The other day, Sune tweeted a link to an article and quoted it as saying something to the effect that waldorf could help ‘all’. This is indeed a joke — waldorf clearly can’t help all, even if there certainly are those who find it helpful. But could it help all, there would be no discontent, no waldorf critics, nothing like that. A ludicrous notion for any institution, not just waldorf.
So — what’s it supposed to mean that waldorf can help all? Do they think — do you think, Sune — that they help all, only some people are too dumb, too lacking in insight, to acknowledge the help?
Is it not so that they can’t help some people and that they would be more helpful in being upfront about this? Maybe it’s better to turn away some people at the door — for example families whose child seeks more intellectual stimulation than waldorf can afford to give?
Perhaps it’s important to know when waldorf is not the right fit rather than to keep deluding oneself that it can help all.
Which families and which children should waldorf turn away? And if they actually manage to do this ‘weeding out’ — it would, it ought to be said, to a degree happen automatically if they were just honest about what they have on offer — is waldorf a decent option for the rest?