methods for developing a sacred relationship to the land will be explored through:
- presentations on the alchemy of the four elements as the theoretical basis for the biodynamic worldview
- exercises in phenomenology growing out of the work of the poet Goethe
- hands-on experiences in the art and science of preparation-making as an alchemical practice.

The practices the course will teach

will allow human beings to align themselves with spiritual beings who are waiting for human souls to build a bridge to the spiritual world, redeeming substance by uniting it once again with spirit.

Sounds good, don’t you think? Are the spiritual beings helping to build? Is it true they’re really waiting? Don’t they have more fun without humans (I bet they do)? Are we sure they didn’t dig the ditch — or magically conjured up the ocean? — that keeps us apart and which we’re supposed to bridge (through biodynamics) in order to get rid of us? Many questions, few answers.

Rudolf Steiner‘s art of education was meant to serve the whole world, not just a single continent or country. That said, the question must be asked: What is it about this educational method that is universal?
Universal in this education is that an I, or a person, or a Self wants identify itself with an inherited body. Only with reverence can we meet this fact. How this I finds its way to the available body, finds a relationship to it, a feeling of being home in it, depends in great measure on education.
The life-long efficacy of Steiner‘s art of education lies in the fact that a right relationship between body and soul, between body and the individuality, can be established.
By means of the how and the what of education, the individuality can adjust its hold on the body, thereby bringing about a healthy, dynamic relationship between the body and the individuality. If the body dominates, this relationship can become too tight; if the relationship is too loose, a lack of purpose may result.
During this conference we hope to develop and describe the pedagogical techniques by means of which a balanced, individual relationship can be established. Such a technique can be described; it is part of the ‹musicalsculptural› study of human being. As Rudolf Steiner told the first group of Waldorf teachers, «the task of education, conceived in the spiritual sense, is to bring the Soul-Spirit into harmony with Life-Body.» [Link.]

Amazing stuff, no doubt. The reincarnating I of the child needs to ‘get into’ the physical body. The outcome of this process is not just influenced by education; it’s dependent on it. Ponder for a second in which place this — if you believe it — puts the school and the teacher in the life if the child. Ponder the impact. As Diana has pointed out several times — I often wish locating older comments were much simpler… –, for parents who actually believe these things can and do happen, waldorf education ought to be even more frightening than for those parents who reject these ideas but choose waldorf for some other reason.

What is told about the ‘live-long efficacy’ means, of course, that Steiner education’s ‘real’ success can’t be measured by the usual tests; indeed it must be immeasurable. Actually, it may not be obvious until the child — sorry, the reincarnating spirit’s — next life. I wonder, because I don’t know, what its efficacy has been on me. All this talk about ‘individuality’ is quite ironic, given how little space there was in waldorf for the individual to be… individual. But — I know. It’s just the word. It means something else — a reincarnating spirit. Yet, the irony often strikes me when I see the word used in that context, in this other, anthroposophical way.

I’m not sure what the ‘musicalsculptural’ study of the human being is, but I recommend all education enthusiasts to read Steiner’s Study of Man, which is an essential collection of lectures on the human being; these lectures were given to teachers and thus especially aimed at being used for pedagogical purposes. It is also useful to ponder Steiner’s statement about the task of education. It is a different task than most schools set themselves.

As for the program, Jost Schieren will talk about ‘The Incarnation of the I from a Teacher Training Perspective’. There’s more, of course. Look for yourselves.

‘There are two things Falk writes which I’d like to highlight.

‘Ethical issues are always to the fore when dealing with children. They cannot be the subject of experiment.’

they so often are the subject of experiment – one educational experiment after another – many of these driven by the particular ideology of an education secretary or government. As far as I’m concerned Steiner Waldorf, which is primarily a personal development course for ‘spiritual seekers’, and which suffers a large turnover of students (and teachers) – cannot claim the high moral ground in this regard. The casualties don’t get mentioned, but how many education systems have a survivors group?

Steiner teacher Richard House, who is ever-present at the post-modernite twaddle end of writing about Steiner ed, advises parents contemplating a Steiner initiative:

“Starting up a study group is very worthwhile – and a great place to start is to study Rudolf Steiner’s excellent and accessible lecture series The Kingdom of Childhood or his book The Child’s Changing Consciousness and Waldorf Education. It is also useful from the outset to read together some of the anthroposophical (Steiner-inspired) literature on community building, as you will inevitably encounter ordinary human difficulties and challenges in the course of building your initiative. In this sense, participating in building a school is very much a personal-developmental path for everyone involved.”

[Link.]

Obviously quite a few parents would be quite surprised at the ‘spiritual path’ appearing before them when they actually just wanted to help start a school, which is why it would be a very good idea for Kevin Avison and co. to make it very, very clear at the beginning – in the very first consultation meeting for the public at the launch of even the idea of a Steiner Free School, that this is exactly the sort of thing they SHOULD expect. So that if they don’t intend personally to ascend the spiritual ladder, they at least know what they will have to ignore/pretend isn’t there/talk their way out of at dinner parties.

Falk adds: ‘I don’t agree with Helen’s notion, ‘that people’s willingness to accept things on ‘faith’ restricts their ambitions to want to improve the real world.’ …….. It is, according to Popper, precisely utopian idealists, whether Platonic (Where I would include Steiner), Marxist, Socialist or Fascist, who are intensely interested in ‘improving’ the world.’

Indeed it is. Save us from utopian idealists.’

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!

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.