David Colquhoun of the website DC’s Improbable Science has posted the first part of a couple of quest blog entries authored by my good friends @thetismercurio and @lovelyhorse_. It’s recommended — should be compulsory! — reading for any aspiring waldorf Steiner parent. It deals with, among other things, the discrepancy between the presentation of waldorf education and the reality behind it. Parents think they’re getting something more beneficial to children and children’s development than what is offered by the often derided state education. Steiner proponents help to paint a sad picture of other types of educational systems as detrimental, even harmful. But they don’t openly advertise what exactly it is that parents receive instead, when choosing the waldorf model. They don’t talk about karma or reincarnation with those they think are not on the same boat as them. Parents may hear that their child ‘deserved’ a certain treatment (like bullying) for obscure reasons, but these reasons are never elucidated. They won’t be told the actual reasons behind the anti-vaccination stance so common in the anthroposophical milieu, and some easily scared parents jump on it, even if they don’t share the underlying (karmic) motivations — even if they aren’t aware these exist!
Parents often don’t understand that once you’re in the waldorf system, you may not be able to get out without considerable effort. The child is left too far behind his or her peers to have the opportunity of an easy transfer to another type of school. Waldorf proponents promise that waldorf kids will catch up. They won’t. (The only reason waldorf students don’t do worse in life than they do is that they come from well-off homes. Their parents are often educated and have the economic resources to provide for their children.) But even if they did, the child may be stuck for years where he or she isn’t happy. The parents feel obligated to stay in the waldorf system, because they have been told that if they do, the child will catch up — waldorf schools teach the same things, but in a different order. Usually this merely delays dealing with the problem. One day the situation is completely untenable, and then it becomes clear that the child does not have the knowledge and skills needed, even if the parents have followed the recommendations from the waldorf school and stayed longer than they had wanted. Perhaps hurting the child badly in the meantime. That’s what waldorf education did to me. When waldorf doesn’t work — get out immediately! Don’t endure it in the hope things will improve. They won’t. It will all just get worse until it seems your world is falling apart. The human costs are not insignificant. No matter who finances the education — whether it is the state or the parents themselves.
From the blog entry:
Teachers, if pressed, may repeat that ‘Anthroposophy is not taught to the children’ but this is disingenuous or naive. The transmission of Anthroposophy is subtle, through verses, stories and images. Every aspect of Steiner education is informed by Steiner’s clairvoyant ‘insight’ or ‘intuition’ and has occult implications. Thus the Waldorf categorisation of children according to their ‘temperaments’ and their ’soul type’, school readiness linked to the ‘change of teeth’, the dance form eurythmy, the oddly uniform artwork, the gnomes (or elementals) and the faceless dolls, are all embodiments of the anthroposophical impulse.
many thanks zooey. You’ve described so clearly the potential risks of following the Waldorf route, plus how hard it is for some parents to take their children out, even if the warning signs are there. Sometimes it’s too difficult to admit that a cherished ideal is not as it first appeared, that we may have been wrong. It’s hard for parents and for politicians, as well as for those Waldorf teachers who jump ship. But it has to be faced.
Go Zo! I see that this article has really made Sune all a-twitter, judging by the first response in the Comments section.
An excellent piece ThetisMercurio and LovelyHorse, fits with my experiences with Anthroposophical organisations here in Devon.
Yes, “Do hurry and read all of it, now!!” (Zooey)
Eventually, in David Colquhoun’s guest post, there is a link to Peter Staudenmaier’s answer
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/14631
to Dan Dugan’s question:
” Sigh. Where did Rudolf Steiner say, ‘in an argument, don’t address the topic, denigrate your opponent instead’ ? ”
Here it is, all the complains written by former waldorf parents and pupils among others, all in one sentence: [Rudolf Steiner]: ‘in an argument, don’t address the topic, denigrate your opponent instead’ .
Don’t discuss with the anthro/steiner/waldorf, just leave (my advice).
alfa-omega — have you seen Carol’s new blog post? http://carolwyatt.blogspot.com/2010/10/waldorf-rant-part-2.html
(I’m hurrying by, but had to tell you when I saw you were online just a few minutes ago. I think it will interest you!)
Thank you, Zooey, I have read Carol’s new post now.
Zooey: “They don’t talk about karma or reincarnation with those they think are not on the same boat as them. Parents may hear that their child ‘deserved’ a certain treatment (like bullying) for obscure reasons, but these reasons are never elucidated. ”
I have been thinking of WHY (how to put it) I claim that the Waldorf/Steiner education shoud be discontinued alltogether.
Perhaps this way: the concept of karma and reincarnation means – by definition – that the goals to achieve by Waldorf/Steiner education are different alltogether from what most people associate with the term “education”. Not telling that clearly and in advance is CHEATING. Thus, cheating is an inherent part of the Waldorf/Steiner education – by definition.
In addition, the concept of karma means “let go”; thus, the goals according to the school legislation and ordinances cannot be achieved at a Waldorf/Steiner school (these goals are certaily not “let go”).
Oh, yes, it’s completely different from what people associate with education. The difficulty is to pinpoint the effect these beliefs — i e, karma and reincarnation — direct and influence the education itself. I don’t think people realize just how important the influence is. Even parents who have some king of hazy notion about anthroposophy being about reincarnation, and that anthroposophists — waldorf teachers — believe in it, even they don’t realize how important it is to education, methods, and not least to the conceptions of child development that waldorf teachers entertain.
I don’t think waldorf education would win quite as many supporters if these aspects of the underlying ideology were known, as well as their effects on the education and the school environment and the treatment of children in general.
Of course, education isn’t about helping children incarnate better or improving their karma. Far from it. But I fear few people have the interest or resources to find out what it is about. Superficial impressions tend to be more important.
In any case, one step in the right direction would be making sure all schools fulfill certain requirements re literacy and numeracy.
You’ve both hit the nail.
There will be more posts at DCs, alfa-omega :)
I can’t wait!!
I’m replying to some guy.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3528&cpage=1#comment-8786
‘most of the sceptics here don’t seem to really know what happens in Steiner schools’
They do. Either as parents or as students. I attended waldorf kindergarten and school for 9 years. It does seem to me that the skeptics in this thread, and most importantly the authors of the post, know exactly what they’re talking about.
Unlike you they actually seem to know something about the underlying philosophy and how it is implemented in steiner education. This doesn’t mean that all steiner education is exactly the same or that every steiner student will recognize what they say. (In my opinion, ignorance will prevent many of them to realize this. But that’s only my very personal observation. Former waldorf students regularly fail to realize how deeply influenced by anthroposophy their education was.)
Ii do agree with you, however, that there are other types of religious and spiritual nonsense in the world. We’re not somehow in short supply of nonsense.
This cannot be used to justify the presense of the anthroposophical variety of unreason in education.
*
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3528&cpage=1#comment-8827
You may not have noticed, but I don’t call my old waldorf school racist. Thetis didn’t call any particular waldorf school racist either. The philosophy is still the issue though. Starting with your latest comment and then moving to the older one.
‘My argument is – “Schools are operated by people who believe all kinds of mad things, but lets look at what they teach not what they believe and then fund schools that turn out useful confident members of society who can do stuff not just pass exams.”’
Your argument isn’t convincing. We’re looking at what they teach, how they teach and what the results are. We’re not convinced. Your argument falls flat as I’m concerned. It’s not even an argument.
‘I would dismiss parents I’m afraid, they don’t know what goes on in any schools.’
But *these* parents who wrote this article — they know. NOW. They didn’t when they put their children in waldorf school. Neither did my parents. But they know NOW.
These parents know better than most waldorf students themselves. Because most waldorf students never bother to find out anything about the ideology behind waldorf schools.
‘they also claim it is somehow taught’
The do NOT claim that. Something is very amiss in your reading comprehension. They claim anthroposophy informs practically everything in waldorf education. That’s really a very different thing than to claim it’s taught. I know Thetis and Lovelyhorse would never claim anthroposophy is taught explicitly to students. This is exactly why anthroposophy is so insidious.
As far as the incarnation and maths issue — yes it does matter. It really does. You’d have much better chances of learning from a teacher who have studied pedagogy rather than the incarnation process according to anthroposophy. That’s why pedagogy is an academic field. To research how skills are best and most effectively taught.
‘Are you referring to yourself or the people you know? Or trying to tar me with this brush?’
I was referring to you and hoards of other former waldorf students I’ve encountered on the internet. Most of them have no clue at all. They say their education has not been informed by anthroposophy, yet they have absolutely no idea what anthroposophy is.
I think you are among them, and I don’t believe having a mother who’s involved in waldorf education helps you at all. It doesn’t somehow automatically make you more informed than anyone else. Reading will. Read Steiner, read what other anthroposophists have written about education. Both re the theoretical and the practical level.
See Thetis’s brilliant new comment: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3528&cpage=1#comment-8911
Also, I’m replying to Tom de H again.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3528&cpage=1#comment-8913
Tom de H. ‘(1) I did notice but do not agree. Thetis did call my old school racist by implication as follows. The Premise (1) There are racist statements in some Steiner books (2) Nearly all anthroposophists believe nearly all Steiner book contents (3) Nearly all Steiner teachers are anthroposophists. From this he concludes and Steiner schools should not be funded because they are racist. I point out that 2 and 3 are wrong in my 12 year experience of one school and I now add to that your experience. QED.’
I’m afraid the only thing this proves is that you don’t read properly. You don’t understand the reasoning and you don’t understand nuances.
‘OH DEAR you persist with this idea that we, i.e. Steiner kids, should read books on the subject so as to evaluate the school.’
Yes, I insist you should, *if* you want to participate in a debate about the contents of anthroposophy and its role in waldorf education.
I was there too, you see, for 9 years. This doesn’t mean I’m informed about the philosophy behind it, unless I add theory — reading! — to my experience. If all you rely on is your personal experience — and what you’re mum told you — then you’re not really qualified to talk about anything more than your personal experience and what your mum said. But that’s not (mainly) what we’re trying to talk about here, I’m afraid.
‘There were some teachers for whom anthroposophy was very important but for most that taught me I simply don’t think it was.’
How would you know — you have expressed a preference to remain ignorant as to what anthroposophy entails and what it means for waldorf education. How on earth, then, would you know which of your teachers were influenced by anthroposophy and to what degree? It’s impossible, really.