and draw pictures of plants into our main lesson books, while learning such terms as "pistil" and "stamen." I thought science was a total bore, and I must say that the Atlantis theory would have been a whole lot more interesting to me at the time!

I'm not disputing that Momofgurlz's kids were taught some pretty strange things at their particular school. I'm sure I would have been as freaked out as she was! But I just wanted to reiterate that with Waldorf, it's all about the individual school.

[Rhonwyn]

Hello all,

I thought this message thread needed a little support for the Waldorf side of things. My two children are both in Waldorf. My son will be starting 1st grade next year. I think that every Waldorf school is different and some are a better match for a family than others much as different social organizations and churches are different from group to group. No one at my son's and daughter's school has tried to force lefties to be righties. They do however try to help children settle into left or right sideness to their bodies so that the child is balanced. No one has discouraged my children to not read before it is formally taught. Also, as has been explained to me, reading is taught from the beginning though the child may not actually read until 3rd grade. All of the foundations are being laid down before hand beginning with stories and sounds in Kindergarten, the introduction of letters in first grade and so on. What Waldorf has done and taught for my my children is the love of the outdoors, it has instilled independence and self confidence, it has allowed them to be children safe from the influence of media and it has recognized the fact children need to move. I wouldn't chose anything else. I would advise anyone interested in Waldorf to talk to other parents and check out their local schools. We have three in the Seattle area. Each wonderful in their own way and each with it's own flavor. Our family found the one that suits us best.

Rhonwyn

[TraceyMc]

I also went to a parent child class and it was great! We heard great stories and learned to make up our own. We learned how to make a lot of crafts, including knitting. I couldn't have asked for a better experience. My dd loved it, couldn't wait to get there. I met so many other great moms, vegetarians who don't want their kids sitting in front of the tv all day, that's what attracted us to the school.
I have met many children from the older grades and none of them are bored or only reading Dr. Suess in 4th grade. Britishmum, I don't know which school your daughter went to, but how different it is from ours!
I would advise anyone interested to check out your local school because they are obviously all very different.

Tracey

[Britishmum]

Tracey, maybe you've mixed me up with someone else but dd hasn't been to a Waldorf school - or any other yet. (She's only 19 months old!) But I'm interested in all types of education, hence my involvement in this discussion. It's good to hear about some positive experiences of Waldorf from people who don't seem defensive though!

[TraceyMc]

Sorry Britishmum-it was Momofgurlz that I should have addressed.
The Waldorf threads are soooo long, I forget what I read from who!

[lovinmama]

Hi all
I am not real familiar with waldorf and all that it is,
but did attend a parent/child class with my children
who were 3 and 18 months at the time. I really loved
the group and the things we did but I have to say I was
shocked when I felt judged because my child was wanting
to nurse all the time and the teacher told me that children
should be weaned around the time they start to walk and
proceded to tell me that studies have shown that extended
nursers are more likely to be unable to leave home as adults
and go off to college ect... (My husband and all his siblings were
nursed a long time and none live close to home :-)) My son
is still nursing at 3, I pretty much let that go in one ear and out
the other!
Racheal

[bunny's mama]

wow. this thread is exactly what i was looking for!

heartmama, i also have a problem with the home-like stuff. i read some waldorf literature that said that the aim is to make the class a family wiht the teacher as mother-figure. WAIT A FREAKIN MINUTE: *i* am dd's mother and me, her papa, her grandparents and her kitty are HER FAMILY. maybe i'm a little crazed, but i just didn't like the way that sounded. a little cultish, maybe

i am considering attending the toddler group (dd is 18 mos) just to see what its like, but i am also very bothered by the celebration of religious holidays. while i love the idea of exposing children to spirituality and ritual, we are jewish and i have a real problem with my child being in a school where christmas, easter, etc. are celebrated in a big way to the exclusion of other traditions (i.e. *our* family's culture and traditions). just my opinion, but i think it's wrong for jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist, etc. children to have to celebrate chriustian holidays (don't get me wrong, i am thrilled and honored to be invited to celebrate christian holidays with christian friends in their homes, but this is different IMO).

anyway, any comments on this aspect of waldorf education?

oooh, lisa, that thing about how "good" children can see the faeries woulda made me grab my kid and get the hel outta there. what a terrible thing to say to a child!! i'm shocked. :eek

[TraceyMc]

Hi Bunny's Mama,
I just wanted to say that our Waldorf School celecbrates all kinds of holidays, not just Christian ones. They light the menorah for Hannakuh and have jewish parents come in to help with the celebration. They celebrate holidays from everywhere, including China and Africa as well as all the festivals and winter solstice and May Day.


Tracey

[heartmama]

Lovinmama, in my limited experience, Waldorf is not cool with ap, which is ironic since they are often lumped together due to the "natural" granola aspect to both theories.

Heartmama

[heartmama]

bunny'smama, my thoughts exactly! The whole re creation of the mother figure really bothered me...

Heartmama

[I Believe in Fairies]

I'm currently taking a Parent/Toddler class at the local Waldorf school. The majority of the class are AP families and no one has ever looked at us funny for breast feeding our toddlers in class.

I think it just underlines ath all of teh schools are different.

Elizabeth McKeeman
Momma to Annabelle 8/2/00

[bunny's mama]

elizabeth, my friend (she posts here, too) is taking the same class as you, i think at SF waldorf and has said so many good things about it.

it does sound like each school is different, prolly based on the quality of each teacher.

[bunny's mama]

interesting site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/index.html

[Teresa]

From Waldorf Resources:

http://www.waldorfresources.com/readroom/features/weaning.html

[mamarain]

Just to add my .02 of having been a waldorf-kid myself and having lived in a antro-family (not my own parents) as well as having been at a "normal" public school too.

I changed schools from a public school to a Waldorf-one when i was 10. I was placed a year higher since i'd been a "top-student" in my previous school (yes, so much in this competition mode at age 10 and under, that i was suffering from frequent migraines, that consequently disappeared as i entered the Waldorf school) - at first the culture shock was great, suddenly i had classes i've never dealt with (german, eurythmy etc.) and i was in this panic-mode of "not being the best in my class any more", this fear slowly subsided since there was no competition happening (ie. no grading with numbers) and i began to love all the art we got to do, making our own textbooks, knitting socks, dancing circle dances at the christmas-party that smelled of candles, apples and cinnamon.. There was plenty too that we students used to critisize, i did run off to rock-concerts (big no-no) and hated eurythmy when i was 14 and i left the school in this adolecent burst of independence to follow my passion and study art - but i probably wouldn't have found that artistic passion without the waldorf school - funnily enough i've come around full circle to consider that as an option for my dd. And yet it has to be said that you have to do your research - not all schools are created equal, many teachers live in this textbook-antroposophy that is lacking the groundedness of real life, the challenge in any spiritual quest where you may buy the philosophy BEFORE the actual experience. I see it as a never-ending journey of curiosity where you may have guidelines, but you have to fill in the blanks. I've seen my own antro-family soaring, their children blossoming into these fantastic, skilled (you should see what these kids can do with their hearts & hands!) individuals whose lives may not be "waldor-textbook" but certainly true and honest and couragerous. One of the most beautiful stories i know is how they really had to find creative solutions for their very spirited daughter, like getting her a wild horse in her teens to focus her roaring energies. She is now a wild and fabulous woman pursuing a life of an artist. In them i've seen the best of the waldorf-legacy, meeting each child in where they are and offering them tools to become thinking, feeling and creative adults. Very AP i would say. Sure they didn't breastfeed beyond one year, but after their recent trip to South-America she was talking of seeing these older kids still bf:ing, in a curious tone of "ah, it can be done that way too".

And yes, as a student it wasn't always that fantastic, but we rebelled like all teens, we got met (by being physically challenged with camping and hiking trips in wet windy mountains) and some kids left (mostly because the parents feared the kid's academic status) while others stayed and soared. You have to be the one to know your child and to decide wheter the standards of the school are acceptable to you - something you would do in any case, waldorf or not.
Ask more questions and take more responsibility of your journey and don't think that any one system will change anything unless you're willing to invest yourself into it.

And it all made me this wildly AP and granola mama that i am now! ;)

Satu - my real name

[TraceyMc]

Wow Satu
What a great post! My dd is going into kindergarten in our local Waldorf school and we have loved everything about it so far. It's great to hear from someone who has been through it beyond kindergarten.
Our parents association is strong and growing, and I feel confident it is the right place for my dd to be. I am taking the foundation year through the school this year, so that I can find out about Anthroposphy and why it upsets so many people here.

Tracey

[mamarain]

I also wanted ta add that the voice of dissent is important - so thanks for starting the thread "a".
This is a passionate subject for me, so after blurbing a part of my story a realized that i left out the parts that i really wanted to respond to..

I never had any "weird" classes (so no "zodiac and it's responding 12 senses" in our curriculum), we did study the sky and the constellations (drawing out the constellations) as well as rocks, ancient cultures, plants, geometrical forms, calligraphy, animals, cooking.. the science classes were always very hands-on (One of my strongest visual memories is this class, where we went into a darkened room, well, when you're 11, it's very exciting.. and played with colored lights and the shadows that were the opposite colors.) And since the antro-family i lived with were also teachers at the school, i've seen them preparing their many classes (and i mean PREPARING, since they do not have the ready-made textbooks)with using totally valid stacks of books, encyclopedias and such. And also my left-handed friend was left-handed all the way through school..
Also a note on eurythmy, i am trained as a movement therapist and movement analysist , and i observed an eurythmy class few years back - it was wonderful for my dancer's eyes to see a class where kids are encouraged to go into [what we call] effort qualities that are not normally in their personal movement repertoire. This translated meant that i saw these 7-8 yr olds boys and girls taking parts in playing the dragon, the knight and the princess, with some boys there in the princess roles, some girls as knights or dragons.. really allowed to live out their inner characters. For my therapist eyes that was really healthy.
Enough said, this was just echoing what mjakka and others have expressed earlier - also noting that i went to school in Europe and there may be differences between countries that i do not know of.

Blessings,
Satu

[bunny's mama]

we have been trying out a wal;dorf playgroup lately and i'm perplexed by teh sing-songy voice the teacher uses throughout the group. it seems rather ingenuine to me, and very strange. the melodies are not intuitive (IMO) and the words ar not repetitive, so it is rather hard to catch on and sing along with her. very weird to me...

[annettemarie]

Did you ask the teacher why she uses that type of voice and sings those sorts of songs?

[bunny's mama]

no. i guess i didn't feel comfortable asking, but i see where you're heading, i suppose i could just ask.

i'm just wondering if this is a waldorf thing.

[Alexander]

I can't imagine it is a waldorf thing. But I've been amaized b4!

Please let us know.

a

[TraceyMc]

It is a waldorf thing, it's called the pentatonic scale and they use it in the children's garden (younger children) because of the dreamy state they believe they are in before the change of teeth (losing baby teeth) around seven years old.
The sing songy voice works so well for all the teachers I have seen, parent child and preschool classes. The children start following along for clean up, snack time, what ever they are singing for.:)

[annettemarie]

I know there was a lot of singing in the pentatonic scale and the minor third (think of the "ding-dong" sound of a doorbell) when we were in a parent child class, but this mirrored what I learned as a music education major. Kodaly, a big player in the music education field called this "the interval of childhood," as it is universally found in all cultures when children make up songs for themselves (think of a child singing "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo- that's the musical phrase) So, when I heard this being done in a Waldorf classroom, it just reflected what I had already learned as a music major. I figured they were singing to the children in a way the child would sing. This also made sense for the high-pitched songs. As a Kindermusik teacher, we are taught to sing in the child's range, which is pitched high. I think it is good to have some songs be simple, but others be complex. Just giving my opinion with my music teacher hat on, not my Waldorf hat : )
Annette
PS_I wanted to share a really good "discipline" technique I learned in the Waldorf parent-child class. When a child asks for something rudely, rather than saying "What do you say?" or saying "Say please," you can sing to them, modeling what you want them to say. If my son says, "I want a drink" I sing "May I have a drink please" and he sings it right back. Then I sing "Yes, you may!" He even sings back "O----Kay!" It's very sweet, and really works for us.

[bunny's mama]

oooh, annettemarie, i like your little discipline trick. and i love music. its just that this teacher doens't *talk* AT ALL. she sings absolutely everything and that, IMO, is a little creepy.

what is the pentatonic scale?

[annettemarie]

I can understand why constant singing would be a little unnerving. If you play just the black keys on the piano, you have a pentetonic scale.
Annette

[hydrangea]

I have been reading this thread and some other ones here with interest.

I attended a Waldorf school (The Rudolf Steiner School in NYC, which I think might even be the original one in the US) from Kindergarten through 8th grade, at which time I left to attend public school for various reasons.

I have actually been thinking quite a bit about my Waldorf education over the past 6 years as I have pondered how to educate my own children. I have a lot of very positive memories that I wouldn't trade for anything. I have some negative memories as well, which while I don't believe they traumatized me, they are certainly not what I want for my own children. And I have been reading. I find that the waldorf critics site is quite extreme' however it does explain a lot about some of my negative experiences and about why things were the way they were that I am not happy with.

My personal experience with Waldorf schools extends to the Hawthorne Valley Waldorf school (upstate NY), as Steiner was pretty involved with them (my class spent a week or more at the Hawthorne Valley Farm each year), then my little sister ended up going there for high school after being in NYC public schools her entire life, and now I live just ten minutes away from the school, shop at their health food store weekly, and visit the cows and their toy store regularly with my own children. I also know parents who happily send/sent their children there (including my own parents), those who did but removed them for various reasons, those who have been looking at the school for their own children, etc. I was even at their senior class play last week :-) So while I am not a teacher, student, alum or parent there, I still feel I know the school fairly well.

I understand that some Waldorf schools may be different, but the two I know well were very similar.

Some positives memories and feelings I have:

I was really lucky to have two wonderful class teachers, one who stayed through 4th grade and then left to get married and another who was with us through 8th grade. Neither of them was a anthroposophist. I'm not sure why they were hired. Maybe it was harder to find anthroposophists back then? I also became very close with the music teacher as I took private flute lessons with her from 3rd grade even into high school after I had left Steiner. I cared about these teachers and felt cared about by them and will always remember them with incredible fondness. Perhaps if I had had anthroposophist teachers during these years, things would have been different.

I loved the magical view of the world I was given and still maintain to a certain extent. I do not believe in God and I am not a pagan, but I can't quite call myself an aetheist either as I see too much magic and spirituality in the world we live in and our connectedness to it. I know I didn't get this from my parents!

I loved how the transition between learning ancient myths and learning actual history was a little vague. It was all a form of storytelling. Some might complain that it meant I saw history as myths, but the way I see it, I learned to really enjoy social studies. We were allowed a lot of creativity in these main lesson blocks beyond the usual Waldorf art stuff. For example, I remember writing a report on Paul Revere and turning it into a newspaper from the time, complete with articles, ads, logo, etc. My teacher loved it (would she have if she were an anthroposophist? I don't know). We also acted out a lot of what we learned, and I loved that.

While I have issues with the way art was taught, I do value the fact that everything was about arts and crafts. Going to the Hawthorne Valley school play the other night reminded me of that -- the acting, the singing, the instrumentals, the beautiful set, the lighting, etc. was all done by the students and done beautifully.

I am glad that I was taught to love nature and given many chances to experience it and glad that I was taught not to watch tv or to value commercial toys and glad that I was taught to distrust technology. These things have stuck with me, but they have been embodied into my own personal belief system.

Some negative memories and feelings I have:

I had two years of kindergarten at Steiner. All the kindergarten teachers were anthroposophists. I was bullied. When my mother spoke to my teacher about it, she just told my mother "ah, but your daughter is a victim." My mother was pretty angry, needless to say, but I guess she didn't do anything beyond that (should I be questioning my mother here?). Now I read that that was because of the whole karma thing. That for I was supposed to be bullied and didn't need to be protected because of something having to do with a past life. I was miserable and hated myself. That was the beginning of my social problems.

I loved to draw as a child, but my inclinations were pretty much stamped out during kindergarten. No black. No outlines. For a long time only one color at a time. Then two. Then finally three. Everything had to be done with block crayons. Yes, within those limits we could draw what we want, but I questioned my artistic impulses as they were obviously not approved of by my teachers. Only beautiful shading, according to the colors of the rainbow (once we had colors) was praised. And while I drew pretty well with a black marker, I couldn't get the hang of shading enough to please my teachers. Once we were in first grade, I don't remember any free drawing. Everything was copied from blackboards into main lesson books or dicated by art teachers. I loved crafts, but once again we didn't have a huge amount of freedom with what we wanted to make or our designs. The only truly valued music was old music of the western tradition, especially German and Austrian music. FWIW, my sister didn't experience this when she entered high school at Hawthorne Valley (as I mentioned before, from public school). She felt she had freedom to create. I didn't do high school at Steiner, so maybe there I would have, too, but by that time, IMO, it would have been too late. I had already lost my creative bug and my confidence. I was always been kind of easily influenced, so perhaps a child with more spunk would have made it through. I did continue with music though. When I left Steiner I went on to the High School of Music and Art for flute.

That brings me to another thing that bothered me. I was always really good at math. I would finish my assignments and my tests early, my only errors were at the end when they were out of boredom for being assigned over 100 too easy problems, and then I would have to sit there and wait for the rest of the class to finish. They never gave me any encouragement to go further. I was bored out of my mind. Science was barely taught and what little labwork we did was in ancient labs with ancient equipment. Once I decided I wanted to leave the school, I wanted to apply to the specialized high schools in NYC. I totally flunked the tests for the high schools that specialized in math and science and barely even made it into Music and Art based on my academic scores (all that music stood me well). I didn't even know what these tests were asking. My mother was furious because the counselor she had dealt with at Steiner assured her that their math and science was right up there with the public schools. It so wasn't!!! Once I was at Music and Art and caught up in math, I got straight As, and I did very well on the SATs and other standardized tests once they came up. If my Waldorf education had been prepared better, I might very well have gotten into the one of the other high schools which were actually my first choice and my life might be very different right now.

I left Steiner after 8th grade because I was bored by most of my classes and because I was miserable socially, and because noone, even my beloved teachers, made much of a move to help me. I felt like the school was too small for me. These things could happen anywhere though, and I'm sure the old-fashioned disciplinary measures (no hitting, just a lot of humiliation) used on other class members, but still giving me a lot of stress, and the encouraged competitiveness in sports, arts, etc. could happen elsewhere too, but I know that these are part of how education happens at a Waldorf school.

I also know that certain teachers who the entire class and their parents are unhappy with are never let go because their beliefs are consistent with anthroposophy while other teachers who are loved by students and their parents are treated badly and let go because they don't believe in anthroposophy. I just heard of one anthroposophist teacher at this school who has actually hit children and shaken them more than once over the years and still is class teacher to an elementary scdhool class. That really bothers me. I have heard similar stories from other schools.

I have other problems, like the fact that in the 10 years I attended the school in NYC, there were only two children of color in the class, each of whom left after a year or so. There was also a lot of classism going on. But I think these can be blamed on the fact that it was a private school.

There's more, but this is what I am thinking of now.

The negatives outway the positives for me with my own children. I believe I could find the positives at other schools without many of the negatives if I were to look. But then I have problems with school in general (one reason I don't love the waldorf critics site -- they seem to fully accept the status quo when it comes to education), and we have decided to homeschool or rather, radically unschool. Even if I have to go back to work it is doubtful my children will be attending a Waldorf school. There are other options around me.

[AutumnMoonfire]

You are lucky to have other options! Where I live we have a Waldorf school, catholic schools fundimentalist christian schools or the public schools. I'm Pagan Dh is Jewish and a christian school whatever the flavor is not a likely choice. We just found out that there is bussing to the Waldorf school...But I am beginning to doubt we will go that route...:confused:

Dh will not consider homeschooling unless the publics fail miserably and since he would be heavily involved too...it just cannot be a unilateral decision.

[hippiemom]

good reading....
i grew up in wilton NH, of the famed pine hill and high mowing waldorf community (k-12 since the late 70's). i was a lowly public schooler however, and how i longed to be up at the waldorf school painting and modling my beeswax.... i was VERY creative and had little outlet for this at my small poor public school.

so when my first daughter was entering kindergarten, of course i wanted the fantasy of my life, to finally be part of a waldorf community! (that classic parental fuck up where you think your kid wants to have what you could not). only problem was, my daughter was not overly artistic at that point, and LOVED to read and write! she began reading "i can read" and "dr seuss" books on her own just before she turned 3, and craved much material to satisfy her hunger for language and stories. no, i did not push her into this, she did it on her own much to our amazement.

when i took her to interview at waldorf schools they were most unimpressed and emphasized that they would try to make her a "better rounded child", as if her early reading were a problem they needed to correct. i found this to be entirely hypocritical, as my daughter was clearly a "reader" type who loved letters and books naturally, and i had happily nourished her love with many good books and trips to the library. i was letting her be herself, though it pained me to see her using her little watercolor paints to write the alphabet (i wanted her to be a free spirit artist), this is who she was and is today at age 9. she is a voracious reader and writer (she averages 10 novels every 2 weeks) and was a late bloomer for the artistic stuff, which she now enjoys. she was the opposite of most waldorf kids who are artsy early on and read later. i am glad i put her in public school.

[indiegirl]

I don't know whether to love you or hate you guys for bursting my bubble about Waldorf. I just hate what I have learned! Here I thought the "perfect" school existed and was willing to fork out the bucks to send my dd there when she came of age. I have a Master's in education and consider myself quite progressive (in regard to educational theory), but the sticking point for me is the teacher training these folks get. Two years? One year is religious instruction?

It smacks of cult to me.

Why oh why cant a girl find a school that will not crush her child's spirit: one where myth is myth, fairies are fairies and history/science/English/Math/social studies are themselves??? I want my child to bake and knit in school. I want her to celebrate the mystical (knowing it's different from reality), I want her to form a close bond with her teacher. I want her to be safe from ridicule and free to develop at her own pace.

It doesn't sound like Waldorf really does that.

[TraceyMc]

I wouldn't say Waldorf is perfect, but it sure beats any other private or public schools where we live. Unfortunately homeschooling is not an option for us and my dd craves people. Everyday she wants to know either, Where are we going or who is coming over??? She is only five. I have done a fair amount of investigating in our school, including substituting and haven't seen anything even mildly weird.

:) Tracey

[hydrangea]

The "weirdness" is often very subtle, and some people don't mind it. My problem is more the way they mislead people. So many people assume Waldorf offers a progressive education, whereas in fact, their education is very classical, and they are quite strict.

For example, people talk about Waldorf schools' great arts education, whereas in fact, in the early years, their children will only be able to draw/paint with certain types of crayons/paint, in certain colors, and without lines. And throughout elementary school, the majority of the art consists of copying teachers' drawings, and where a child can do one's own thing, it's within certain constraints. In my opinion a great arts education will encourage children to be creative and experimental and to find their own style. None of this exists in the early years at Waldorf schools.

Music, too, is taught within certain constraints. All songs in the early years are in the pentatonic scale. And when one graduates from that, in my experience with three different Waldorf schools, they only teach distinctly western music, with a huge emphasis on classical. That is anecdotal, perhaps other schools are different. But in my opinion, I'd like children to be exposed to different musical traditions from around the world, to be given the chance to experiment and improvise, etc.

I have a friend who graduated from Bank Street College, a very progressive teaching school in NYC. She visited many private schools during her education, and she was really shocked by how NON-progressive Waldorf was. She couldn't believe that children still sit in assigned seats in straight rows facing the teacher. She was surprised how math is taught in such a rote way. She felt that they way reading was taught was nice for some kids, but saw a lot of frustrated children who could have been saved their frustration at a school with more flexibility. She was horrified by the discipline measures being used. One example being that in K and 1st grade, children are being sent to stand in the corner and humiliated in front of the whole class.

If what you want is a not-so-progressive, quite classical education in a beautiful setting, with lots of art and music even though it's not creative art and music, with very caring teachers and an emphasis on fairies and are okay with the fact that anthroposophy is subtly behind everything, it's a great school. There's a lot about my Waldorf education I love. I just hate seeing parents blindly sending their children to a school that they assume is progressive and a natural extension of attachment parenting.

The attachment parenting link with Waldorf really kind of makes me laugh. There may be many AP parents who send their kids there, and therefore there's a nice community of AP parents. And maybe they're all able to do their thing and do Waldorf too, which is great. However, the Waldorf philosophy says babies need to be weaned by 6 months -- anthro doctors still tell people this, and in my area that has a big Waldorf community, La Leche League has had to deal with a number of women who have been told to wean at 6 months and are struggling between being good Waldorf mothers and their instincts to continue nursing. Another anti-AP thing about Waldorf is that they believe the teacher should take over from the parent as being the most important being in the child's life.

[heartmama]

I have said this before and will say it again to support hydrangea-I do not think Waldorf is the least bit support of AP.

Waldorf is based on a well documented philosophy that does not support extended nursing, family bed, homeschooling or long term attachment to the mother (meaning past 3 years!).

Yet, because Waldorf is "alternative" and so is AP, many people (I am sure even some who work at Waldorf schools) are not aware of how VERY different these philosophies are. Waldorf schools may find themselves populated with lots of AP families, but again, that is only due to the "alternative" association Waldorf has in this country. It does mean Waldorf supports AP. If you read the literature at all, it is very plain that it does not.

Heartmama

[Mary-Beth]

Why does the Waldorph-philosophy oppose extended breastfeeding?
I don't know too much about Waldorph except a friend of mine sends his kids to this type of school and it looked good becasue his kids don't watch all kinds of tv and seem really into nature...
well, when I was looking for a Dr. for my baby I found an M.D. who practices homeopathic, etc. and is supportive of "alternative" methods and open to not vaccinationg and or doing so selcetively...and he'll help you sign all approriate waivers and everything for schools, etc. So we took our DD at 2 months to see him and the apt. was 1.5 hours...he went over all this stuff about her spirit filling the room and developing from the head down...
Anyway, I had her in the sling most the time as we talked and he asked, "what would she do if you just put her down?" and "how often do you use the sling?" I felt like I was being judged for having her in the sling. He also asked me how BF was going and seemed supportive...but, he asked when we were leaving, "How long do you plan to BF for?" I said, "until she's done. I'll know when the time has come. Right now I'm just getting started." His response was, "Oh, yeah I know but on your next apt. I'd like to talk to you about why I don't think you should BF as long as some LLL groups would have you."
This really puts me off. I have no idea if I'll BF 2 years, 4 years or what?
What age does Steiner determine to be time to wean? Why?
What does Steiner have against me holdng my baby as much as I want? Even if that means all day long! I just don't understand? Or is this not at all reflective of Waldorph and just this M.D.'s personal beliefs?
I will go back to this M.D. because I haven't found any other M.D. in the area who will support my position on antibiotics, vaccinations, etc.

[hydrangea]

Mary-Beth, I hope someone who knows more about this than I do will answer you, but the age of weaning has to do with their first teeth coming in. So when teeth start coming in, according to Rudolf Steiner, you need to start weaning. Steiner relates all sorts of spiritual developmental issues to teeth. He also believed children shouldn't learn to read until their baby teeth fall out.

I don't know anything about Rudolf Steiner discouraging carrying, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that doctor's attitude was a Waldorf one as well.

Alot of what you mention sounds pretty anthro, but someone who has read some of Steiner's writings could better tell you.

As long as you continue to read and stay knowledgeable about breastfeeding and about children's illnesses and health and nutrition and are not afraid to disregard your doctor's advice or get a second opinion, you should be fine. You'll be doing exactly what most of us do with our more mainstream doctors ;)

[Iris]

Hey, just wanted to say ho much I appreciate this thread being here. I am/was one of those mentioned in the first posts who are 'dead-set' on attending Waldorf...however...I'm quite impressed by the thoughtful depate going on here. (Admittedly, I've nearly run out of time on the computer as DS is about to wake so I've only barely made it through page 1!) I have not some new food for thought as DS and I enter our parent-toddler group at our local Waldorf School. Hmmm, separation of Mother and child issue, left-hand issue, *science* class (while I do believe spiritual/occult/new-age is a valuable subject I also strongly believe in *mainstream*LOL Sciences.) Also the potentiality of hostile attitudes toward those kids who may indeed be ready to read early.

I am very against pushing children to be *superkids* and rushing them out of childhood as well as I am strongly against tv and the media industry and how it is directed at children. These are just afew of my reasons for being so interested in Waldorf and against mainstream education. I am also very fond of the magical fairy and otherworldly aspect fo the education and environment. somehow I know I'll need to find a balance and perhaps Waldorf education will not be our *golden key* to what ails in education. I'm rambling a bit so I'll stop now.

Again, thanks so much for this thread and to all of you who have put yourselves out there with your points of view and personal experience.

In peace,
Iris

[Rhonwyn]

I just spent the better part of an hour writing a response to the weaning question only to have the website throw it to the ether.

Teresa above provided the following link:

Waldorf & Weaning
From Waldorf Resources:

http://www.waldorfresources.com/rea...es/weaning.html


Read the questions and answers at that link. Waldorf is not stagnant. It is changing and opinions are different from people to people. You are your child's best advocate. You know what is best for your child. Waldorf may or may not fit for you. Check out your local community as they are not all the same. I am getting the feeling that many of the groups back east are stuffy and stagnant. I haven't found that to be true here in Seattle. Here, they worry too much about being dogmatic so they end up not really giving you any recommendations or guidelines unless you drag it out of them. Most mothers here nurse until 15 months or longer. Many families, including some of the Kindergarten teachers, practice the family bed lifestyle. Do what is best for your child and don't let someone pressure you into doing what you feel is wrong for your child.

[Clarity]

I know virtually nothing about Waldorf. I read the waldorf resources site about weaning issues. It sounds to me like one gal trying to encourage the BF in a a sea of waldorf/steiner/anthro BF negativity. It seems to be a tenet, minor perhaps, of the movement, but this women is encouraging people that you can still be a good waldorf parent and be AP. So you have to *choose* to ignore this aspect. Which is reasonable. But it shouldn't even be there! I shouldn't *have* to ignore it. Someone should decide, that in this, Steiner is wrong. Can they do that? It sounds to me like I'd have to put up with a lot of BS during the school experience. Which is consistent with an earlier observation that they're trying to build Waldorf parents. Another vote here for the neo-waldorf movement. It's very interesting to see how some of the steiner/waldorf stuff is consistent with some bits and pieces of German educational styles from the 20's-40's I am familiar with. On a creepy note, some of that became the basis for the Hitler Youth, too. (really, I;m not making a direct comparison) but the family-substitute model was one they used too. As was creating an "ideal"...athlete, German, etc. Use of costumes, folk songs, misuse of pagan imagery, and maybe it sounds like eurthmy (sp) stuff...but I don't know enough about that.

[greenmama]

Hi I wanted to address one issue and bring up a new one.

About the re-creation of home and intention to separate parent and child. This is certainly not what is written in "You are your childs first teacher" which is for children birth to seven and considered one of the two leading waldorf texts on this age. (along with Beyond the Rainbow Bridge) These books state that ideally the children should be home doing these things(cooking, crafts, rhymes etc.) , but that if it is not available at home the next best is Waldorf. In one of them it recommends that if home life is just baby and mom (no friends over the fence post) then school (waldorf of course- it is their book) is appropriate. I take what i like and throw out the rest - including throwing out schooling. If we do waldorf it will be waldorf inspired homeschooling.

So here is my new question: What about the alphabet stories? I'm not sure I want to use them. I'm worried that thinking that each letter has alot of meaning/symbolism beyond just the sound/sounds they represent will make reading more difficult unnecessarily. The stories are cute, but I'm leading toward ditching them (or maybe reading them after dd thoroughly knows her phonics.) Of course this would mean not using any of the available waldorf home curriculums for first grade. As she is only turning three I have alot of time to make up my mind on this.

Finally, is anyone here familiar with Enki? I found them on the web and they look really cool. Very Waldorf inspired but ditch alot of the anthroposophy stuff I don't like. They also have a grounding in Shambhalaism which I'm more comfortable with.

Blessings
(my name is Rebekah - I thought we were supposed to use different names on the web... or at least no last names.)

[momof2teens]

:confused:

Is this list moderated? Earlier this year, I spent lots of time writing about my Waldorf experience and consequent exhaustive research on the movement behind Waldorf. I am saddened to find that all of my posts have disappeared from this thread! Can anyone tell me what happened to them?

Debra

www.waldorfcritics.org

[Clarity]

Private message Sierra, the moderator for this forum. There was a big crash last summer/fall and everything was lost. Perhaps those posts were from then? They do manually archive threads so some are discarded, but not on a post-by-post level...and posts are not generally deleted by the moderator without a replacement note to us, or a direct note to you. you might check your private messages, under the "User cp" button at the top of the page, in the rare event they were removed for violating the user agreement, which I doubt. I'm sure Sierra will discuss it with you.

Also, you have several posts in a thread called "Questions about a Waldorf Education". Maybe that's the posts you were referring to?

[Breathe]

Mary-Beth -- I'm 95% certain I know the MD you're talking about, and he is INDEED an anthroposophic doctor. Every SINGLE person I know who has taken their child to him (and so many do for the vaccine support) has been told that their child was "too much in this world." He also bristles when babies would rather have their mothers hold them -- he sees this as a problem. So just know what you're dealing with when you see him, okay? You're right that he's the only game in town.

Indiegirl -- Wanna start our own school together?!?! I know exactly how you feel -- it looks like the more I learn the closer I get to the conclusion that homeschool will be our only option.

I'm so grateful for the stories above from Waldorf alumni. As part of a special project for my thesis, I was allowed to observe in a W. school, and I was appalled to see how ANGRY the children were . . . they were mimicking the teacher's sing-song voice, talking back to her under their breath ("Oh, yes, I'm sure you have something so SPECIAL to tell us"), and would frantically paint their own creation before covering it up with the approved color block of the day (these were 8 yr olds). I'm glad to hear that many of you felt you had positive experiences to balance the negative ones -- I've often worried about those children.

As disappointing as it is, for me it's a confirmation that all that's alternative is not necessarily best, and it reminds me that there are no short-cuts in parenting: I will have to research and research every step of the way.

Thanks so much for this thread -- I hope to share it w/some other AP families who have not yet done their Waldorf homework.

[Jish]

Sierra has been away for the last couple of weeks, so I have been watching her boards for her. She should be returning soon and you will have your wonderful moderator back. Be sure to wish her luck in her new life as a married woman.:D

Debra, the posts you are thinking of have not disappeared. This is a different thread than the ones you posted on before. No one removed anything. If you go to the top of the page and click on the search button, you will be able to do a search by your name and will find the threads that you previously responded on. I see from looking through one of the threads that it got pretty heated. The discussion here seems to be keeping a gentle tone and I hope it stays that way, thus I'm not including a link to the prior threads. If you would like to see them, feel free to perform a search and review your work.;)

~Beth -- your fill in mod who will never be able to fill Sierra's shoes.:love

[happygardener]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by momofgurlz
Your question about left-brain, right-brain development and neurology are not of interest to Waldorf teachers, who are looking at where the child is *spiritually*. A good example of this is evident in the way Waldorf teachers handle/react to children who are left handed. Left handedness is considered, in Waldorf, to be a sign that the child had a very tough past life ... that he or she may have been a manual laborer. Left handedness is viewed as something that MUST be changed, in order to alter the negative karma that the child carries with him or her. That is why Waldorf schools are probably the only schools in the developed world who insist that left handed children write with their right hands! (How that effects the children is an interesting neurological question.)

As a person participating in Waldorf teacher training, I thought I would jump in with another perspective. I am not an expert or guru of any kind, just sharing personal experience.

At a recent summer intensive, many of the experienced classroom and kindergarten teachers who were teaching the intensive (teachers from the US, Europe, and Brazil) reiterated over and over that it was important that we avoid mindlessly devouring all that we were given, especially about anthroposophy. We were encouraged to do our own soul searching, research, and come to our own understanding of things.

As a former staunch and extremely vocal Waldorf critic, I really appreciated this. So far I have not heard anything about the necessity of "changing" left-handed children to become right-handed--and if I do I will re-post about it!

Cheers, Leann

[lorrielink]

i would just have to comment on bad karma-manual labor. since when is manual labor a "bad" thing. are they saying that all farmers in a previous life where bad people?

[happygardener]

Originally posted by fionnsmom
i would just have to comment on bad karma-manual labor. since when is manual labor a "bad" thing. are they saying that all farmers in a previous life where bad people?

I think this is kind of an unusual interpretation of left-handedness--in part because farmers, carpenters, etc. are spoken of well in Waldorf education, as well as manual arts ranging from handwork to gardening to carpentry being included in the curriculum. Participation in work with the hands is seen as beneficial for a number of reasons, educational, spiritual--as well as learning the value of the things we encounter in life, such as the food on our plate (someone grew it--how much work does it take to grow a vegetable, to dig a plot, plant and tend seeds, weed, harvest?) and the table the plate is sitting on (someone had to cut the wood, saw it into planks, put it together, sand it, finish it).

One thought I have is that perhaps the statement about left-handedness indicating manual labor in a past life might not be accurate. Many people say things they think Steiner said, sometimes they even publish it. Sometimes they just repeat what others have said they have heard or read.

Anyway, just my 2 cents!

Leann, who trained as an auto mechanic and loves digging in the dirt!

[lorrielink]

i think im just going to put down the whole bad karma connected to manual labor thing down to someones misinformation. im certainly glad thats not a common thing with the waldorf way.

i like all the things you said about appreciating food, where it comes from and the whole process. this is something ive lived by for several years. not because of some spiritual revelation or nething like that. but by living very close to nature and knowing people who think like that as a normal way of life, not something they had to work at in the first place KWIM? it seems very parralell with cultures that have never been industrialized in the first place. very interesting, thank you.

[TraceyMc]

I just spoke to dd's waldorf teacher about the the left hand thing, because my dd is left handed. She said no one on our school would try to make her right handed and she had never heard of the manual labor thing either. I hope it is something someone made up because it kind of goes against the whole waldorf theory of working with the hands doesn't it? Wouldn't that be bad karma for the whole thing??:confused:

Tracey

[happygardener]

Just so folks know, I am still very much a questioning mind about stuff I am receiving in my teacher training. I think it's good that all parents are--and each family in the light of their own circumstances makes the decisions that works best for them.

Glad you all are so open!

Leann

[I Believe in Fairies]

I was left handed when I entered *public* school in 1977 when I was four. My kindergarden teacher would smack me, belittle me, and even slapped me for using my left hand. She's now the principle of the elementary *public* school in the town I was raised in.

My Great-Grandmother strapped my Mom's left arm to her body to make her use "the correct arm". MInd you, this woman had been a teacher in one room school houses across the midwest at the turn of the last century. She was greatly in favor of birth control, women's liberation, and extended breast feeding. She was one of the founding members of Planned Parenthood in the SF Bay Area.

Left-Handedness was considered a sign of Satan during the Witch Hunts. That stupidity arose because the bible says that when Jesus went to Heaven He sat on the *right* hand side of God. Christian mythology then said that Lucifer has sat on the left hand.

One of the many, many reasons I would not have made it out of the Burning Times alive.