"Scientific Explanations" in Waldorf Kg? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 22 Old 01-30-2010, 08:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
not_telling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We're strongly considering sending DS to the local Waldorf school when he turns 3 (so 1.5 years from now). I've started doing reading about Waldorf, here on MDC and elsewhere) and today we attended an Open House at the school.

One thing that has stood out in my developing understanding of the Waldorf approach is the idea that a child's age has great bearing on what she can actually understand about the world around her. And that, with this in mind, the scientific explanations for why things are so can be quite inappropriate for children of a young age. I asked a kg teacher about this during the Open House today. She gave this example: She was walking outside with two children and they were looking up at the sky. They noticed one of those contrail lines made by an airplane. The younger child said, "Look, the sky has a scrape." The older child said, "That's just from an airplane." The teacher said to me, "Just think about what those two kids said and pay attention to what each does to your heart." (And I agree that thinking of the contrail as a scrape in the sky is a beautiful, poetic way to look at it.) She says, "The first child painted this lovely image, but by giving the real explanation for it, the other child deadened it." She also gave the example of how she hates to hear her students describe the sun as a big ball of gases that are on fire. That we need to preserve this time of innocence and magic because it lasts for so short a time.

So, ok. I agree that saying "that's just from an airplane" kinda shuts everything down for the first child. But, DH and I were talking about this in the car and he said that the teacher seemed to be suggesting that science can't be beautiful. Which is something we both disagree with. I said, if anything, the teacher's example is a reminder to us as parents that when we give explanations for things, to not say "it's just...", but rather to recognize and take part in the wonder that our child is feeling. I don't think we'd expect our young child to absorb every detail of an explanation that we give, but I don't think that being young precludes providing a real "scientific" explanation. In my work as a (non-Waldorf) Kg teacher, I have not always given the explanations for things. Most often I defer to the child for his ideas first, and then, if it seems helpful, I share my understanding of the phenomenon.

So, I'm wondering how you or your child's teacher handle the question of the science behind how things work, why things are the way they are, etc. Has anyone had misgivings about how a teacher approaches such questions with young children?

Teacher until birth of DS (7-27-08)blowkiss.gifand now DD (10-17-11)femalesling.GIF:, now SAHM, wife to my wonderful hard-working DH.   cd.gifnocirc.gifselectivevax.gif

not_telling is offline  
#2 of 22 Old 01-30-2010, 08:52 PM
 
ollyoxenfree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have to say this makes me a little sad. Science is beautiful and amazing. It's incredible that gases have come together in space and burn hotter and brighter than we can really comprehend, and as a result our world has heat and light and life. What is more wonderous than that? Children can be delighted by the fantastic, improbable, and incredible in science - just watch them in a science museum figuring things out. Truly great scientists have grand imaginations. I think understanding the scientific doesn't deaden anything - it expands and empowers and enlightens.
ollyoxenfree is offline  
#3 of 22 Old 01-30-2010, 10:23 PM
 
bendingbirch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hi there,
I don't have much time to write, but I just wanted to encourage you that Waldorf does do a terrific job with science and it really builds on all the things that the children observe in Kindy - the candle lighting for example goes into sixth grade physics. I think to fully investigate this question, you would have to go back to the seven year cycles that Steiner laid out and why what comes when and also look at the curriculum as it goes through the school years. Practical Advice to Teachers and Discussions with Teachers would be an ideal place to start, I believe these may be available on line at Rudolf Steiner Audio if you search. ... This is part of the first year cycle, it is not that science is not beautiful at all, it is bringing living pictures into a child's consciousness in a way that they can use to build on it in the future.

Have to run, sorry that was so quick..Maybe someone else can chime in here and help you out!

Warmly,
Carrie
bendingbirch is offline  
#4 of 22 Old 01-30-2010, 11:09 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
The challenge is expressing science in a way that a child can experience it.

Our modern world view has arisen over the last few hundred years, mostly since the 1600s, although much of the groundwork was laid in the middle ages and some goes back to Greece and some to China. But science, as we now experience it, involves an abstraction and a breaking apart of the world. This is not natural to small children (although some of them are very good at breaking things), who tend to take things in whole.

I'll use my grandson as an example. He is very interested in electricity and his parents haven't tried to block this interest. However, they encourage him to:

1) concentrate on doing stuff, rather than learning abstractions. He and his dad have built a wooden lamp together and wired it, recently they put together a kitchen clock.

2) concentrate on observing the phenomena rather than memorizing the theory

One of the problems with the usual approach to teaching science nowadays, is that so much of it is taught pre-digested. This handicaps kids because they never master the basic tools needed to really do science: careful observation, really good recordkeeping, the ability to hold oneself back and not jump to conclusions, and an openness to being surprised by the unexpected.

I think, actually, that waldorf lays a great foundation for real future scientists, in fact.
Deborah is online now  
#5 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 02:08 AM
 
karne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There's really no reason you can't have both explanations, and it's up to the teacher to be able to artfully do this. Why can't you say, yes, it's from a plane and look how the sky looks like it has a little scrape. The sky doesn't have a scrape, and it is from a plane, but the response can honor both children, rather than shutting out the experience or ideas of one, or elevating the ideas of another. This worked fine in our family with two kids approaching ideas from different standpoints.
karne is offline  
#6 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 02:54 AM
 
organic.mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it depends on the situation really. If a young child pointed out to me that they sky "had a scrape" I would encourage that imaginative thought. That child was not looking for an explanation. Had the child asked what it was or why it was there, then it would be appropriate to inform them about how it was from an airplane.

And I agree, Waldorf does do a great job with science!
organic.mama is offline  
#7 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 08:38 AM
 
lach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MA
Posts: 2,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This was the real dealbreaker for Waldorf to me. Some of Steiner's beliefs are a little wonky to me but not a big deal, but I couldn't get past this sort of thing. The real world is a magical place, and I was shocked I was supposed to actually lead my child away from scientific explanations for real-world phenomena that they were interested in. I loved the idea of telling my kids stories about gnomes, until I realized that I was actually supposed to present fantasy as reality, to the exclusion of any reality.

Trying to live a simple life in a messy house in a complicated world with : DH, DD (b. 07/07), DS (b. 02/09), and DD (b. 10/10)
lach is offline  
#8 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 09:15 AM
 
DimitraDaisy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_telling View Post
So, ok. I agree that saying "that's just from an airplane" kinda shuts everything down for the first child. But, DH and I were talking about this in the car and he said that the teacher seemed to be suggesting that science can't be beautiful. Which is something we both disagree with. I said, if anything, the teacher's example is a reminder to us as parents that when we give explanations for things, to not say "it's just...", but rather to recognize and take part in the wonder that our child is feeling.
I am a Steiner teacher, and I totally agree with you. This idea -that you have to give an 'imaginative, pictorial' answer to every science question- drove me nuts when I was training. I remember we once dedicated a session to this kind of exercise - trying to come up with answers that left the child 'space to breath in'. Now, I totally agree with this principle. I once read an interview with Richard Dawkins where he claimed he 'had' to correct his six-year-old daughter when she said that flowers were there 'to make the world pretty and to help the bees make honey for us,' and I think that is unnecessary, if not cruel. But I do resent the idea that science, and indeed, the world, is not beautiful enough as it is, and we need to 'dress it up' for the children.

Is not the fact that the air going in and out of a seashell sounds (vaguely) like the sea magical enough? Or the fact that the moon pulls the seas as it moves around the earth? Or the fact that a tree was once a seed? The fact that we're all (the sun, the earth, the moon) moving through space in an intricate, complicated dance? If you need to involve fairies in all this (which, mind you, is extreme) or keep anthropomorphising everything, it seems to me that it means that you cannot, in fact, see the beauty in the world as it is. And, I dare say a lot -but by no means all- of Waldorf people have difficulty with that.

I think more than what you say, it is your attitude that matters. I think the important thing is to give your child the message that the world is wonderful and that you, too, are filled with awe when you ponder these things. You can get this across while using long words and detailed scientific descriptions just as well as you can fail to get it across while talking about fairies and gnomes. [My brilliant anthroposophy teacher says never to talk about something that for you is only a possibility as if it were a reality. Steiner was certain gnomes existed, but are you? Am I?]

What is, I think, important, is to stay with the child's perception of things. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun which is, in fact, a giant ball of gas is fascinating, but sometimes it does take away from the young child's experience of the sun rising and setting, in that it disconnects them from what they are observing by making it 'not real'. I have had to explain to the children in my class that yes, I actually do know the earth revolves around the sun, but from where were are sitting, it looks like the sun rises and sets, and they are both equally correct statements.

It doesn't have to, though; a lot of my children are fascinated by science (I have a Class 1/2), or rather should I say 'science' -- because really all they're doing is playing at being scientists. ("When I grow up I will be a chemist." "And what does a chemist do?" "They make things explode!") In fact there are times when the long words and the explanations help them connect to what they are observing and take hold of it. My general rule is 'if the general mood is that of observation, it is good.'

The other day at lunchtime they started talking about steam, and when it arises. If you are in a hot bath and you get out, and it's cold, steam comes off you -- so they concluded it must have something to do with hot and cold meeting. So I asked them what happens when you mix hot and cold water ("you get warm water of course"). Also, what happens to your breath on a cold day. And I left it at that. I could have jumped in and explained it all to them, but it would have short-cut the process of working it out for themselves. I think I would have done the same if they'd asked me, too. I am fascinated by their emerging ability to look at different situations and try to work out what they have in common, and trying to come up with a unifying theory. I think that is the basis of real scientific thinking.
DimitraDaisy is offline  
#9 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 09:26 AM
 
lach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: MA
Posts: 2,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What a beautiful answer, DimitraDaisy. You sound like an amazing teacher.

Trying to live a simple life in a messy house in a complicated world with : DH, DD (b. 07/07), DS (b. 02/09), and DD (b. 10/10)
lach is offline  
#10 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 12:52 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Excellent and thoughtful, DmitraDaisy.

I agree. It is equally bizarre for adults to dump gnomes on kids as it is to dump abstractions.

On the other hand...

I was at an event at the school my grandchildren attend. A biodynamic lady was there doing a project with some of the grounds and she sat and chatted with the children. When she talked about gnomes, it was totally believable and the kids were, I think, relieved to find an adult who actually understood this stuff. And yes, I think she wasn't faking and did have first hand experience of nature spirits. It isn't all that rare for people who spend all their time actually working in the natural world.

The eurythmists I've known can perceive the eitheric body, too, although they don't usually like to make a big thing out of it.

Anthroposophists aren't totally dependent on Steiner for all of their knowledge...direct experience happens...I've had one or two bits myself.

When I was in college I had a roommate who was the same age as my daughter. She was studying chemistry. A bright girl and a hard worker. She had had a conventional public education and had been channeled into science starting around 7th grade when she showed an aptitude. My daughter was just getting into college at that point after taking two years off after graduating from a waldorf high school.

My roomie had the most horrendous gaps in her education. Her knowledge of literature and history was very scant and her knowledge of science was based heavily on memorization. She hadn't actually been given the opportunity to think independently and observation was something you did within fairly narrow lines. I felt as though the most important capacities needed to really do science had been left undeveloped.

My daughter's waldorf education (13 years of it) had given her a very good foundation for observation and independent thought. She had also been taught math not only from the how but from the why, which meant that she asked the really basic questions, rather than just trying to memorize in order to pass the test. All science in the waldorf school includes the history of science, which means that students experience the dead ends, the debates, the misunderstandings and the moral dilemmas.

I know some super scientists who didn't go through waldorf schools, but I don't think the waldorf approach, properly carried through, is a barrier to a career in science.

Finally, there is the interesting question:

Why do children like to believe in gnomes and fairies? My grandson, the one who loves electricity, is a fairy enthusiast. He has been leaving presents for the fairies (especially the tooth fairy) and is quite devoted to their existence. I don't think this is actually because his parents have pushed fairies at him or his sister, although they haven't denied them, either.

I think fairies and gnomes and all of the other magical stuff fills a space in human beings.

One of the saddest things for me, as a student of history, is to see the explanations offered for how "deluded" people used to be. All those silly people who believed in gods and fairies and had mythological explanations for the world instead of learning how to think like modern people.

The story usually goes like this: all of history is a journey to the modern world, with a huge amount of time wasted. A good historian is always looking for the bits and pieces that helped bring us to modernity. All of the stuff that didn't help to bring us to modernity was a waste, basically, of interest only to folklorists. Nothing of value was lost when the modern world view took over.

However, our modern world isn't actually a delightful place. We've got some good stuff (plumbing for example) and some bad stuff (pollution, for example). Perhaps people in the past had some good stuff and some bad stuff? Perhaps some of what has been discarded as we traveled into our present world was a real loss?

I think children's tendency to experience the world as enchanted is a valid aspect of their being. The challenge for adults is to respect it, not to impose their adult consciousness, whether it comes from science or from Steiner.
Deborah is online now  
#11 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 04:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
not_telling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 1,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm very much enjoying reading everyone's thoughtful responses. Good stuff to mull over.

Just to clarify, I don't think that science education is lacking in Waldorf, in general. I am quite convinced that, upon graduation, kids have not only abosrbed many scientific concepts, but have also developed scientific "habits of mind." I really was just wondering about the Kindergarten level, thinking about how I've answered questions for 5-6 year olds in my own classes, thinking about the work that 1st and 2nd graders did at my school with the science teacher. And Observation - esp. nature observation - is a big part of all that. But, I think there are times when giving some explanation can be a good and wondrous thing, too.

I liked believing in fairies when I was little - I'm not sure if I actually believed or just liked living with the possibility that magical stuff could be real. I left them "food" (flowers and such) on a tree stump, which was encouraged by my wonderful, artistic babysitter. I think she sometimes would take some of the "food" away and leave little presents for me. I had several Flower Fairy books and I'm remembering a gnome book, too. I've always loved fantasy. I don't think I had adults telling me any of it was true..but no one saying it wasn't either.

Teacher until birth of DS (7-27-08)blowkiss.gifand now DD (10-17-11)femalesling.GIF:, now SAHM, wife to my wonderful hard-working DH.   cd.gifnocirc.gifselectivevax.gif

not_telling is offline  
#12 of 22 Old 01-31-2010, 06:37 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Explanations are good. But adults have self-control problems and will sometimes keep explaining way beyond the interest of a 5 or 6 year old. I honestly don't think my grandson has any interest at all in the idea that the sun is a giant gaseous ball of fire. His level of thinking is more like this:

How high is the sky? Could I reach it from the top of the house? If I climbed into a really tall tree? Maybe when I get to the top of a mountain could I touch the sky?

And honestly, he is a very bright child who loves classifying stuff and knowing the names of things. He can tell me the names of all sorts of heavy equipment, for example.

Its just that a lot of scientific ideas, like the modern concept of the sun, are very remote and very abstract. Even for adults. I know the words, but trying to really imagine a huge ball of fire with all those nuclear reactions and stuff...I haven't the faintest, truly. It is, for me, an abstraction.
Deborah is online now  
#13 of 22 Old 02-01-2010, 10:13 AM
 
nlpmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have two children in a Waldorf school and I know from experience that the philosophy encourages explanations that answer the questions so that it meets the needs of the chilld at the age they are. Waldorf education allows children to be children and to explore and experience the world. That fosters creativity and excitement in learning. It allows them to draw their own conclusions rather than having it all mapped out for them and does so when the time is right. Kindergarten is the time when children need elves and fairies and stories and play. It is proven over and over that they do not need the academic push at that age. They need free play and imitation to develop socially, physiologically and mentally.

Waldorf education does not discourage scientific explanations, it brings science and the world alive in the students. If you have a chance, ask to see a science book from an older grade school student. They are works of art in themselves. Know that they get there when they need to.

That said, I do believe it important that parents take time to get to know the school and teacher before making any commitments. Interview the teacher to be sure that person is right for your child and your family. Trust your instincts. While Waldorf teachers are trained differently from public school teachers and Waldorf education is stellar, not all teachers are the same and they all have their own interpretations of Steiner's philosophy.

We had two different Kindergarten teachers for our youngest. The first welcomed, loved, guided and inspired him. The second did not like him because she could not make him conform. She judged him and us to a degree where our son became so stressed we had to remove him from the school for the remainder of the year. She would not listen to us or work with us, she only demanded we make him become what she wanted and change our lives to meet her expectations. She even suggested we stop spending time with family and friends who do not live a Waldorf lifestyle. I am not saying that she is a bad teacher. There are families and children who think the world of her. She was obviously not a good match for us.

It has all worked out fine and that experience has not turned us away from the education. He is in Waldorf grade school now with a teacher who likes him, understands him and who has earned his and our respect. He is happy and doing exceptionally well. We just learned that every school and every teacher is different. It is all about finding what is best for you and your child.

Good luck with your adventure!!!
nlpmamma is offline  
#14 of 22 Old 02-01-2010, 05:14 PM
 
moon mountain mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Catskills
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Being a teacher and mother, I see that it is very important to nurture and make safety space for children to be as creative as possible and to not have their beautiful thoughts on the world and its workings become squashed by fact, opinion, or misunderstanding. It is also true that their is a place for learning facts about our natural world and how it works and these facts can be if approached and offered in the right way just as beautiful as any poetry or art. I think that it is a matter of age appropriateness which can be judged/gaged by experience/judgement/instincts on the parents/teachers part and also by learning and studying the stage a child goes through which in many adults is not always instinctual knowledge. Adults and smarty older children do have a tendency in squashing a young childs beautiful musing.
It can be a learning experience for both. Becasue of course an older child can then follow up with their own musings about a natural occurence and be guided to do so. Because both worlds and both perspectives are completely valid. This may be one way to approach it when a teachable moment comes up like this. Validate both perspective, talk about the beauty in both ideas and make both children feel good at their different levels.

However, form a teachers perspective, their is a fine line of creativity and art and just general misinformation.

I have a 2 year old and an 8 year old and learning does not happen in a vacuum for either one, so both perspectives are continually overlapped.
The moon for my 2 year old is this beautiful motherly gaurdian of the night. She give us moon milk that we drink before bed (warmed milk with cinnamon and honey). We talk to her and pray to her. She keeps watch for us when we are sleeping. This is true for both my 8 year old and 2 year old. But, my 8 year old also knows what the moon is and of course we talk about it in front of our 2 year old.
Can both realities exist at the same time. Yes they can, just as we have our different bodies, ethereal, physical, etc. so does this manifest in the world around us.
It is not necessarily our goal or job to keep one from the other because it cannot be, it is our goal to balance them for the stages that our children our at.
Can a 2 year old truly understand the world as an 8 year old anyways, no, not at all. So, the 2 year old will take from it and use only what he makes sense to him and the rest will be stored for later when he can process it and understand it.
moon mountain mama is offline  
#15 of 22 Old 02-01-2010, 05:47 PM
 
moon mountain mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Catskills
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I also wanted to add which may be too much info. But, my mother-in- law lives with us and I have also had to give up a lot of control and believe in the beautiful wisdom and plan and energy of the cosmos and our ancestors, and elders. No matter how much I would like to control what other people do around my children and with my children, there is only so much you can do. I have to believe that grandma's bit in it all whether I agree how she interacts with them or what she says is all based in love and wholesomeness and this is what they are going to in the long run get from it all. She may not know the right things to say but she is doing it in love and good intention and the children know the difference between grandma, and mommy, and dad, and aunt. Who they learn to come to for advice and feel safe around and express themselves around will come naturally and through experience. This is also a good skill lesson for life. As long as mom is doing it and being nurturing to them in this way, their creativity will not be squashed, mom and dad are the most influential in our children's life.
moon mountain mama is offline  
#16 of 22 Old 02-02-2010, 12:45 AM
 
joanna0707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 238
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moon mountain mama View Post
The moon for my 2 year old is this beautiful motherly gaurdian of the night. She give us moon milk that we drink before bed (warmed milk with cinnamon and honey). We talk to her and pray to her. She keeps watch for us when we are sleeping.
beautiful

Joanna WAHM to DS 10/2007
You must be the change you wish to see - Ghandi
joanna0707 is offline  
#17 of 22 Old 02-13-2010, 10:51 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by not_telling View Post
"Look, the sky has a scrape." The older child said, "That's just from an airplane." The teacher said to me, "Just think about what those two kids said and pay attention to what each does to your heart." (And I agree that thinking of the contrail as a scrape in the sky is a beautiful, poetic way to look at it.)
A scrape is an injury.

If the older child had a kind tone, he was reassuring the younger.

If he had a snide tone, he was telling the younger one not to be silly the sky can't have an injury, which is, in it's own way, reassuring.

"that's just from an airplane" --it's normal, expected, and doesn't mean that all those huge buildings downtown are tearing up the sky like the sidewalk tears up the younger child's legs upon falling

Thanks to the older child's comment the younger child isn't left wondering if the sky needs a bandage and a kiss.
sapphire_chan is offline  
#18 of 22 Old 02-14-2010, 06:13 PM
 
dancingmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do think this is an area where Waldorf can be problematic. I had a friend with a kid in Waldorf Kindy, and they were on a walk and the little girl noticed some tracks in the woods and asked the teacher what kind of animal made those tracks. The teacher would only tell her it was a gnome or some such thing, and wouldn't tell her what animal made them. My friend was totally irritated.
dancingmama is offline  
#19 of 22 Old 02-14-2010, 06:35 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
That is silly! Why in the world would a teacher not answer a straightforward question?
Deborah is online now  
#20 of 22 Old 02-15-2010, 07:40 PM
Banned
 
accountclosed3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
this is going to sound funny, but i will run my home the way i see fit, regardless of the teacher. school is a supplement to my life, not the defining element around which i orbit. (how is that for poetic science?)

anyway, bottom line is this--you can do both and have both. i have no problem with the waldorf teacher following the pedagogy. that's why i would send my kid there. but i also think that the "scientific" explanations are valuable for kids and adults. i explain how things work for hawk (he's 1.5 yrs), and i also talk about it poetically because--guess what? i work in both worlds.

and he will too. so at home, i honor that which is poetic (he sings about things--without words), and i explain that which is "not." and both feel good to my heart.
accountclosed3 is offline  
#21 of 22 Old 02-15-2010, 07:41 PM
Banned
 
accountclosed3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
and, in regards to the animal track, the teacher may not have known. therefore, could not have answered it. and, i've had waldorf teachers answer it with: it is an animal track; it is a gnome/fairy track; what do you think it is? etc.
accountclosed3 is offline  
#22 of 22 Old 02-21-2010, 12:33 PM
 
royaloakmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My 6 yo son has a pretty amazing grasp of lots of scientific concepts, from chemical reactions, to biology, and the solar system. We have approached all of this stuff in a hands-on way, led by his interest in things and questions.

At the same time, I think he also truly believes in fairies and gnomes. He builds things for them, leaves gifts for them, talks to plants (and seeds under the earth).

For him, it seems that both of these worlds (the "science" and the "magic") co-exist just fine. They aren't doing science experiments in his class at school, but the teacher doesn't play down his interest.
royaloakmi is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off