elk brew
Melanie — will you ever be able to forgive me for this? You travelled all the way to Sweden, and your ignorant host did not know there’s such a thing as Swedish elk brew. How could I not have known? It’s the scandal of the century. You certainly deserved nothing less than a glass of elk brew!
hereford steiner academy and the software ag stiftung
Hereford Steiner Academy is the first — and still the only — state-funded Steiner school in the UK. It’s situated in the small village of Much Dewchurch in Herefordshire. The school is, in fact, bigger than the entire village. For the Steiner school movement, establishing and receiving funding for one Steiner school is a big step — it gives an indication that further funding, of more Steiner schools, is an open option. And it shows there’s a possibility to gain free school status for several more — or even all — Steiner schools. In short, the Hereford Steiner Academy signified hope. The Hereford Steiner Academy had to be a pioneer, and it had to be successful (how successful it really is has been discussed in previous comment threads on this blog — from the inspection reports, it turns out, maybe not so).
In an old article in TES, tweeted by @lovelyhorse_ this morning, it is told that the Steiner Waldorf School Fellowship has received money from two private donors:
The Steiner fellowship has raised nearly a million for the project from two sponsors – a parent and a German software firm. The rest will come from the Government.
(In fact, it has turned out, a lot of money; not just for the education, but the school also asked for £ 16 million for their buildings. Some more info and arguments here.)
One might ask why a German software firm wants to invest money in a Steiner school in the UK. One might ask why, were it not already apparent. The software firm is the Software AG in which the Software AG Stiftung (the foundation) holds shares. This foundation is well-known for donating money to various anthroposophical enterprises and causes. The company was founded by Peter Schnell, an anthroposophist, who is still active in the foundation’s board of directors. There’s nothing peculiar about anthroposophists wanting to establish a foundation to further anthroposophical projects, of course. There’s no reason for them not to. And this foundation sits on a lot of money; in 2008, almost £ 700 million. In that year (the Hereford Academy was established in 2008, which is why I chose 2008 as an example), the foundation donated £ 7 million to educational causes alone. (Here you can read the annual report.)
The more interesting question is why the foundation is not mentioned by name in the UK documents. In Hereford Steiner Academy’s Expression of Interest (a form submitted to the government’s Department for Education), there’s only a reference to a donation by ‘Stiftung AG’ (which is just pure nonsense: it would be like saying there’s a donation from ‘ltd foundation’, and leaving out the actual name that distinguishes this legal entity from others, it’s name is Software AG Stiftung). The document reads:
The Steiner School Fellowship is the sponsor and they have found sponsorship monies from Stiftung AG, and a private donor with connections to Steiner schools.
Why does the SWSF not want — or is it just a mistake? difficult to know — to reveal the actual name of its donor? Is that because it would become apparent that strong anthroposophical interests are involved in the establishment of the first state-funded Steiner school in the UK, because it’s supposed to pave the way for further funding? The Software AG Stiftung is quite clear about its intentions; they see state-funded alternative education as a right that should be promoted. And they’re speaking about waldorf education, of course. The projects the foundation gives funding to are anthroposophical. Nothing wrong with that. But why does the SWSF not want to say so? Maybe because the organistion has done a lot to tone down the allegiance to anthroposophy. These are ‘just’ schools with a great pedagogy… nothing to do with odd, esoteric beliefs. Of course, if the SWSF was really thinking of rebutting Steiner or discarding of anthroposophy, then there’s no believable reason why they would be getting money from this foundation. Anyway, it doesn’t stop here.
If you then try to access the Hereford Academy’s funding agreement — an agreement between the academy and the Department of Education — you’ll soon notice something odd. If you look at the table of contents, there’s a reference to ‘Other relevant funding’ (on p 3). However, when you try to view the paragraphs in question (64-67), they’re simply not there. In fact, the entire page has been redacted, and the document jumps from page 19 to page 21. There is no page 20, where paragraphs 64 to 67 ought to appear. Apparently, the public is not supposed to see where the ‘Other relevant funding’ comes from. Why is this information not public? It does not seem to be something to keep confidential. So what if a wealthy German foundation donated money for an anthroposophical cause? So what? If the private donor (said to be a parent, and a person with connections to the movement) had legitimate reason to demand privacy, the same cannot be said to apply to the Software AG Stiftung. Actually, I don’t see why the Software AG Stiftung would not be proud to have helped established the first state-funded Steiner Academy in the UK. But perhaps the SWSF is embarrassed. Perhaps it doesn’t want to be asked the question: why does this German foundation show such an interest in British education?
(Neither the website of the SWSF itself, nor the website of the Hereford Steiner Academy, mentions the Software AG Stiftung. It would seem as though they don’t want to credit the foundation.)
_____________________
Edit: It hit me when I read the funding agreement that Annex 1 (of 6) was missing (5 and 6 are also missing). I was just sent an email about something called Annex A, which I presume might be the same as Annex 1. Quote p 1 in the funding agreement: ’Whilst releasing the majority of the Funding Agreement will further the public understanding of Academies. The whole of the Funding Agreement cannot be revealed. If Annex A was to be revealed under the FOI act, DCSFs’ commercial interest would be prejudiced, which could result in the less effective use of public money.’ [Removed emphasis. /a] I wonder if any formal decision has been made to withold p 20, sections 62-67 in the agreement document itself as well? Where is it, if so? On what grounds was it made, is perhaps an even more interesting question. (Edit, again: sorry for previous misquote, the document does not allow copy-paste.)
rosicrucian wisdom
Diana has embarked on an impressive project — a kind of study group –, together with anyone who wants to join. The intent of this post is to make you want to join! Hopefully you have the book, but if you don’t you can read it online. It’s the Theosophy of the Rosicrucian (later renamed, as in the edition from Steiner Books that I’m waiting for: Rosicrucian Wisdom). Diana wrote, on January 13:
I urge newcomers to join, or Waldorf parents who would like to know what goes on in Steiner faculty meetings. This is *not* a dense read, it is very lively and fun. It requires no previous background in anthroposophy. In no time you will be discoursing on the seven-fold human and the nine-fold human, ancient Atlantis, the human being in Devachan, and our future lives on Venus and Jupiter.
I will throw this out to whet your appetite. The introduction explains that Rosicrucianism is the spiritual “stream” personified by Christian Rosenkreuz, a “lofty” spiritual being who “incarnated” in the 15th century. This individuality, he explains, incarnated “again and again in the same body.” He assures us that the meaning of this mysterious image will become clear later. I personally have no idea what the meaning of this might be. I’ve read this book at least twice, but I don’t remember (normally, of course, one reincarnates in *different* bodies!!).
Since then, she’s posted a summary of the first lecture. She also formulated a question for discussion:
Steiner states that although we cannot all be clairvoyant, we can all learn spiritual truths from those who do possess this ability. He presents this as anti-authoritarian: the student need not take anything on faith from the teacher, but if he/she is of normal intelligence can understand all the teachings with his or her own reason. Is this really anti-authoritarian?
One poster — Luz — then compared Steiner’s higher worlds to Spain. This is kind of clever — and quite witty — until you remember that there’s plenty of evidence that Spain actually exists. Pete suggests that Vulcan, whose existence is more uncertain (!), might be a better comparison. I’m sure tourist guides to Vulcan would be fun though. Tourist guides to the higher worlds, even better. Read Diana’s reply to the travel agent who’s been to Spain. Sorry, attempted to travel through the higher worlds. Or has friends who did it.
Here’s the thread expanded to show all posts. Still a nuisance to read in that shape (dreadful yahoo), so I encourage you to sign up and receive posts as emails instead; it’s much prettier. Most of all, I urge you to join the discussion. I hope I’ll have more to say in the coming days. I spent this day worrying about some things that are not worth worrying about and some things that are. So my attention is a bit off at the moment. I’ll try to wake up. Although it’s midnight, so maybe waking up is better postponed until tomorrow. (I hope these lectures will say something about sleep. Steiner had some interesting ideas about sleep.)
(If someone absolutely does not want to join the list, but has interesting ideas or viewpoints to contribute, please post them, and I’ll forward them to the list. But I do think you should join.)
hello leeds!
Leeds Steiner school has written a letter to the city of Leeds. One reason for the letter is that the school hopes to secure public funding in the future and hopes for Leeds to support it in its striving. The Steiner free school in Frome as well as (before that) the Hereford Steiner academy have met local opposition. Presumably, it’s wise of Leeds to tackle this head on. (I assume the school is reapplying to become a state-funded free school, perhaps the blog readers can enlighten us.) I’m not a Leeds local, not even a Brit, but I thought I’d reply to Leeds Steiner school’s letter anyway. Because I can. And because I noticed how they avoid using that dreadful and scary a-word.
A Steiner school in the heart of our city would offer us [...] a new and special partner in pedagogical excellence.
Do we know that? Do the Steiner schools have a record of pedagogical excellence? I didn’t know. How come, then, they need their own inspectors? If there’s excellence, surely any inspector would see it — without carrying Steiner-coloured glasses.
… Steiner offers answers to most of the issues that mainstream education has been struggling with …
That seems highly unlikely somehow.
Steiner education is a fully formed philosophy education and long experience of delivering education.
What does this mean? It’s a ‘philosophy education’?
It is founded on the idea of community and of communication.
No, it’s founded on the idea of anthroposophy. That’s the idea. That’s the point. That’s the reason it exists.
… children have benefited from the deep understanding of child development that Steiner education brings.
Again, this ‘understanding’ is the anthroposophical understanding of child development. It’s deep. If you buy it. It’s deep enough to drown in. If you’re not a good swimmer.
There is a constant connection to the rhythms of the world outside of the kindergarten, the changing seasons, the festivals and holidays.
Surprisingly, the seasons change for everyone. People celebrate festivals, there are holidays. These are aspects of normal life in the real world. Quite banal and unexciting as this seems, it’s actually true: there’s nothing exotic or unusual about seasons, festivals and holidays. Sure, these things can be fun and rewarding, but enjoyment of them is not limited to the waldorf/steiner community.
The world within the walls of the kindergarten are similarly a place of routine, where children can feel secure in the patterns that are created by the day’s structure, whilst at the same time progressing at a pace that is consistent with their needs.
Consistent with their needs… according to what anthroposophy teaches about children’s needs. This is essential. Leaving it out is deceptive. Stop deceiving, or you don’t deserve the support of the people of Leeds.
Personalisation is implicit in Steiner. [...] Based on 7 year cycles, Steiner recognises distinct stages that a child must navigate and that we all too often stifle in our education system.
Exactly. Steiner. Now we’re getting there, talking about Steiner is a step in the right direction. Just make sure you’re always explicit about this; and, also, make sure you don’t forget that very important a-word.
What does ‘personalisation’ mean? And how does it relate to what comes next: there are stages — neatly ordered in 7-year cycles — that a child must navigate. Is this personalisation? And has it occurred to you that, in the process of implementing anthroposophical teachings about stages the child must go through, you’re stifling something else instead? That, perhaps, you even suffocate some children’s personalities when you try to squeeze them into your preordained stages, your schedule, your methods, your understanding of how things ought to be (but aren’t, in reality, because children are individual human beings)?
In Steiner we do not start formal learning until the age of 6 but learning certainly takes place.
You start it as late as you can get away with. Thus, when you start it varies from country to country. Always seeking exemptions.
Children learn to use their hands and their bodies with confidence, their minds through sharing and observation and exchange their own ideas whilst listening respectfully to others.
This is something you dreamt?
Each time we ask our teachers to sit our children down to learn to read and write at 4 and 5 years old we are dismissing the children’s instincts to get up and find out for themselves and we lead them to the disengagement that I and so many others are powerless to reverse …
What do you think happens when you’re dismissing children’s instincts to want to learn to read and write at 4 or 5? Some children do want exactly that, whether you believe it or not. But, right, I forgot, books are not natural. So it’s ok to stifle that impulse. But I can tell you one thing: reading and writing does not lead to disengagement, and instead of trying to find ways not to present the opportunity to children — in some cases even actively discouraging children from engaging in these activities — you should do everything to ensure they have a choice, lest they be disengaged and, eventually, begin to find all education boring, because it doesn’t stimulate their intellectual needs (the ones you deny exist).
… Steiner’s holistic approach demands attention.
No. Not if it doesn’t meet the needs of the individual child. All it taught me was to day-dream. To imagine I was elsewhere. To avoid the perpetual boredom.
Where Synthetic Phonics insists on using Visual, Aural and Kinaesthetic prompts to aid learning (adopting the multiple intelligences principles) Steiner, uses rhyme and rhythm in song and dance and thereby nurtures memory of language and number, through pleasurable activities that are inherent human impulses.
Pleasurable? Why is any of that more pleasurable than learning to read a book or do maths on a piece of paper? I just don’t get it. Maybe the singing and clapping and dancing just don’t make any sense to some children? How do you plan to handle the needs of these children so that they too find their time in school stimulating?
When we arrive at formal learning, Steiner has laid foundations of communication in its insistence on the speaking and listening imperative that we are ‘grafting on’ in mainstream education.
Blah blah blah? What is this supposed to mean? The ‘insistence on the speaking and listening imperative’, eh? Is this supposed to be good?
There is an emphasis on oral repetitions of stories and when we arrive at the curriculum we move through literature with genre following the child’s developmental arc; fairytale>fable>bible>myths, thereby also accessing a ‘classical’ arc.
Developmental, according to anthroposophical ideas about development.
Children learn to write using their own words …
No, they learn it copying the words and texts the teacher writes on the blackboard. To pretend anything else is plain silly.
The process is wholly organic.
Is this… what? Holistic, organic, well… what are these words supposed to mean? And why does mainstream education not seem to need them? Strangely, the same words are used to sell vegetables.
Steiner has no need to revise its attitude to technology, as current government advice suggests.
No, why on earth revise a silly attitude to something?
The Steiner philosophy teaches that the most important tool a child has is their own mind …
and then tries to persuade the child not to use it too much or at all. Because it’s much better to delay intellectual development and do eurythmy instead.
We move seamlessly into History, which is taught in a linear way …
Yes, but it’s old myths taught as history. Old myths are good and interesting. But they aren’t actual historical records; they belong to the history of beliefs, the history of religion, of literature. Fine. But don’t get things mixed up. Be clear on what you’re teaching. (Perhaps one or several of this blog’s readers would like to remind Leeds of what is sometimes taught as history in waldorf schools…?)
Steiner has a determination of global responsibility that encompasses languages other than English …
A global responsibility that stretches all the way to the German language. Because, oddly, since Steiner was German, all waldorf school students — apart from those who already live in German-speaking nations — learn German as their first foreign language. Steiner’s global responsibility was, in fact, German-centered and, well, not all that global, come to think of it. Though he kind of would have liked things German to gain global importance, I’m sure. (German is good. I like German a lot. I didn’t learn much German in waldorf though — despite having, for several years, a German teacher who was German!)
The abstractions that our children are asked to encounter at too early an age in mainstream education is something that many of our children fail to negotiate.
Eurythmy is another thing many children ‘fail to negotiate’. However, that does not seem to stop Steiner schools from using it in education.
Leeds is one of 5 major cities in this country. It should be at the heart of educational excellence.
And Steiner education is taking it there? That certainly remains to be seen and until I’ve seen it I remain skeptical. Has Steiner education ever taken a city, a village or even a small community to educational excellence? Show me.
a new paradigm reaching across the threshold (courses)
via Melanie who linked to Roger who comments on this here. It’s a course with Christoph Wiechert.
Our educational tasks draw us into a new paradigm that reaches across the threshold — beyond the intellectual and emotional to the moral and spiritual. Today, more than ever, we must come to understand the spiritual foundations of pedagogy and appreciate the many challenges in the life of the teacher and the children who draw near us. As teachers we need to respect the sanctity of the child’s individuality by developing moral techniques based in imagination, inspiration, and intuition.
In this advanced seminar for Waldorf educators, we will seek new insights into ourselves as well as the children we teach, mindful that education works as a healing process based on the study of the human being, as well as the study of the children before us.
‘[T]he children who draw near us’ — am I right thinking that this is about karma? I mean, I know it is, but this weird statement somehow screams karma, without saying the word. Even though they draw rather than are drawn. (Draw is easier to combine with a message about the freedom of the individual?)
I wonder, too, what ‘respect[ing] the sanctity of the child’s individuality’ means in the context of waldorf education. (Are they? Perhaps they can have that respect in an anthroposophical sense — and, yet, from the viewpoint of the individual be interpreted as doing the opposite?)
I think it might be interesting to look at some of the center’s other courses too. Here’s one, on cancer.
Through an anthroposophical approach the patient can be seen as a spiritual being who existed before birth. From this perspective the disposition for cancer was acquired before conception in the spiritual realm.
However, how the illness actually manifests itself and which course it takes, depends on the presence of the Higher Self in body and soul during the earthly incarnation.
One on a special bridge:
Building a bridge between the world of the living and the world of the dead is a central task of anthroposophy.
Returning to waldorf education, crossing the Rubicon this time rather than reaching across a threshold or building a bridge to the dead:
In this course, we will explore the deeper aspects of sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. We will experience the profound implications of the “incorporation of the astral body” and its ramifications for the physical and emotional life of the child. We will come to appreciate the prescient ways in which Rudolf Steiner’s grades school curriculum meets the needs of this age group, particularly when it is interpreted by teachers who are on a path of inner development.
You can also get to know thyself through watercolour painting.
biodynamism
A A Gill, an English food journalist (I think?), visits Stockholm. It’s a very funny article, also quite scathing, which is perhaps one of the reasons why it’s so funny. (Its title says it all: ‘The stuff was vile, thoughtless, spiced and seasoned by a careless troll’.) I thought you’d enjoy this passage in particular; it’s about Mistral, a rather famous restaurant committed to biodynamics.
Mistral is a southern wind that’s supposed to drive you mad. Mistral the restaurant does. [...] Our table was decorated with the sort of things that solitary children who worry their parents pick up; old corks, bits of rotten pumpkin, bones and shells. It could have been evidence for a Nordic murder mystery. The food, the cook-waiter told us, was bio-dynamic, and a surprise. Bio-dynamism is, he said, the spirituality of food. More like a religion than catering. The ingredients were grown by a very old man who delivered them in a very, very old van. I suspect he also guards a secret well, speaks in rhymes and spins straw into gold. [...] As dinner, it was pretty disastrous, as comic theatre of the absurd, it was a triumph.
Continuing on the topic of previous posts (the UK situation), I located, on my computer, some notes from a meeting that took place at the anthroposophical Crossfields Institute in 2008.* Many prominent waldorf educators, teacher trainers and officials working in the Steiner organisations attended. Among them Christopher Clouder, Kevin Avison, Jeremy Smith.
Christopher Houghton Budd is said to have given an ardent speech; looking at the summary, I can vividly imagine that. Here are a few points from it:
Are teachers clear enough about the place of the Pedagogical Section?
He means the one associated with the School of Spiritual Science.
The state has no business in education, and if we had a professional association that was self-defining and self-administrating, then there would be no need for the state.
[...]
The two issues of accreditation and financing should never be linked, for example when the state makes funding conditional on a particular curriculum.
He concluded his talk with an emphatic question regarding state funding: Is it right for a state to collectively collect tax and selectively distribute it?
Indeed, what he is saying is that the state has a duty to pay, but should not require anything in return for the financial investment. Is it right, I wonder, to ask the tax-payers to pay if the service provided is of little value? Should the state just blindly pay for whatever people want? I guess the answer, in this case, is a resounding yes. But this does not mean we shouldn’t ask the questions. (By the way, this is what many waldorf organisations and proponents in all countries feel — and sometimes express. We should at least be thankful when they do express it clearly. Even if I personally can’t agree with what they want.)
John Burnett spoke too; claiming, among other things, that we’re ‘stepping into post-modern uncertainty’. Trevor Mepham (Steiner Hereford Academy, nowadays — note that this meeting took place before the Hereford Academy had secured state funding or just around that time) spoke too, about teacher training and accreditation of teacher training and such things.
In essence, it is mostly about planning, recording and paperwork! They do not mention the children or the teachers as learners; there is no emphasis on ‘soft skills’ (i.e. reflection), or consideration of how a child learns and grows.
No consideration for… how the child learns and grows according to anthroposophy? No reflection? Well, now, the state of modern education sure is dire.
Mepham then finds guidance in Steiner (which is hardly surprising and, given the context, understandable… and I’m much happier when this guidance is stated explicitly). What teachers need, among other things, is:
Holy awe before the task and reverence for the child’s pre-earthly life
Moving away from Mepham, other issues listed as having been on the agenda during the meeting included:
Inspiration from the original source – Rudolf Steiner
and
How do we combine the esoteric background underpinning Waldorf theory and practice with the prevailing academic, economic and exoteric culture of contemporary society?
and
Referencing anthroposophy
Later in the document, anthroposophy is also mentioned, for example in regard to training of teachers (a ‘body’ for ‘quality control’ of anthroposophical education needed). Interesting document, overall. But it should make people think.
____
* I don’t know if it’s available online, but you might try to search for: A Summary of the Steiner Waldorf Teacher Training Meeting – from a personal and organisational perspective 28 August 2008 11:00am – 4:30pm at Crossfields Institute’. Edit: I was too lazy, but my readers aren’t (thank Dog!), so here it is: pdf.
school inspection service (uk)
I’m lifting this comment by Melanie, because, well, it’s useful and it contains information I could not provide (since I don’t know these things well enough). It deals with how Steiner schools in the UK are inspected.
English Steiner schools are currently inspected by the School Inspection Service which operates, according to their website, jointly under the control of Ofsted and the Department for Education. The SIS inspects Steiner Schools, and Brethren schools, represented by the Focus Learning Trust.
http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4221
I’m not sure if the SIS has plans to inspect Montessori schools, although it appears that:
‘SIS has been nominated as the appropriate inspectorate to carry out Tier 4 inspections of Montessori, Steiner and Eurythmy FE Colleges.’
http://www.schoolinspectionservice.co.uk/ukba.php
Eurythmy FE Colleges. How many should we expect?
It’s useful to note the lay inspector in each SIS school inspection: they’re representatives, in the case of SWSF schools, of the Steiner community. They understand the special nature of the schools in a way that Ofsted perhaps found difficult. Or perhaps the Steiner community decided the previous inspections were not producing the right results. At any rate, although the SIS Steiner reports do seem to be more favourable, there are some interesting observations in the notes.
One of the directors of the state funded Hereford Steiner Academy, Martin Bradley, also appears to be a director of the School Inspection Service. In the most recent inspection carried out by the School Inspection Service — Alder Bridge Steiner School — Martin Bradley is one of the ‘supporting inspectors’. The lay inspector, representative of the Steiner community, is another well-known name in Steiner circles: Ewout van Manen. Thus, out of four inspectors, at least two have strong connections to waldorf schools themselves. I haven’t read the Alder Bridge report, just looked at a few sections. It was picked at random, as the most recent one.* It would be interesting to hear if somebody else has read SIS reports and what you think of them. Are they good enough? Is there evident bias? Do you have any interesting examples to share? Is this a satisfactory way of inspecting schools — to leave it to an organisation run by advocates for the pedagogy guiding the schools they’re inspecting?
____
Addendum: SIS home is in Bruton, where Bruton Steiner School is located. It’s also the home of Steiner free school advocate Emma Craigie (I count on some of my readers to provide the background — but she’s important, and somehow related to that even more important dude, Rees-Mogg; but these things make my head spin). Bruton Steiner was recently inspected, reporting inspector is Martin Bradley. There’s also a lay inspector from the Steiner movement. Thus, two of three inspectors have ties to — are working within — the movement. Or am I missing something here?
* Sorry, my mistake. They’re listed alphabetically. I mistakenly assumed they were listed chronologically because of the page title.
gullible article in the scotsman
Here’s a contender for the competition on the most naïve article on Steiner education. Perhaps we shouldn’t call it an article; it sounds more like a text taken from an advertisement brochure. The journalist asks no critical questions whatsoever.
[The curriculum] addresses what it describes as “all the multiple intelligences, including emotional literacy and kinaesthetic learning and brings into balance the attributes of the right and left hemispheres of the brain”.
Alistair Pugh is head teacher at the Edinburgh Steiner School on Spylaw Road: “If a parent is considering the happiness and well-being of a child, physically as well as mentally,” he says, “then we provide a holistic environment in which to maximise the potential in every child.
“In addition to developing analytical, logical and reasoning skills as education has always done, we also focus on the development of imagination, creativity, memory and flexible thinking skills – the so called ‘soft skills’ that are so much in demand in the 21st century.
“The curriculum is based on an in-depth understanding of the development of human nature and of how children learn at different stages in their lives – factors that have stayed relatively constant despite the rapid rate of change around us. As a result, the schools have not experienced the many radical changes that mainstream schools have undergone over the past 40 years and the approach in Steiner schools remains broadly similar to that found in the earliest schools.”
It’s true, for better or worse, that Steiner schools remain similar (in some ways even identical) to the earliest waldorf schools. But it is utter bullshit that Steiner education provides an environment where the potential of every child is maximised (perhaps I’m not understanding the word ‘holistic’? Is that it? But please note the word ‘every’ — ‘every child’! Every!). Happiness and well-being, can you hear my hollow laugh? I guess, at least, he’s not claiming they provide happiness and well-being for every child.
Pugh’s statements about an ‘in-dept understanding of the development of human nature’ and ‘how children learn at different stages in their lives’ do, of course, refer to Steiner’s theory of human nature and of child development — although he doesn’t explicitly say so. Here’s when one would have been thrilled to see a journalist prepared with good questions. What does he mean? Where does the ‘understanding’ come from? How do children learn, what are the stages? How does he know? From which sources is he deriving his knowledge on these topics? How does what he says relate to anthroposophy? Why is he saying it?
I’m sure you can think of much better question. But there should be some questions, from someone with their critical thinking abilities intact. The idea seems like a dream, but I still entertain it: a journalist prepared to ask questions about what the pedagogy really is about and what its background is, and not just take the fluff words for answers. As it is, these are just empty words that mean very little — as long as you don’t know the context. Because then they make sense… in unexpected ways. The only things said about the pedagogy are the usual advertisement phrases (arts, blah blah) — and, then, one more thing: literacy and numeracy are ‘inculcated’ in a ‘less obvious way.’
Further down in the article he goes on to brag about Steiner students: they’re confident, outgoing, competent in forming relationships. But is there any reason to think they’re more so than other children of the same age?
Now, perhaps you wonder why I bother at all with this silly little piece of shoddy journalism. Well, the reason is that Scotsman, the newspaper, apparently deletes critical comments from the comment thread. David Colquhoun’s comment, submitted five days ago, has been removed by the moderator. Why? I wonder. Commenter Drochelle has just reposted the comment. Let’s see if it stays. It should. I can’t see any reason for it to have been removed. Can you? Sure, the comment may not please everyone; it’s fine not to agree with it or to argue against some point — or all points for that matter — that David Colquhoun is making. But there’s nothing in it that would justify its complete deletion. In fact, as the journalist never asked any critical questions at all — but instead wrote an article that resembles a promotion piece more than journalism –, one may consider allowing critical comments to be even more important.
(Please, notify me if you see it’s been removed again; I have a screen-shot of a cached copy and will post it here.)
clouder’s spiritual dimensions
This is an article by Christopher Clouder, the CEO of the Steiner Waldorf School Fellowship in the UK — that is, he’s leading the association which strives to gain state-funding for Waldorf/steiner education in the UK — and the European Council of Steiner Waldorf Schools. I’m not sure what to make of it. Do you have any viewpoints on this?
… the task of the educator is to make oneself a kind of prophet of the child’s future, leaving it free but helping it acquire that which will be of use later.
[...]
The spiritual dimension is that which ‘endures’ and must be developed in freedom and eventually becomes an individual moral yardstick and cannot be achieved by either confinement or commandment. It is an area for which ‘a curriculum’, in the standard sense of the word, cannot be written, and such an imposition actually runs the risk of denying its existence. Teachers, in order to be able to work in this field, need autonomy to explore their own spirituality as it is not a subject in itself that can be defined and codified as others. The spiritual lives in the complex area of human relationships and intentions. In spite of its non-material nature, it is nevertheless tangible for both educationalists and the children alike, but its use, as an educational concept, would involve a radical change in the prevalent view of the teacher as merely a deliverer of a pre-ordained curriculum. The knowledge needed for this task is a sense of evolution, not just a biological sense, but also in terms of the human psyche, so that the needs of the child are met according to their own spiritual development and that they do not become objects within an abstract subject-centred programme. Attempting to turn the clock back to either narrow nationalism or outdated mechanistic concepts becomes less feasible with the recognition that there is such a thing as a ‘spiritual dimension’. It is indicative of the opportunities for a reappraisal of education that currently presents itself that the ‘Promotion of Pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development’ has become an issue of debate that is likely to have profound effect on both practice and theory in the future.
What does he mean, and is this — whatever it is — what waldorf education offers? (I’m not sure he even mentions waldorf.) Why would waldorf not make students into objects? I know, the fact I felt it did isn’t enough; maybe I just subjectively felt I was an object forced to play in a sort of board-game with strictly confining rules, rules you were often not even allowed to know beforehand… before you made the wrong move. But you knew you were certainly not free. You were certainly under command, even if you couldn’t decipher the commands, as they were implicit. You just failed and failed and failed again. I guess that, too, is a part of spiritual development. How is the child’s freedom compatible with the teacher as a prophet of the child’s future? What is this prophetic gift? How is it supposed to be used — as not to interfere rather than help?
Are there any signs that waldorf is better — in any way — at promoting the pupils spiritual, moral, social, cultural development? And is Clouder, the waldorf proponent, using the term ‘spiritual’ in the same sense as other people would do in this context? Won’t many of the non-anthroposophical readers (if they exist) read it in a non-anthroposophical sense? (Without archangels.)
Please — discuss!
self
Underground train station art with ghost like and shadowy reflections. Far far away. I’m tired. More blogging later!
elementals and fuels
Thanks to MarkH for this lovely find.
For example, in energy production, solid fuels, some renewable, some not, are extracted from the earth and made to produce energy in a variety of forms. Principally coal, but also wood, peat and dung are burned, and uranium is reacted, to produce heat. This ‘fire’ energy is then usually transformed to mechanical, then to electrical energy. The other two of the four elements are usually called in to assist in this double transformation: water and vapor in the steam turbine. Actually, in most modern steam turbines ‘super-critical’ pressures and temperatures are used, under the influence of which the distinction between liquid and vapor disappears and these two elemental states of matter are reduced to a kind of intermediate mush. Under these conditions, one might ask oneself (if not the students): What is happening to those other elementals, the sylphs and undines, when their physical sheaths are subjected to this kind of treatment? (Masters, Brien: Science in Education, p 236.)
Waldorf education science education. Yes, what is happening to these elementals?
who is earth? what on earth…?
I got this in my email (thanks!). It’s a center for a new -osophy. Earthosophy! Courses are offered.
This course inaugurates the Center of Earthosophy of the School of Spiritual Psychology. Earthosophy is the devotional dimension of Spiritual Psychology. We invite you to learn Spiritual-Earth-praying, Spiritual-Earth-ritual, Spiritual-Earth-healing, Spiritual-Earth-meditating, Spiritual-Earth devotion. We enter into the living, unanswerable, always unfolding question: Who is Earth? Spiritually, Who is Earth? And, with that felt question, we enter the further question – How do we come into direct, immediate, bodily presence with the Presence of Earth.
[...]
With these guides, in this course we enter the deep tradition of Feminine Wisdom as Earth Presences. Sophia, Mary, The Black Madonna, Mary Magdalene, Our Lady of Guadalupe – we propose, are here, present, as the spiritual-living Earth. There are other traditions, of course. We provide ONE way, the bodily way of feeling, knowing, sensing, perceiving Earth as Spiritual Earth – in full, wakeful awareness.
‘at the door of science anthroposophy has hitherto knocked in vain’
this — the post title — is a statement by Jost Schieren in a recent article in the waldorf journal, RoSE. [PDF.] The article’s intriguing title: ‘The scientific credibility of anthroposophy’. It contains a few very interesting passages; I’ll come to them. A friend sent me the link to this little gem of an article some weeks ago (thanks!) and, since then, I’ve noticed, it has, quite understandably, made the rounds on facebook and elsewhere. But let’s start from the beginning. Schieren says that while the
fruits of anthroposophy find ever wider social acceptance and appreciation,
(Do we know this for a fact?)
the tree itself is generally avoided or ignored.
That is certainly true. He goes on to say
Anthroposophy continues to be regarded as an obscure body of spiritual teaching. Apparently what people want – as the magazine Der Spiegel said a few years ago – are Waldorf Schools without Steiner. And it is in fact the case nowadays that this demand has already become reality in many schools and other anthroposophical institutions. The success anthroposophy has had in many areas of modern life seems to have gone hand in hand with a sell-out of its own basic principles.
With which I agree. Just look at — this is only one example — how waldorf schools try to distance themselves from anthroposophy and Steiner. They almost try to erase anthroposophy or at least downplay it and its importance. Yet, oddly, keeping it at the same time. Which is a confused situation.
Anyway, he talks some about the relationship between science and anthroposophy as well as accreditation for anthroposophical courses (eg, pedagogical courses). The Science Council of Germany has been reluctant to accredit anthroposophical courses as accreditation would mean ‘basing the work of a university-level institution on an extra-scientific theory of education involving methodology influenced by a particular worldview’; the way to address this issue, according to Schieren, cannot be
in the usual manner of putting forward a vigorous apology for anthroposphy as science, but rather by means of an open discussion, that would at least begin the job of giving anthroposophy its place in the scientific landscape.
That is very wise, although I do doubt that ‘giving anthroposophy its place in the scientific landscape’ may be a futile pursuit. I recommend you to read this article as a whole, but I’m now going to proceed to comment a few things — out of context and in a summary fashion. Sorry.
The problem is the notion of supersensible knowledge, based solely upon untestable assertions made by Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophists bridge this gap by a gesture of trust, but this cannot be expected of everyone.
No, definitely not. And it’s more than trust; it’s faith. (Now, Jan Luiten, would say something different: no trust is needed. Anthroposophy is a ‘path of inquiry’, right? A path which should not build on trust, but on individual knowledge and experience gained on said path. Schieren might agree to some extent I guess, because later in the article he wants to describe anthroposophy as ‘a path of knowledge that offers a perspective on the truth and holds out the possibility of approaching it, rather than reducing it to an ingredient of a particular individual’s store of knowledge.’ There, again, we have the contrast between what it would be or could be and what it actually is to anthroposophists who work with anthroposophy in practice, for example in waldorf schools.)
To try and use the esoteric pronouncements of Rudolf Steiner as a basis for justifying the scientific nature of anthroposophy is – for the foreseeable future – not a recipe for success.
No, definitely not.
In such an undertaking it may be sensible, in principle, to demand a different concept of science, centred upon an inner empiricism or inner evidence; but to do so would necessarily imply a complete paradigm shift of the whole scientific enterprise …
ah! only that and nothing more! (It won’t happen easily, not through the work of anthroposophists alone, he admits. Personally, I don’t wish for a science devoid of… scientific thinking and reason.)
It is much more likely that the currently ruling paradigm of science will of itself come to an end, because the technocratic worldview built into it will have caused ever more disasters and destruction …
The question is, though, if what anthroposophy offers would cause less disasters and destruction. When applied to reality, would it work any better? I quite doubt it. Knowledge about the real world, not the supersensible, still seems the surest path to success.
In an earlier essay, [Heiner Ullrich] states: “In contrast to the conscious detachment, plurality and unresolved openness of scientific method, Steiner and his disciples desire dogmatic knowledge, or visionary experience, of the world as a well-ordered whole resembling an eternal, unchangeable truth. [ … ] Their way of thinking is degenerate philosophy, mere worldview. [ … ] With the formulation of the anthroposophical ‘occult science’ Steiner fell prey to all the dangers of such a way of thinking. Here the pre-modern, dogmatic-metaphysical speculation of neo-Platonism is transformed into the contrived, re-mythologised world picture of theosophy” (Ulrich, 1988, p. 174). As profoundly felt as these reproaches are, it would be wrong to suppose – as anthroposophists are sometimes wont to do – that behind them lurk the dark intentions of an “organised enemy”. What we have here is simply a contrary position, which quite naturally has attracted much argumentative attention from the anthroposophical perspective.
I think the quote is interesting, because I can’t remember having read the essay. (Is it online somewhere? In case anyone knows, I’d be happy to read it.) But, also, I like Schieren’s approach. He is so right: it is a contrary position. The world needs not fall apart because of it. This is very welcome. (Schieren’s discussion following this quote is interesting, too.) Getting back to eternal issue:
The problems with its cultural profile that anthroposophy habitually encounters do not normally stem from Steiner’s works; they are “home-made”. They reside with anthroposophists not with anthroposophy.
… we have discussed it numerous times on the blog. I brushed upon it above, because it’s a discussion we had with Jan Luiten just days ago. The intelligent, reasonable (et c) poster-people for anthroposophy aren’t always the most typical. If they ever are. Perhaps the following is more representative of the implementation of anthroposophy in, e g, waldorf schools?
A serious problem demanding mention is that of the uncritical use of Steiner’s utterances, with no attempt made on the part of users to test them for themselves or to bring their own observational ability to bear upon them. Here what counts is belief in Rudolf Steiner’s words, rather than any personal striving for knowledge.
Absolutely to the point. He continues, and this is actually even better, it’s somewhat surprising — surprisingly good –, coming from an anthroposophist and coming from the journal RoSE:
When this then leads to the issuing of compilations from Steiner’s works embellished with speculations arising from them, the sure ground of scientific rigour has been entirely vacated. A large proportion of the publications of anthroposophical authors treat the utterances of Rudolf Steiner as indubitable facts. There is much musing done upon such subjects as reincarnation sequences and conditions in the so-called spiritual world, with no apparent concern about the obvious lack of any independently thought-out contribution to the content. Even worse: the decades-long habit of studying Steiner leads to the belief that one is completely clued up and in the picture about the things he presented and consequently can (and should) instruct others about them. Through years of reading Rudolf Steiner’s works the individual ability to reserve judgement with regard to their knowledge content is usually undermined. This is rather like spending a lot of time in galleries and as a consequence fancying that one could paint like Raphael. This lack of awareness of the rational detachment necessary in relation to the utterances of Rudolf Steiner is not the source of anthroposophy’s being regarded as unscientific, it is what actually makes it unscientific.
On the other hand, if these ‘believer’ anthroposophists are in the majority, who’s to say they’re wrong? It may be more reasonable, at least for academic credibility, to focus on what wisdom can be derived from Steiner’s early works, rather than on his extraordinarily concrete pronouncements about the facts of the higher worlds — but would it be more ‘right’? And maybe, what waldorf teachers (to use this group as an example again), too, are doing, is treating Steiner’s utterances ‘as indubitable facts.’ There is a saying that goes: ‘you don’t get the anthroposophists you want’ — isn’t there? If there isn’t, there should be. You don’t actually get the ideal guys, the ones you could parade in front of the public and they’d behave impeccably and reasonably. The guys you get, communicate telepathically with imaginary penguins on the south pole and with other strange beings. And write books about it. They bleed like Christ or are afraid of computers.
An interesting exposition follows, and then a conclusion:
Epistemology thus becomes ontology. In relation to the natural world – the reality encountered by the senses – anthroposophists usually have no problem concurring with such an argument, and it is not unfamiliar to them. Applied to the spiritual world, however, it will often provoke in them the naïve realism that Steiner was so keen on superseding. They persist in believing in a self-existent spiritual world, and thus fall into outworn modes of spirituality.
This seems a bit tricky though (later in the article):
In the foregoing the attempt has just been made to outline a new, epistemologically justified concept of mind, which combines a spiritual view of man and world with the modern claim to complete human autonomy and the perspective of individual growth towards freedom. Outside of anthroposophical circles, however, such an attempt will find little acceptance. However important and decisive this concept may be in the long term, it nevertheless seems more sensible in the meantime to approach the question of the scientific status of anthroposophy by looking at its areas of application with a view to validating these scientifically.
I don’t quite like this, although I may be interpreting it in a negative way. On the other hand, it is similar to how testing whether a medicine works is different from knowing how it works. Or something like that. But I still don’t like it, not in this case (somewhat later, Schieren sort of confirms my suspicions as he writes: ‘Using the scientific approach to anthroposophy presented above generates various, medium-term, strategic advantages.’). What is it that they’re going to validate scientifically in the areas of application though? You’ve got to come up with very specific anthroposophical practices and see how they compare. That would require scientific stringency to yield any reliable results. Can we hope for that?
Schieren then mentions an example that seems a bit suspect to me (it would be interesting if someone with knowledge of medicine would like to investigate that further — I’m speaking of the reference to the thesis by Heusser, see p 6 in Schieren’s article). Schieren explicitly states that he’d rather see the question of whether anthroposophy is a science or not in the background, because then ‘It is no longer a question of whether anthroposophy is any use as a science, but of how it can be used scientifically.’ It seems an odd thing to do — push the most important aspect of anthroposophy (the most important in this particular context) in the background, in order to… validate its usefulness? Or is it impossible to discuss (science) the actual method of anthroposophy itself, because it would be scientifically untenable? But, in the end, the method should matter. Because anthroposophy isn’t just the results. In fact, following some of the arguments, the method itself might be more important, if it is to be, as Jan says, mainly a method of inquiry. The results are the fluff. It’s the method that matters. Not only for the individuals spiritual path — but it should be so also for the scientific inquiry. (Or am I wrong here? Aren’t the results a bit like gnomes — icing on the cake?)
What Schieren then says about ‘critical detachment’ is absolutely true, and it should be practiced even if (which I suspect) there’s never any hope of getting anthroposophy to be more scientific — or accepted in a scientific context — or science more anthroposophical. Under the heading ‘Systematisation’ there’s a quite comical statement: ‘There will then remain a tiny percentage of statements by Rudolf Steiner, that according to the current climate of thinking will be considered inconceivable.’ — Only a tiny percentage, huh? I’m not sure about that. And although I welcome any attempts at exploring the first point — ‘Verifiable statements. What is meant here are statements by Rudolf Steiner that can be substantiated by normal scientific methods. In my estimation, this will apply to a relatively high percentage of them’ — I doubt that these statements constitute a high percentage of Steiner’s work. (You really need to look at this — I’m not just saying so. It gets a bit entertaining, and I can’t copy all the entertaining bits!)
Another truth follows almost immediately:
Trust in the possibility of an appropriate scientific approach to anthroposophy grows among non-anthroposophists to the extent that anthroposophists throw off the habit of “we know better”. For the fact is that they do not know better; they have simply invested their trust in the fact that Rudolf Steiner knows better. This, however, is a personal decision, open to anyone, but obviously possessing no scientific validity.
I think he’s so right. It is very rare to find an article, by an anthroposophist, which makes me say: he’s so right. And to say it so often. There are so many parts of this article I really agree with, and I find Schieren’s approach sympathetic. However, I can’t shake off the feeling it’s… it’s still about putting up a facade of academic respectability… in front of a house of woo. Even though I like it (and distrust it at the same time), and think Schieren is on to something important — what about the rest of anthroposophy? What about all those religious believers? They’re the ones responsible for the practical applications. They are the ones truly in need of a facade. Schieren is not. And I agree with him also about this:
The quest for knowledge, that does not rest upon dogmatic articles of faith, but upon the individual’s own mental effort, is foremost. Anthroposophists are among those who often tend to ideologise topics which could actually be given a thoroughly objective treatment. Occasionally credence is given to an “adversary-myth”, which renders all objective debate impossible. A further cultural advance would accrue from the uncompromising rejection of all kinds of esoteric presumptuousness and unjustified uses of esoteric terms. Authentic insights arrived at by the efforts of individuals would then be the hallmark of anthroposophical discourse.
Perhaps it would, or should, but maybe, if that’s what Schieren wants, he’d do better to look elsewhere, than to anthroposophy, for it. Because, although this is definitely some great stuff, it isn’t what you’d expect from anthroposophy.
Last but not least, there’s also a small nugget in this article for everyone who relishes the racism debate:
… it is already apparent that many of the attacks upon anthroposophy – for instance, the longstanding charge of racism – are now sounding hollow. Representatives of science at university level (e.g. Heiner Ullrich) attest to the fact that Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy have nothing to do with racism.
Now — is that true, my dear friends? (Jan Luiten shouts: Yes!! Despite the fact that anthroposophy is a path of inquiry and not a set of doctrines… or?)
__________
Jost Schieren is coming to Sweden — for the waldorf teachers’ conference in January. That is, in two weeks. Here’s the program. He’s talking about anthroposophy and science (probably similar to the questions he deals with in the article), but, more intriguingly, one evening he’s going hold a lecture entitled: ‘Between Day and Night’. (I guess there’s no point in making this appeal, because I’m not going to hear anything from anyone attending the conference, but please… if anyone feels inclined to tell me more, I’m curious. I want to be between day and night. All the time.)
lost in the woods (again)
Glenys and Philip Woods — waldorf education advocates who co-wrote a report (the Woods report) which has served as a basis for the UK government’s decision to fund some Steiner schools with public money — have a new website:
If asked to summarise her beliefs in a word, Glenys would describe them as holistic, as would Philip concerning his beliefs.
Glenys’s spiritual path has led to her participation in numerous spiritual workshops and to her initiation as a Priestess of Shekinah and of Divine Mother Sophia, into the Order of Lord Melchizadek and The Violet Flame, and into the work of the Grandmothers (Net of Light). She is a Reiki Master (Atlantean and Crystal) and has been trained in Angelic Reiki Healing, Crystal Skull healing and other methods. Glenys does absent healing, as well as contact healing, which includes animals.
Aware of how important spiritual development is for holistic leadership, she is proactive in raising awareness of the value and significance of spirituality, so that it is not marginalised, and the importance at this time of understanding the ‘divine feminine’ and what this means for individuals’ growth and evolution.
Go check it out for yourselves. Further comments from me are unnecessary, right?
