With the free school reform steadily materializing in the UK, more and more information becomes available as to which Steiner schools are applying for free school status and thus asking to receive state funding. At the time being, we know of 25 schools that have shown an interest in becoming free schools. A list of these school has been compiled by a friend of mine, and is published below. First, however, I want to remind readers of the three guest posts over att DC’s Improbable Science. These posts detail many pressing concerns over Steiner schools and — most importantly in this context — the possible future state funding of the schools. All three posts (i — ii — iii) are important, and I want to stress how indispensable it is for anybody interested in this matter to familiarize themselves with the concerns surrounding Steiner schools and the criticism against Steiner education and the Steiner school movement. It really is a topic which ought to be of interest to parents, politicians and taxpayers alike.
To ignore the problematic aspects of Steiner education presently won’t make these issues miraculously evaporate into the air and disappear for good — no, they will inevitably come back and haunt us. (They will return and haunt the Steiner movement, too, for that matter.) It is my strong opinion that Steiner education must be faced and seen for what it is before any decision on funding is made. This includes taking criticism and concerns seriously. Living in Sweden, where waldorf schools have been state-funded for more than two decades, I am not directly affected by educational decisions and policies in the UK, of course. However, I fear that the Swedish decision to allow tax-funding — as well as to allow detrimental exemptions which put children’s rights to a good education at risk — was ill-conceived. If the same uninformed process is now taking place and leading to the same kind of misguided decisions in the UK, it troubles me. Anthroposophy isn’t likely to be the only spiritual or religious movement to ask for government support for its educational outlets. It may not even be the worst one (though perhaps one of few with its very own pedagogy). Being in the dark about anthroposophy will, however, prove fatal.
List of UK Steiner schools applying for free school status:
Update, February 17, 2011: Alder Bridge school added.
Update, February 24, 2012: The British Humanist Association published a list of five Steiner schools among the 2013 applicants to become free schools. Some of them are not on the list above. Here they are:
Leeds Steiner School
Iona School, Nottingham
Steiner Academy Exeter
South West London Steiner Academy
Calder Valley Steiner School
Thanks for this list. Some of their exam results make for worrying reading, Brighton for example in 2009 had only 33% of pupils obtain 5 GCSE’s or more:
http://bbc.in/hiVNN0
and Elmfield scored 30%
http://bbc.in/ig4JWd
None of the pupils taking the exams had SEN, as you state above children’s rights to a good education have not only been put at risk but been denied in the name of Anthroposophy. Tragic really.
All the more reason for Gove to ask what exactly do Steiner schools teach and to urgently rethink his position on funding.
Agreed. And the articles you site are all excellent, easy to follow and understand, and soundly backed up. In the 150th year since Steiner’s birth, it is certainly time for the anomalies in the movement, to be faced squarely and honestly.
A sobering thought that most people may not have crystallised is that when those who police the internet on behalf of the movement decry Steiner Critics as being unreasonably opposed to a humane movement, this claim obfuscates the fact that the vast majority of these people are simply parents who have seen their children ‘altered’ in a negative way by their experience of Waldorf education, if they are not actually previous pupils who have made their own observations.
So the criticism of these parents and former students is simply an attempt to silence this knowledge of negative impacts on children from getting out to the world at large, prospective families and now also prospective funders! We must turn this around before countless more children are damaged. Such an inward-looking movement cannot reach the standards of transparency or accountability required by state funded schools. Those who have spoken up already, and are termed critics, have often risked much to do so, and we need initiatives and strategies that will empower the many many others to do the same in spite of their fears of reprisals etc.,
A sustainable educational movement should not need to silence voices of children and their parents whose duty it is to protect them.
In 2011 it would be progressive if these voices could unite into something much more visible that would create the necessary confrontation with the public – who are, after all, now being asked to pay for not only the education itself, but it’s results.
Let’s all try and remember that confront means “to stand in front of [something] together.
We have a number of initiatives in development in these respects, please contact to contribute or for more info.
Rudolf Steiner Federation Messenger said:
‘this claim obfuscates the fact that the vast majority of these people are simply parents who have seen their children ‘altered’ in a negative way by their experience of Waldorf education, if they are not actually previous pupils who have made their own observations’.
and
‘A sustainable educational movement should not need to silence voices of children and their parents whose duty it is to protect them’.
Absolutely spot on, people need to ask themselves why would parents and former pupils use their very precious spare time to keep writing about this, despite constant attempts to silence them, what is in it for them?
http://zooey.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/uk-steiner-waldorf-free-schools/#comment-6251
Rudolf Steiner Federation Messenger:
“A sustainable educational movement should not need to silence voices of children and their parents whose duty it is to protect them.”
Exactly.
(Never seen any “Montessori-survivor-list” or “Reggio-Emilia-survivor-list” or “Freinet-survivor-list” or … Only “Waldorf-survivor-list”.)
@ Rudolf Steiner Federation messenger – thank you for your positive comment about our three posts on DC’s blog ( http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3853 etc)
I might add that in our own case we’re writing about Steiner Waldorf education primarily as part of the wider skeptic movement – we’re acting as blogger/journalists. We were both parents at Steiner schools in the UK but our children were not traumatised – although it was clear to us that the education system was academically very poor. But it was the many stories of families who had experienced bizarre and negative experiences at Steiner Waldorf schools worldwide that alerted us to the movement’s systemic faults. It’s very brave of parents to speak out after experiences which have harmed their children, and many people quite understandably want to forget and carry on with their lives elsewhere. We are indebted to those who have the tenacity to fight their corner in public, as you have done.
Your story illustrates very clearly why it’s vital that schools are accountable, and it’s an important lesson for those planning English Free Schools. Steiner Waldorf schools are designed to be unaccountable, it’s a serious flaw.
But the essential problem lies not only with the external workings of the SW movement: the problem is Anthroposophy. The problem IS Steiner. There is no alternative Steiner school somewhere in the future which will operate in a benign and enlightened way, providing the sunny education that parents imagined they were getting when they signed up. Steiner teachers are in fact operating as Steiner suggested. To pretend otherwise is to refuse to read any history or analysis of Steiner’s own texts by anyone other than the very people who have caused families like yours such grief.
There is an education system which parents might like to explore, which isn’t new (and doesn’t need a new ‘paradigm’) – and which could be said to be an education for the 21st century – it’s democratic education. alfa-omega put a link to some examples on the comments at DC’s. For those interested, there’s a democratic schools conference this summer in the UK which will attract international visitors: http://www.ideceudec.org/
I can’t suggest that democratic Free Schools should be funded at this time because I believe we need to support the local schools which serve the majority of children. But what’s great about the democratic school movement is that it’s about the rights of children, not just their parents. One thing we’re absolutely certain about: the education of children should not be about indulging the ‘spiritual’ journeys of adults.
I feel very sorry for them who had a terrible time at a Waldorf school and for the parents who had to make bad experiences too. Of course one has the right to criticize Waldorfs schools and to point to assumed systematically failures. I have no objection against honest criticism. I do object against the fact that you are demanding “no state funding for Steiner schools in the UK”.
I think people should have the right to choose the school they think is best for their children. Nobody has the right to patronize somebody else in this case, knowing it better than the other person.
The case here is in fact very simple but also very principal:
Steiner schools “sell” pedagogics according to Steiners anthroposophical methodology.
There are people who want to ”buy” this kind of pedagogics for their children.
It is very undemocratic to deny people this possibility, this right to deny other people’s rights you do not have.
Condition however is that it should be very clear what is “sold” by these schools. Parents should be honestly and extensively be informed. Parents have also their own responsibility to get informed well. When parents are consciously be desinformed by a certain school, action against this school should be taken.
No, people should not have the right to impose anything they want on their children. Nor should they have the right to demand the taxpayer pays for their choice, however much they want it. Michael Gove may think I’m wrong, except there are some risks even he won’t take.
If everyone knew what Steiner ed was there would be a sharp decrease in customers, but that would be the least of the movement’s problems.
Steiner Waldorf ed is itself profoundly un-democratic. It’s a bit ironic for any of its supporters to cite democratic principles to get their fingers on the public purse.
Jan Luiten: “should be …”
That is wishful thinking.
The REALITY I have seen while a part of a Waldorf school for a while was: cheating, lying, in order to get hold on the voucher money.
Nowhere, neither in a free school, nor in a community comprehensive I have been a part of for a while did I see the cheating, being a part of the system as such, in the way it is in a Waldorf school.
I am a parent, too.
My advice to other parents is to run for the hills — from ANY place where the cheating is an endemic part of the system, as it is at Waldorf.
Those who wish to “worship an UFO and the like” will have to do it privately, on Sundays, and fund it privately.
Yes! “Those who wish to “worship an UFO and the like” ” Possibly there would be takers for a UFO watching school.
PS:
have a look at http://www.ideceudec.org/ ,
progressive education Anno 2011.
(Waldorf was, possibly, progressive education Anno 1919.)
Messenger — ‘A sustainable educational movement should not need to silence voices of children and their parents whose duty it is to protect them. ‘
Absolutely right! Apart from everything else, this really should be enough to make people suspicious about what’s really going on.
mule — ‘Absolutely spot on, people need to ask themselves why would parents and former pupils use their very precious spare time to keep writing about this, despite constant attempts to silence them, what is in it for them?’
Indeed. And — what makes the movement (or some of its fanatical supporters) feel like it’s OK to act like that? How can they justify it? They hired Sune, so they can’t get away from that responsibility. They can’t say they aren’t responsible for what individual supporters do. They are responsible for those people they hire, for making the decision to hire them.
Thetis — ‘the education of children should not be about indulging the ‘spiritual’ journeys of adults’
Indeed (I say once again).
Jan — ‘I think people should have the right to choose the school they think is best for their children. Nobody has the right to patronize somebody else in this case, knowing it better than the other person.’
I think we need to also protect the rights of children. Parents have a lot to say, they decide how they raise their kids, outside school. Taxpayers have a right too — they don’t want to see their hard-earned money squandered on ridiculous projects. They — quite rightly — want to get as much value as possible for what they support through paying taxes. Medicine that works. Education that works.
But basically — the most important consideration is the rights of the child. My parents thought waldorf was the best school. Turned out they were wrong! Partly because they didn’t know enough, partly because waldorf presented itself as something it is not.
And if the general public is going to pay for waldorf education there are many requirements which need to be fulfilled first — among them: openness and honesty, educational quality, safeguards to ensure the rights of the child.
Thetis is absolutely right:
‘No, people should not have the right to impose anything they want on their children. Nor should they have the right to demand the taxpayer pays for their choice, however much they want it.’
alfa — ‘Those who wish to “worship an UFO and the like” will have to do it privately, on Sundays, and fund it privately.’
Yes!
Thetis — ‘Possibly there would be takers for a UFO watching school.’
Why not. In Sweden we have free schools based upon Hubbard’s theories. Tax payers’ money wasted in order to pay licenses to that cult, because there’s a license to pay for using the ‘methods’ and the label. You’ll have them too.
Parents’ rights, oh yeah. Nice.
‘Medicine that works. Education that works.’
Not homeopathy. Not niche schools based on the whims of – shall we say cult like organisations? As consumers, parents fall for the aesthetic. The elitism. They like the window-dressing. Steiner is stuffed with resilient memes.
And anyone can have the easthetic. Anytime, anywhere. No need to send a child to waldorf for that reason.
Honestly, I don’t know if waldorf is totally beyond rescue. But I do think they need to do a hell of a lot of work before even being considered for state-funding. And, really, even to be permitted to run schools at all — a lot of work has to be done. It’s just that because these schools have been around for a while, it’s difficult to start demanding they shape up now; it’s not like society seems to be willing to say: we demand the same of you as we would of a new educational movement, not until you show us what you really have, will we grant you permission to educate. They think’ve got the sign of approval for all time to come. They feel entitled.
Jan Luiten said ‘I do object against the fact that you are demanding “no state funding for Steiner schools in the UK”’.
Why?
Is it that the schools in your country and elsewhere which already have state funding agreements be jeopardized in some way because the UK found out what the schools really are?
Or is it that the movement is relying heavily on the prospect that UK taxpayers will be forced (through the Free Schools programme) to keep the international Anthroposophical pyramid scheme going?
In addition to what I said above — it’s pretty clear waldorf’s ‘situation’ cannot be solved with PR. The problem isn’t bad or good PR, it goes much deeper. As long as they think PR is it, then forget it. As long as they think hiring zealots to do their dirty work, forget it.
Mule – Yes. That’s a good description!
Alicia – the teachers, the good-will, the energy, the desire of parents for something .. better are certainly not without rescue. But Waldorf itself .. is it necessary? Who is it for? Who benefits? Can’t we do better?
Yep – the zealots are a Bad Sign…
Also, it’s quite all right to be for choice — I am! — but people need to ask, ‘who pays for this choice of mine?’ (the children? other people? taxpayers? et c). It’s not just about choice. There are hardly choices that don’t come with costs — financial, human, et c.
Think of it this way, Jan — you say it’s the parents’ choice to have waldorf education for their child(ren). But what about the choice of the person who gets to pay for this waldorf education via the taxes? Don’t you think this person has the right to choose too?
And, again, what about the child? What about the parental choices which limit the child’s own ability to make his/her own choices in the future?
It’s not so simple as to say that choice is good. Choice is good (and sounds good), but there is more to it. In my opinion, it’s a more complex matter, and proclaiming that choice is good is like… a meaningless statement. Of course it’s good. So are cute dogs. Nice, good, cuddly. But they pee on the carpets and chew on your books when they’re pups. (It reminds me of being asked, recently, to sign a petition against the child sex-slave trade. What?! I don’t approve of murder either, if anyone cares to know. I don’t sign stupid petitions.)
It seems to me that the attempt to solve the anthro/steiner/waldorf movement’s problems by trust to PR is an approach “att gripa efter ett halmstrå”. (Alicia, can you translate, please?)
It’s not just Sweden and SN; worldwide, the anthro/steiner/waldorf “gör gällande att de är större och viktigare än vad de är i verkligheten”. (Alicia, can you translate, please?)
Thetis — ‘the teachers, the good-will, the energy, the desire of parents for something .. better are certainly not without rescue. But Waldorf itself .. is it necessary? Who is it for? Who benefits? Can’t we do better?’
I don’t know. I think it’s up to them. It’s their educational movement. They need to prove it’s as good as they imagine it is, that it can become as good as they pretend it is. I don’t know how, but still…
“att gripa efter ett halmstrå” = grasp at straws.
‘It’s not just Sweden and SN; worldwide, the anthro/steiner/waldorf “gör gällande att de är större och viktigare än vad de är i verkligheten”.’
= “… they maintain that they’re bigger and more important than they really are”
(Well, yes, they tend to do that.)
Thanks, Alicia.
Alicia – it isn’t as good as they say it is. It’s a kind of mass delusion. They’re just schools after all. A great deal of education happens elsewhere.
That’s a very good analysis of ‘choice’ btw. Sounds good, but…
Perhaps I can contribute with a few observations from my new (since a week ago) workingplace. A community comprehensive, grades 6-9, in an area not posh the least. Not so much talking there, but doing what needs to be done. What I particularly like about the leadership is their “right to the point” approach. In a way, an opposite to my Waldorf experience. It feels like I have made a good choice by signing the contract. (Unfortunately, the Swedish Railways have plenty of problems, causing cancelled train departures a.s.o.. Rather tough daily life.)
good luck alfa :)
found this and thought of everyone here. night x
Superb…
http://zooey.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/uk-steiner-waldorf-free-schools/#comment-6281
Thanks, Thetis :)
The wording of the article does not sound like you, Alicia.
@mule
In Holland it is in the constitution that there is freedom of education. This article of the constitution is the product of a long political battle known as the “schoolstrijd”. Public schools and “bijzondere scholen” = schools with a denomination or different pedagogics have equal rights to state funding.
I am commenting because I think the case here is not just an english case.
This action to demand “no state funding for Steiner schools” is a very bad case.
In a way I am shocked and that is not happening very often.
I am dealing with criticism on anthroposophy since 1985. Criticism, when it it is honest, can be good.
Criticism, in most cases, does not mean an attack. We discuss and debate and I am certainly not saying that critics are always wrong.
But this here is an attack. It brings the discussion in the sphere of the rights.
We are witnessing here an historical moment. Fort the first time (as far as I can see) there is publically called for the discrimination of anthroposophists, being mainly the persons who want Steiner schools.
It confirms the impression I had that certain critics have no sense for democracy. It puts the reproaches from that side in a different light.
Jan – you are entirely wrong that it we’re acting from some anti-democratic ‘impulse’ – to use one of those anthroposophical words, that’s just paranoia. Perhaps we’re just not beating around the bush.
Maybe it would be better if anthroposophists declared anthroposophy a religion and applied to have it accepted as such, so that anthroposophy had certain rights under legislation. A philosophy does not have even those rights.
The situation in England is that education is a highly politicised debate. Education is divisive, with popular selective state funded grammar schools still existing in many areas. Many people would like to see an increase in grammar schools which they feel provided social mobility. Others understand the implications of selection for those who ‘fail’ at 11 – and its effect on other schools in areas where there is a grammar school ‘creaming off’ a section of the community. Choice for some, not for all.
Then there is a significant private sector which takes a percentage of children out of state schools. Very few of these schools are offering an alternative form of education – most parents want academic success, small classes, better standards of behaviour, better facilities etc. In my experience private education is often not better than state, in fact it can be mediocre. But no one is saying parents shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice. Again, it’s choice only for a few.
What most families would like is a good local school, good enough not to need to look elsewhere. It seems to me – and I’m not a teacher – that this is the best use of very scarce public money. When community college budgets are cut – for music, sport, drama, art and all the very things that Steiner schools say are so important, it is not the moment to indulge bizarre niche groups with lavish eurythmy halls, designer wooden furniture or copper-clad roofs.
The Church of England state funded primary school (which is a highly popular choice where such a school is scarce but usually not for religious reasons) is a historical and cultural phenomenon that tends to raise the ire of Steiner supporters. Why can’t we have our schools when you have yours? This ignores the reality of certain rural areas where most of the state primaries are CofE and where there really is little choice, although I have to break it to Steineristas that their impression of the Vicar’s religious zealotry may well be exaggerated. It is, as Professor Dawkins notes, a very mild form of the virus. On the other hand at least parents know what they’re getting and would be disappointed if they imagined their children were having a spiritual experience. We are a nation of argumentative heathens.
Within this mix demands for an alternative educational model are few (Montessori’s pretty mainstream now). Most people are more worried about what Mr Gove plans for their primary school than opting for something ‘holistic’. There is no great support for new state funded religious schools, except from religious groups. Free Schools are deeply unpopular. And Steiner ed is utterly irrelevant to the majority of parents. Why not just let them have their schools? Well – (a) there’s no money (b) the pedagogy is jaw-droppingly mad (c) read Peter Staudenmaier.
In the absence of the possibility for learning communities in England to have a choice about funds being diverted from primaries and community colleges to something widely perceived as profoundly dodgy (don’t kid yourself it’s only us who realises this) we all have to hope that Mr Gove sees sense.
This is the same stage homeopaths have reached. They have run out of arguments and faux scientific research evidence and are reduced to shouting ‘choice!’ like a new-age Father Jack of Craggy Island. (Perhaps Mule can give us a link.)
I’m always glad to be at a historical moment. But I suspect it’s one that will pass by largely unnoticed.
“For the first time (as far as I can see) there is publically called for the discrimination of anthroposophists, being mainly the persons who want Steiner schools.”
Most people who want Steiner Free Schools are not anthroposophists. Most parents involved in asking for these schools are simply looking for a more arts-based alternative, or one that lets children play longer (and there are a few worrying signs about testing from the DfE atm) They are often clueless about the nature of the Steiner pedagogy, at least at the beginning.
There are anthroposophists asking for English tax-payers’ money and some of these, as Mule points out, are not in England.
It’s not discrimination not to be able to lay your hands on other people’s money.
(I’m knackered. Will read all comments thoroughly later.)
Oh, don’t bother. They’ve all gone to Russia anyway.
Will the Goetheanum be relocated too?
Yep. On a cart as in Mother Courage.
It’s so big though. They would have to stick to the German autobahns, not country roads for that big monster. Will Prokofieff be pulling the cart? Cheered on by Putin all the way from Russia.
This is the problem when you don’t take history seriously. Look what happened to Napoleon. (Typhoid mostly.)
Thank you for the extensive answer. It is however irrelevant to the discrimination question.
The state is allocating rights in the form of state funding.
You are asking the state/gouvernment to give less rights to a certain group. This is an appeal to discriminate that group, be it anthroposophists, be it “consumers” of Waldorf education.
That’s no paranoia but the conclusion of a fact.
Do you really think your ideology is making the pupils happier, or better prepared for life?
I don’t think so.
No, I ask that the state implements quality requirements, among other requirements (openness, honesty, responsibility, et c). Which are to apply to all groups equally. Of course.
Yes I am the anonymous above.
I thought so!
That too, but also “no state funding”.
The accusation of a “lack of democracy” towards those who have become critical of the Steiner movement through personal experience of the lack of democracy within it, is really laughable.
What is necessary is some very (very) public airing of the realities which only those who know can provide. We are beginning to attract such voices and some of them are former and recently former pupils.
Totally agree with the point about children’s rights. To say that parents have the right to put their children into ‘conditioning’ environments that can cause them damage, is really harking back to the ‘chattel child’ model of parenting, which went out with flogging, hanging and all the rest of the medieval values – or did they? We made this point in our submission to Parliament over New Zealand private schools – still almost totally unregulated.
If anyone wants to see what Steiner Free Schools can look like, they really need look no further than New Zealand, where the movement has been state funded and absolutely priviledged in keeping their ‘special character’ for 30 odd years. It is not a pretty sight for all their PR spin.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. One former pupil told us that visitors from overseas were always amazed at the absolute roughness of the Steiner schools here. Believe me people, we are not joking about this. It’s the combination of Steiner, no regulations and being at the end of the world.
Gangland basically.
Rudolf Steiner Federation Messenger – I’d heard the same about a Steiner school in NZ some children I knew had left – and this was a few years ago.
Can you explain the funding structure for Steiner schools in NZ? Are some publicly funded and others private?
Thank you!
Jan – I think that comment was meant for me.
I don’t know what you imagine my ideology is. If you mean that the divisive state of British education is likely to create unhappiness, I would at least agree that it reinforces inequalities. I don’t think the answer to this is diverting money from schools which serve the majority of children (many of which are rather good schools) into the hands of an esoteric sect with an extremely dubious history and set of beliefs – a sect which is also dishonest about these beliefs – however much the sect wants (and needs) the funding stream to pay for these schools and for other anthroposophical activities.
But you don’t care about the state of education in England. Why should you? You care about anthroposophy.
In New Zealand all but two Steiner Schools are “integrated”, that means they have to nod to the national curriculum and receive about 97% of the funding of state schools. When the law was amended to create these integrated schools back in the 1970s (it’s an interesting bit of history), the concept of “special character” was created. This “special character” is ultimately down to the definition of whoever is in charge, just that one person, and the definition of it can be used to get rid of undesirables.
People say that in New Zealand issues of funding etc are less political that in other countries. That is baloney. But the level of denial in New Zealand is definitely higher than in many other countries! That’s largely why people say that, because Kiwis walk away from confrontations, so it appears a lot less political.
@Thetis
“But you don’t care about the state of education in England. Why should you? You care about anthroposophy”
I like to be an internationalist.
But I have two questions for you.
Is it for you thinkable that you “could live with” a free school, run by anthroposophists, who are honest and open about what they are teaching, using Steiner pedagogics and explaining what these pedagogics are?
What do you think of the proposal to give each pupil an equal amount of money to finance his/hers education? The parents (there is no other way)decide for which school they want to use this money.
Special regulations should be there for pupils with special problems.
Wouldn’t it be real equal? May be too equal for britisch society?
Don’t forget many pupils are also suffering from materialistic views at the schools their parents choose for them.
“Don’t forget many pupils are also suffering from materialistic views at the schools their parents choose for them”.
Nonsense, Steiner Walodorf schools have their own spiritual bling, no government should be deceived into propping up the whole anthroposophical industry.
Children attend school to learn what they need to learn. They aren’t in school to become materialists or spiritualists or christian or anthroposophists or muslims or mad in any other kind of manner. You don’t need to be either a materialist or a non-materialist to teach (or learn) reading. The teacher teaches, the children learn. Then they know how to read. And can, subsequently, decide for themselves whether they want to embrace materialism or anthroposophy or any other brand of religion or spirituality. If they want to spend their lives eating cakes, that’s ok too.
Steiner Messenger – many thanks, really interesting. It’s absolutely vital that policy-makers look at these models elsewhere in the world before funding.
Jan – it’s touching that you believe it matters whether I could live with it or not – Michael Gove doesn’t ask for my opinion. But no, if I had such a choice, I wouldn’t want public money to fund and promote anthroposophy. I know it is your belief system and I respect you and your right to hold your own beliefs. But I would not support those beliefs. I’m not unusual in this regard, nor would I have been unusual in 1925.
Cake – yes. Absolutely.
@Thetis
OK, but it isn’t right and in fact discriminatory. Discrimination of people with a certain conviction. Suppose you are a Dawkins- fan (or “follower” like critics say about anthroposophists). Dawkins has a certain ideology or “belief system”. As a representant of this ideology you not only claim that your ideology is the better one, but also claim the right to judge another “ideology” demanding this other ideology should have less rights than yours!. This remains undemocratic. What is it that Victor Hugo said : I detest your opinion but I will do everything to defend your right to express it. MM this also valid for education. See, that is democracy.
Too fast again.
No, that’s the right to free speech. You can talk about anthroposophy all you want, in fact the more you talk about it the less likely it is that Steiner schools will be able to access more public money. No one is trying to stop you talking about it, except perhaps other anthroposophists.
Indeed, it is free speech. Why would anybody want to stop you from being an anthroposophist (freedom of thought) or from talking about it (freedom of speech), Jan? I certainly wouldn’t. I sure as hell would defend your right to express you opinions freely.
(Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to demand others to pay for your speaking or writing, though, to make an analogy to waldorf education. Neither can you require that other people read/listen. Which is a very good thing, because it means we read what you write because we want to know what you think, not because we have to…)
@Thetis
“……… in fact the more you talk about it the less likely it is that Steiner schools will be able to access more public money…..”
Can you explain this a little bit?
“No one is trying to stop you talking about it, except perhaps other anthroposophists”
Interesting. Do you know something I don’t know?
@Jan – (1) it won’t be popular.
(2) no. Please don’t worry. It’s just that it’s an esoteric religion.
@Alicia, Thetis
It still is comparable. In Holland, denominations have the right to express their views on man and society in their curriculum (off course Steiner schools are not supposed to teach anthroposophy). It is seen as a democratic right. Why should one ” ideology” be supported by the state and another not ? Why should you want to suppress one of these views on man? I think it is the same as suppressing a person’s opinion.
For the text in english of the Dutch Constitution:
http://www.minbuza.nl/dsresource?objectid=buzabeheer:267986&type=o
article 23
Thetis, I think it is not by coincidence that you are on the skeptic site of DC. Are you a skeptic?
There is a big distance between the skeptic position and anthroposophy. Skeptics declare there is no spiritual world, so it doesn’t make sense to talk about observations in that world too. The skeptic position is a dogmatic, I would say, almost sectarian belief, exluding a great part of reality Anthroposophy has to be nonsense on the basis of this dogma.
Of course you fully have the right to take this position. But I think it is not a scientifically, unprejudiced position.
Skeptics are sceptical – they want to analyse your claims. They do tend as a group (as in SITP)* to be atheist/humanist but it isn’t essential – I’m sure there are many variables. I don’t see skepticism as dogmatic although individuals can be – and certain skeptics have criticised their friends (and themselves) for that reason – which is a good and highly skeptical activity. I’m certainly writing on DC’s blog as someone sceptical of the claims of spiritual science. You can call me a Skeptic if you like.
Very few of our positions are totally objective, yours certainly are not. But spiritual science is just bad science by any standard except its own. As philosophy anthroposophy doesn’t exist without an acceptance of the supersensible – which is in my opinion a flaw.
The pressure is not on me (or other non-anthroposophists) to make a case for not supporting your belief system – it’s very much up to anthroposophists to provide evidence of their extraordinary claims. As far as funding for schools goes, honesty would be ethical but would create other problems – and those disclaimers about Steiner’s race doctrines will not withstand analysis. Even if Steiner schools come clean as religious schools and take their chances – Gove is funding other religious schools through this policy – the race doctrines can’t be hidden away. Why should we support schools based on such a belief system?
*SITP Skeptics in the Pub ie http://www.hyves.nl/hyves/11734691/Utrecht_Skeptics_in_the_Pub/
‘It still is comparable. In Holland, denominations have the right to express their views on man and society in their curriculum (off course Steiner schools are not supposed to teach anthroposophy). It is seen as a democratic right. Why should one ” ideology” be supported by the state and another not ?’
Correct — they should all be treated as equal. ‘Confessional’ religion — as opposed to teaching religion as a subject or as in teaching history of religions — should not be part of the curriculum and should not be supported by the state. You’re right about that, Jan, anthroposophy shouldn’t be treated any differently than other religious or spiritual denoinations. I just happen to think any of them should be recieving money to shove religion or spirituality down the throats of children. Religious instruction or spiritual activities should be for the parents to arrange — in the children’s spare time (outside of compulsory school time). It’s not a matter for the education system or for the state.
It’s not a democratic right to have your beliefs subsidized by the state — but I agree it’s a right to be treated equally by the state.
Anthroposophists who run schools should be held to the same standards as everybody else. If religious/spiritual education is allowed and finacially supported by the state, anthroposophy should not be excluded right away. But they should have to meet all the requirements (quality, et c, what I mentioned above) other schools have to meet — religious or not.
I thought I’d add this great piece from The Guardian by Martin Robbins, who is, following on from the theme, a popular skeptic. It has nothing to do with schools but it does give a flavour of the probable reaction to the claims of spiritual science, after the British taxpayer has discovered what we would be funding. And it questions the idea that ‘nonsense’ should have as great an airing as real science, and that of ‘balance’ in questions of the ludicrous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/jan/24/1
And here is a piece written today by education writer Francis Gilbert of the Local Schools Network, set up to protect local and community education in England:
http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/01/should-the-state-be-funding-schools-which-were-founded-by-a-racist-mystic/#comment-2816
Thanks for both links! I noticed V Walsh is posting nonsensical comments again…
also on mumsnet where she features this time not as isenhart7 but as tuboflard. Though an American, she takes a keen, maternal interest in England’s educational and political scene.
Like Sune from Sweden. The brave warrior who had almost everybody he didn’t like banned from mumsnet. Nonsense-Val was not among them apparently. A tub of lard may be entirely up his alley.
Updated with mention of the 26th school, Alder Bridge. (Thanks @lovelyhorse_, http://twitter.com/#!/Lovelyhorse_/status/37629285812404224.)
According to NNA ‘Rudolf Steiner schools in England fail to win government funding ‘.
‘NNA has learned that none of the Rudolf Steiner schools in England which have applied to receive funding under a government programme to create so-called free schools have been successful in the first round of applications.’
http://icio.us/Bu0mIV
some relief here, obviously. But wise words from school governor Alison Livesey:
@superdooperal to
@Lovelyhorse_ @ThetisMercurio Steiner v tenacious. Forced exemptions policy for EYFS at last minute so think they will be back before long.
hey! Champagne on ice in the ethereal kiosk, Alicia! And roast chicken. And marshmallows singed over the bonfire of the vanities.
Lots of it!! And cheese & chewbones!!
[...] what it wished for. It did, and is now the only state-funded Steiner school in the UK. Since then, lots of Steiner schools have asked for funding in the new free-school system; all the applications were [...]
via @thetismercurio –
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/education/free_school_project_for_city_children_1_3343026
[...] January 2011 the ever-refreshing zooey blog reported some 17 Steiner schools expressing an interest in becoming Free Schools. My own tally of active [...]
[...] in January of this year the zooey blog published a list of the Steiner schools applying for Free School status. None of the schools succeeded but the [...]
[...] application for state-funding of Frome Steiner school has gone through. Gnomes need be cautious and preferably, if circumstances [...]
Post update with info from here:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/995
The 2013 applications, five Steiner schools are attempting to become free schools.