3 x FREE CHILDRENS BOOKS FOR EVERY READER Three fabulous books - 'Christmas Books' by Charles Dickens; a collection of five specifically written stories for Christmas, plus 'Wind In The Willows' by Kenneth Grahame and 'Treasure Island' by Robert Louis Stevenson. These books are yours FREE... you just pay p&p of £3.25. Click here to claim your books.
Mumsnet Discussions:
Education
: Is anyone here prepared to say that they believe in anthroposophy?
(113 messages)
I have to say I've never known there was all this controversy about Waldorf schools! I trained as a solicitor at a large law firm in London in the late 90s and one of my fellow trainees had been to a Steiner school - she was absolutely normal, quite bohemian I guess and clearly a high achiever. Racist she wasn't. And that's the sum total of my contact with it really.
Hi There, I’m new to Mumsnet but am finding the information about these schools fascinating and feel they really need more research, I would love to interview some of you about your individual stories? I am a final year journalism student and think this would be a perfect topic for a piece of work I am currently working on, I think it needs revealing. Northern has already agreed to help me but unfortunately the thread where I previously posted this message to which she replied has since been deleted all of a sudden!! I can interview you in person, on the phone or by email, whichever any of you would be most comfortable with? It would also be fine if you wanted .o use a pseudonym. I would love to particularly from anyone who either had to withdraw their children, whose children are still in these schools or people who went to the schools when they were little. I think I have set up CAT so that any of you can contact me, if Northern could particularly CAT me that would be great after our last thread disappeared! Thank you so much and I hope you can help me Robean
Yes, 80 years ago, I suppose some people thought it was OK to teach this song to children. Today, however... - this song was taught to my child's class (5th grade). This teacher is currently TEACHING WALDORF TEACHERS. Well, at least she's not teaching kids for the moment. I don't know, plumandolive, is this song worth getting worked up over? Are these the images that should be floating around in a 10 year old's mind?
It was early one morning in the month of May Oh the wind and the rain Two lovers went walking on a hot summer's day A crying the dreadful wind and rain
He said to the lady "won't you marry me" Oh the wind and the rain "And my little wife you'll always be" A crying the dreadful wind and rain
Then he knocked her down and he kicked her around Oh the wind and the rain Then he knocked her down and he kicked her around A crying the dreadful wind and rain
He hit her in the head with a battering ram Oh the wind and the rain He hit her in the head with a battering ram A crying the dreadful wind and rain
He threw her in the river to drown Oh the wind and the rain He threw her in the river to drown A crying the dreadful wind and rain
He watched her as she floated down Oh the wind and the rain He watched her as she floated down A crying the dreadful wind and rain
She floated on down to the miller's millstream Oh the wind and the rain He watched her as she floated down A crying the dreadful wind and rain
The miller fished her out with a long fishing pole Oh the wind and the rain The miller fished her out with a long fishing pole A crying the dreadful wind and rain
He made fiddle pegs of her long finger bones Oh the wind and the rain He made fiddle pegs of her long finger bones A crying the dreadful wind and rain
He made a fiddle bow of her long curly hair Oh the wind and the rain He made a fiddle bow of her long curly hair A crying the dreadful wind and rain
The only tune that fiddle would play was Oh the wind and the rain The only tune that fiddle would play was A crying the dreadful wind and rain
Surely that's the problem though shirley, they use this stuff written 80 yrs ago and won't move forward? Quite a few people have commented on how old fashioned it all is during these threads, without even taking the strange religious things into account. Apparently the teachers are all trained with Steiner's work, and the curriculum has barely changed; I think that's why alot of people get worked up.
Tingaling, I agree. The other Steiner thread has become a long and dull rant. There's only about two people on it Raconteur people are really interested in this. The supporters of anthroposophy on the other threads don't answer any questions.
Come back Raconteur!! The early parts of this thread were the closest thing to a balanced and respectful discussion on this subject that I've found on here.. I really felt we were about to gain some valuable insights into the workings of a steiner school..in the name of democracy I beg you- COME BACK!!
It's the way they tell them from a mothering thread called waldorf jokes (quietly gets a paper bag....)
"Question: How many anthroposophists does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: No one knows. Steiner never gave an indication.
Question: How many Waldorf teachers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: Seven: One to lead the gnome song, one to light a candle, one to strum the lyre, one to write a formal request, two to review the formal request, and one to lead the closing song.
Question: How many Waldorf students does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: None, it isn't in the curriculum until the upper grades.
Question: How many Waldorf parents does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: Two: one to ask the teacher if they are supposed to use candles instead, and one to screw it in anyway."
I've just read this , by a self proclaimed anthroposophist "the idea that children exist as angels before they are born doesn't strike me as religious"
Our Mumsnet friends might be interested to know, Pete, that some anthroposophists actually think you're the reincarnation of Steiner
. . . the more open-minded of them, that is . . . . Those who take their karma seriously really should acknowledge that if Steiner reincarnated it does seem likely he would actually be a critic of the f*ed up system he founded. Even I give the guy that much credit. What exists has to be a long way removed from what Steiner intended.
"Even asking if there are anthroposophists reading the thread who would care to self-identify as such is defaming someone?"
You are not suppose to ask, Diana, you're just supposed to label.
Pete (Secular-humanist, secret member of a small but vocal extremist "hate group" based in S.F. - PLANS, still bitter about a 10-year-old divorce, span of Ahriman and the Anti-Christ)
Diana, I missed that, they'd removed it before I saw linda's post. What did she put? I usually copy these discussions, but I can't be bothered any more, the posters there are so boring.
I think it's interesting that on Mothering.com, the thread with the analogous title to this one, asking for anthroposophists who might be reading to identify themselves, has been removed. It is a tribute to mumsnet that they allow this sort of discussion. On Mothering, a sanctimonious little notice has been posted reminding posters that it's against the user agreement to defame anyone blah blah. So calling someone an anthroposophist is defaming them? Even asking if there are anthroposophists reading the thread who would care to self-identify as such is defaming someone?
Linda also wrote one of her ridiculous implied Mcarthy-esque posts - like if you ask someone if they're an anthroposophist, next the House of Parliament will be marching them to the guillotine or something. Um - what is wrong with asking someone if they are an anthroposophist and would be willing to speak about anthroposphists' views in the forum? No one has to answer if they don't want to. (Which was sort of the point. It was going to be hard to "defame" anyone even if we wanted to since anthroposophists generally will NOT self-identify unless they think only other anthroposophists are listening. They simply don't want to take questions - their faith doesn't work that way.)
I started a thread called "Would anyone here call themselves an anthroposophist?" at mothering. Someone called Pixiewytch was furious! Asked the moderator to remove it, said it was inflammatory, going too far! Good grief! Why are they so sensitive about it? It really is amazing. it's like saying would anyone admit to being a nazi isn't it? I won't last there much longer. Can't BEAR the pussy footing around. But I enjoy being "nice" to Linda and Deborah with facts they can't wriggle out of....
Oh Diana and Pete, thank goodness for Americans who speak straight and upfront! I thought all of you were like that, (my USA friends are very outspoken)
We inherited one teacher who had been fired from a nearby school because her teenage son was a pedophile and she had been arranging sleepovers with other children for him. Since it was an ongoing case - the school felt they shouldn't mention any of this to the parents... UNTIL... guess what happened? Yep... in our school too. . And now she has quietly moved on... perhaps to YOUR SCHOOL.
Happened twice in 3 years at our school - once we shipped off a problem teacher (hitting children) to another Steiner school, and once we inherited a problem teacher from another school. They keep 'em in the system.
Pete and Janni, Two teachers from the school our children were who have been "difficult", (one resigned, but after tremendous pressure) are moving on to another prestigious Steiner school! The letter to parents apparently said "A happy outcome.and time to put the past aside"{hmm]
PeteK - someone saw him helping another school at the Olympic Games, the same year he left our school. There was another class V teacher who finally left after years of problems. She went straight to another Steiner School. You're absolutely right.
"Pete - a male teacher at my children's school (who thankfully did not last long there)"
Forgot to notice this part - so WHERE did the teacher go from there? I've got ten dollars (apologies to our UK friends, I don't know the current rate of exchange) that says he quietly went to another WALDORF school. There is NEVER an infraction serious enough for a teacher to be removed from teaching at Waldorf - they just get shuffled between schools. As I said earlier, the monster that read inappropriate materials to my own child is now TRAINING OTHER TEACHERS in the "Waldorf" way.
"Pete - a male teacher at my children's school (who thankfully did not last long there), was interviewing a 10 year old and asked him to read a story containing an account of a snake entering a woman's vagina. The other teachers confronted him about it after the family complained, but it does make you wonder"
Sadly, I don't wonder about these people any more... I'm positive they are nuts.
The first film some of the 10 yr olds( ten must be a steiner viewing watershed!) went to see was Lassie. And it was a really big deal. The kids from camphill, some of whom barely left the village, used to be almost overstimulate when they came to our house, by the pictures on the walls and the books etc. Their eyes would dart about, trying to take everything in, Poor poor kids, I really feel for them. And kind of draw some tenuous parallells with that mormon evangelical place in the news at the moment, the closed community, well, camphill isn't closed, but cut off, separate from the main goings on in the world.
OMG Janni! I remember the parent's evenings surrounding sex educationtense There were the parents who believed in "no boundaries", ( whose kids were at it at 10) and the Christian community ones(anthroposophical church) who couldn't bear to think that their kids weren't still believing the gnomes and fairies, who wouldn't let them go to the cinema even, in case it corrupted them.
We were given an article from a Steiner education Magazine, which brought karmic destiny into the story of birth, creation and how a child finds its parents....
AMum, good post. And Shakespeare isa small part of the curriculum, and at 14( or 12 my daughter first did Shakespeare) the points can be discussed appropriately. At steiner school it's BASED on these theories, taken as a given. Big difference.
ShirelyGhostman There are so many Shakespeare plays to choose from, I would be happier if they didn't actually do the Merchant of Venice. I remember feeling uncomfortable as a child years ago, (in a quite Jewish school) when Shylock's speech was disected. But I see what you're getting at. And of course, there is much literature, not just Shakespeare, which is dodgy.
The thing about Steiner schools and race is 1) They hide and deceive parents about their entire belief system( anthroposophy) 2) Anthroposophy's central tenet is reincarnation, and man's spiritual journey to higher incarnated planes 3)The spiritual journey involves the jettisoning of "lower" races, in order for the "higher" races to progress spiritually 4)The fact that there are "primitive" races still around at the same time as "perfect" races, is a mistake, brought about by interference from Lucifer and Ahriman. The "primitive" races should have died out.
These are the central beliefs of anthroposophy, which is the root of steiner education.
Pete - a male teacher at my children's school (who thankfully did not last long there), was interviewing a 10 year old and asked him to read a story containing an account of a snake entering a woman's vagina. The other teachers confronted him about it after the family complained, but it does make you wonder
I think there is an important difference between children being required to read Shakespeare (some of whose plays contained views we now consider racist) as one part of the curriculum, and an entire education system based on the beliefs of a person who had views we now consider racist.
If the whole of the state school curriculum was based on the views expressed by Shakespeare then I would have a problem with it. Depending on how the issues raised by "The Merchant of Venice" were handled in the school, I might well have a problem about that too.
However, in answer to your question, no I would not have a problem with my son reading or acting in "The Merchant of Venice", as I believe I have brought him up to recognise that such views exist in the world, and that he is mature enough not to simply "absorb" such views without thought. There is also an issue of age here - at 14 he is able to separate his own views from those he is exposed to, whereas a 5 year old being shown those views in a context which normalises them does not have the maturity to make this distinction.
"How does one explain your above answer to children who are Jewish and 'have' to study Shakespheare in a state, public or even a Steiner school."
Are you suggesting Shakespeare was anti-Semitic? Are all his plays anti-Semitic? If Shakespeare was anti-Semitic then I would take offense to the play. Shakespeare (whoever that is) was exploiting a popular stereotype at the time. Steiner had a well-established 20-year history of anti-Semitism. I don't see the comparison.
And I hate to tell you this - but Rosencrantz and Guildenstern may have been gay...
^Do you think The Merchant of Venice is appropriate for children? Other better choices of Shakespeare's plays have content that's appropriate for children. Why would one want to use this particularly problematic play for children? Just curious... are you a Waldorf teacher?^
It's not a simple question at all. It sounds like the debates in the US about Huckleberry Finn. An answer to "Would you want your child to read it?" is not simple by itself. Or, let's say, I could say of course yes, but that wouldn't be all the relevant information you'd need. Whether I was happy with HOW it was taught would depend on a lot of things, namely what sorts of discussions about what issues the teacher encouraged (or discouraged as the case might be).
My answer to most such questions is that I am almost always happy to let my child read whatever he wants. I seriously doubt that is what you're trying to get at, however.
I asked this because I have direct experience with one particular Waldorf teacher who had no problem with reading stories of rape, incest and mutilation of male genitals to 10-year-olds... even after parents complained.
"Are you happy to allow your children to read or act in Shakespeares "The Merchant of Venice" - and if so Why? Just interested to know thats all!"
Do you think The Merchant of Venice is appropriate for children? Other better choices of Shakespeare's plays have content that's appropriate for children. Why would one want to use this particularly problematic play for children? Just curious... are you a Waldorf teacher?
DianaW - they are taking the mick. Everyone wants to get on the steiner threads, apparently they are causing a bit of a buzz in mn circles. Have a look in the 'search for messages' over the last couple of months, keep it to all topics and you will see the interest these threads have generated Barking x
It's not a simple question - the mere fact of asking it is very loaded - are you suggesting sanitising Shakespeare? It's been done before of course, but only the rude bits were taken out then ...
Simple question - Are you happy to allow your children to read or act in Shakespeares "The Merchant of Venice" - and if so Why? Just interested to know thats all!
What? Could you put this question in context maybe? I don't know what you're talking about. Was it a question about the antisemitism as harpsichord took it?
yes, and I am happy to teach it because it is taught in historical context i.e. the inherent anti-semitism is explained. is that the answer you are looking for?
Yes, sorry, Raconteur, I didn't think you meant it that way either. I think you were citing the usual "party line" on Steiner's racism - Steiner didn't mean to disparage anyone, or any particular race. He had a theory that each race had "special gifts." The theory itself is racist. I realize that you have not said whether you subscribe to it, Raconteur, and it sounds as if you don't.
"When the family asks pertinant qestions for instance.... And they are given a litle secret,we know best, don't worry litle smile..."
Yes, that is often what passes for "parent education." Say a little blessing dear. Dress the child in wool, all will be well. These parents, it is such a challenge "educating" them!
Here's a few specific questions Raconteur which I hope you will find time to answer. I very much appreciate your participation here.
"First of all, Steiner education, like all education, has a creative aspect and an applied aspect. As a teacher, in planning my lesson I can try to find a unique way of bringing a subject for the particular group I'm about to teach. Or I can look up the curriculum plan for the day and use this. If the latter happened regularly it would be a "Steiner method" school; they would use the nice beeswax crayons and teach acoustics in sixth grade, as the method says to do, but there wouldn't be any real creative work going on (in an extreme situation). Most Steiner schools want to have people working from the source, that is, the source of Steiner education."
You seem to be saying it would be more creative if the teacher is working directly from Steiner. My experience is just the opposite - those teachers who take lessons practically verbatim from Steiner were acting like robots.
I'm just curious if I misunderstood your meaning.
"One of our school's best and most long-standing teachers has no connection to anthroposophy, though she respects it; she is simply a very deep human being with a wonderful sense for how to enable children to learn. She is deeply respected at the school by everyone."
Is this teacher on the College of Teachers?
That reads a bit like eventhough she is not an anthroposophist, she is a "very deep human being." I find that a little icky. Perhaps that is not what you meant.
"Hierarchies...At some schools there might well be a group who thinks they are better because of their anthroposophical background; I have never experienced this personally, however."
Is there a College of Teachers at your school? Who is on it? How many anthroposophists and how many non-anthroposophists? To get at the heart of this, we might have to define "anthroposophist," so perhaps this is not as simple as it first appeared. So we could just start, if you are willing, with the simple question of is there a College of Teachers? Are there written criteria anywhere in the school's policies, and/or in the parent handbook, if there is one, that explain how a teacher becomes eligible for the College of Teachers? Who decides? For instance, is a certain number of years teaching a criterion?
"The practical demands of teaching are pretty clear, and trump anything else - if you are competent and stable you get a lot of respect. A teacher at the Steiner school I worked at before my current school mocked all the Steiner-trained teachers (she had attended a normal teacher training); she thought they had weak practical skills. So there was a potential for a kind of reverse hierarchy there."
Was there a College of Teachers at that school? (Same questions as above.)
"There are insecure and intolerant people everywhere, and having an ideology to fall back on can intensify this. I do think that practicing any spiritual path helps many people overcome such tendencies -"
Why do you think this? My experience would suggest the opposite.
"My personal take? For Germany at that era, he exhibited a fairly typical mix of idealism and racial stereotyping."
Maybe so. But wasn't he supposed to be a great spiritual leader? A "source" in a grand sense for daily inspiration, and teachers should be working from this "source"? How is that reconciled with "typical for his time"? You've told us you think it's appropriate that when this school hires teachers, they check to be sure they are either adherents to Steiner or to some similar, compatible philosophy. You've suggested these people are the better teachers. I'm trying to reconcile that lofty notion of Steiner with the rationalizations of his racism, "just an ordinary guy" kind of stuff.
"The question of how to address parents about the nature of Steiner education and anthroposophy is really good. We all find parent education a real challenge."
Parent education isn't a real challenge. You give people the facts. Some people won't like the facts.
"It's perfectly possible to bore a group or individual totally, or convince them that you are unhealthily single-minded, by going on and on about anthroposophical ideas when they just want to hear about the education itself. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible for a parent to feel that s/he was not adequately informed. Most people I've talked to about this have had more direct experiences with the former situation; many parents simply have a limited interest in hearing about spirituality, reincarnation, Lucifer and Ahriman (anthropomorphized yin and yang principles, more or less), or whatever."
That's right, 'cus it's such ridiculous twaddle for the most part. What parents need to know is that you spent 2 years studying this material in teacher training. THAT'S the facts we are referring to here, we aren't most of us hoping our child's school will offer seminars on reincarnation, no.
"If the question about being compelled or invited to study groups applied to the trainings, I suppose that there's little choice there (study of books by Steiner are frequently part of the course)."
I agree with Pete who wrote that most helpful here would be an actual list of the titles you studied. That is the sort of information parents need and can decide for themselves what is relevant without your having to be "sensitive."
"In schools, however, there are no compulsory anthroposophical study groups, at least that I've ever heard of (and it seems a pretty unlikely idea). But in faculty meetings teachers might well study a book by Steiner on education."
Could you please tell us, not whether teachers "might well" study a Steiner book on education but whether in fact at your school you DO study Steiner books?
Is Steiner study a regular feature at faculty meetings and/or do the teachers meet separately on a certain schedule, or even informally on occasion, to study these books?
"I would say that the phrase "educating the parents" holds a very different meaning to "informing", wouldn't you? "
That is the heart of it. "Educating" actually implies the parents are ignorant, need to be taken in hand, given spiritual truths, turn to wise teachers for guidance in how to live their family life. This is offensive. Most incoming families have their own spiritual beliefs and are understandably put off if they perceive some teacher at the school wants to "educate" them about anthroposophy. To put it bluntly, F* off educating me about anthroposophy, I am here to get an education for my son, not for myself, I am a grown-up and am already educated thanks anyway.
"Informing" means treating adults as adults, offering information and facts that a responsible parent needs before making a school decision. This means explaining the philosophy and orientation of the school. It is a religious school, the curriculum and teacher training are based on anthroposophy, the culture of the school is anthroposophical. Anthroposophy is an occultist sect that was originally an offshoot of theosophy, founded by Rudolf Steiner in the early part of the 20th century and with similarities to Blavatsky and other turn-of-century spiritualists. Its central teachings include karma and reincarnation and a detailed and specific cosmology (see XXX for more details - list a couple of key titles such as "How to Know Higher Worlds" or refer to the online Steiner archive).
That's what we mean by informing the parents Raconteur. Frankly it ain't rocket science.
When the family asks pertinant qestions for instance.... And they are given a litle secret,we know best, don't worry litle smile... When they are told "Oh, well.. we only take what we want from Steiner!" Silly parent!
Yes, before the family enrols. Removing a child from any school is A BIG DEAL and it would save a lot of heartache if parents knew what they were getting into BEFORE they signed on the dotted line.
"Well, this is a little tragi-comical. Part of the above consists of calls for Steiner teachers to bring more information to parents and another part is criticizing having parent education programs. Maybe its just the wording, but teachers usually consider bringing information to be one aspect of education. So how do we bring them up to date about the education and the spiritual philosophy out of which it arose without educating them?"
Ranconteur, I tried to bold the word prospective in my post but I see you may have missed it. Prospective parents need to be informed. After parents have shelled our their tuition is not the time to let them in on the secret. How are prospective parents going to get the "education" about Waldorf schools if the schools aren't up-front INITIALLY.
I believe Northern is reacting to exactly what you put your finger on, Raconteur - parents DO want and need information, but it must not be offered patronizingly - THAT is perhaps the real source of the impression that "some parents don't want to know." There is a huge difference between giving parents the facts and perspective on teh overall picture that they need, which is really quite cut and dried - anthroposophy is the driving force at the school - that's practically all that need be said! - versus paternalistically "educating" parents, which takes the form of such things as I'm sure you're familiar with - teachers scolding parents about "warmth" and crap like that, giving stupid useless advice like "light candles at bedtime" for serious problems - this is why parents turn away and act like they "dont want to know."
The other big issue is the timing. Factsaboutanthroposophy need to be offered beforethefamilyenrolls. This is a huge difference from having little seminars on watercolor painting on Tuesday nights through the school year or something, which is often what passes for "parent education."
"Any racial theory - by anyone - that claims that certain races are inferior or superior offends me deeply. Most anthroposophists, though, have only run into Steiner's statements about needing to overcome all prejudice (gender, race, etc.) and the need for all peoples to work together - that all together are important for the whole of humanity, each having special gifts to bring. You have to realize that this is what you find in his most well-known writings; the weird comments (of which there are, alas, plenty) are mostly in works that your average teacher, or even dedicated anthroposophist, either has never read or maybe has read once many years ago."
This is an interesting point that, I suppose, could be made if the internet didn't exist. Certainly, ANY Steiner discussion list will have some discussion on the topic of Steiner's views on racism. But, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Just as an exercise, would you mind posting a list of the materials you were required to read during teacher training? I'm sure it would be helpful to us here to see exactly WHAT teachers are required to read during teacher training.
"Olympic games? Yes, our school takes part in these; the children of various schools join together in mixed teams to "compete". "
Thank you Raconteur. We just had the Olympic games (Pentathlon) here and I want to discuss these games in some detail on the Steiner thread as I believe they set the stage for acceptance of Steiner's racist thinking in Waldorf students. I hope you will find time to monitor that discussion as well.
"The press seem to be as hoodwinked as the parents. I get the feeling that the Steiner/anthro machine works very carefully to make sure only positive images are portrayed."
Yes, even as a parent, I was hoodwinked for years (as were many of us). Putting on a dog-and-pony show for an article would be no problem for Waldorf... it's part of their PR routine. They would show reporters exactly what they show parents. That's why when we get the occasional gushing report about Waldorf, those of us who have experienced the facade know exactly where that is coming from.
Raconteur, the article you posted, that doesn't mention anthroposophy either does it? Or reincarnation, spirit worlds, temperaments or any of the other stuff?
I think one thing which could clear things up considerably Raconteur would be if anthroposophy was mentioned, explained and put in the promotional material. It could be brought into the initial interview, particularly if asked about,rather than skimmed over, or deflected When asked, teachers could actually answer quesstions straight, rather than "Steiner is difficult"
I would say that the phrase "educating the parents" holds a very different meaning to "informing", wouldn't you?
Well, this is a little tragi-comical. Part of the above consists of calls for Steiner teachers to bring more information to parents and another part is criticizing having parent education programs. Maybe its just the wording, but teachers usually consider bringing information to be one aspect of education. So how do we bring them up to date about the education and the spiritual philosophy out of which it arose without educating them?
Of course, teachers should avoid patronizing parents. But one of the most positive aspects of a good Steiner school is that it becomes a learning community where everyone is educating everyone else. Perhaps that's the gold standard; if a teacher thinks s/he can educate parents but they have nothing to teach her/him, it's really unhealthy. To be honest, I'm not sure this aspect of a learning community has permeated Steiner education sufficiently, which might explain feelings that there is a condescending approach sometimes. On the other hand, state education is usually so far from a learning community as possible, though I know some great exceptions to this (hear, hear!).
So, yes, non-patronizing information/education is important. Thanks for the links to the articles, barking. It helps so much (me, too!) to see these kinds of things. Here's another, from an American journalist: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99sep/9909waldorf.htm
I might not get to questions quite as quickly the next few days...my son's birthday is coming up!
Diana, thanks for that post, it echoes precisely how I feel about it.
Barking, the Woods report which Raconteur and later thebee refer to, is very biased towards "spirituality" and I would say biased full stop.
The press seem to be as hoodwinked as the parents. I get the feeling that the Steiner/anthro machine works very carefully to make sure only positive images are portrayed.
Hi Raconteur - you posted the following on the 4 march on the other steiner thread: I looked to see if there is really any objective information about this stuff...there is actually a whole DFES study of Steiner education, 208 pages of it! http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR645.pdf
It's actually quite positive, and there's a really interesting comparison with state schools (pros and cons).
This BBC news article seems interesting, too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4633601.stm
Or, for those of us who prefer the Independent! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner -and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html
It seems like a really good idea to go to news reports, studies and that sort of thing."
I've noticed that TheBee/Eva52 has posted identical links in another thread.
I want to say thanks to Raconteur also for the genuine attempt at openness and dialogue - it definitely is very much appreciated!
I have a couple of questions that I will try to formulate succinctly recognizing that she will clearly be overwhelmed by volleys of questions . . .
First though just wanted to say a couple of things:
1) I never did teacher training, but worked as an aide in three different Waldorf kindergartens. We (I and the other aides) were told very explicitly not to discuss anthroposophy with parents; it "puts people off." If parents had questions about Steiner or anthroposophy we were to refer them to senior faculty (who were, of course, Steiner trained).
2) The whole notion of treading very gently with parents as regards Steiner is deeply, deeply offensive and wrong. Of course some parents don't want to know. Those are the ones who most need to know. It is reprehensible - ethically wrong - for the faculty to say to themselves, "Well, they don't want to know." It is self-serving. The point is to keep the children in the school by keeping the parents uninformed = comfortable with things they don't understand. IT IS WRONG. Those are the parents who, if they heard the details and were unhappy, SHOULD take their children out of the school. The underlying notion is at all costs keep the children in the school. The belief, of course, is noble and well intentioned - that Steiner education adn anthroposophy are so wonderful and ideal for everyone.
The problem is that not everyone who encounters anthroposophy and comes to really understand much about it in depth agrees that it is wonderful. Parents MUST have the details. Those who then withdraw, should withdraw - THAT is the correct outcome, not keeping their children in the system based on the parents' ignorance.
Sorry if this offends some parents as well - the whole vast contingent of "Well it works for my child at the moment so I don't want to hear about Ahriman or reincarnation" etc.
I would like to add that teachers should not shield parents from the underlying philosophy or wait until they're ready to hear it. When you become a Steiner parent you put yourself outside the mainstream, you make a commitment which has a huge impact on your life and it's very unfair of a school to allow parents to do that on the basis of a very limited understanding.
Having said that, sites such as this have opened up the subject in a way which was quite unavailable to me and others when our children started at Steiner. I tried asking other parents at the school, but because they were 'in' they said it was all good.
It can only be in the schools' interest to be very open and upfront with parents because then you will get children from families who actively support your philosophy rather than trying to live a fragmented life and not fitting in anywhere.
Raconteur, thankyou so much for answering with honesty and as much clarity as you can.It's really appreciated, and I have to say, a first!
And thanks for your sympathy about the times my kids and others had at the Steiner school.
I feel the race issue is more central to Steiner's tenet than probably many "on the path" realise. Studying his work on evolution, the path of human kind, reincarnating through higher and higher planes, the thread running through this theory, is that while anyone can incarnate as any race, the goal of the "Universal Human", where race and ethnicity are obsolete, is to jettison the "backward", "evil" races, and for souls capable of moving higher, spiritual progress is associated with whiteness. As reincarnation is the central belief in anthroposophy, I see no way that the race theoris can be ignored. But of course, most people involved in steiner aren't "racist", that would be naive. The strand of thought, and subtle ways it is in the curriculum, ( my daughter's books had stuff about skin colour the colour of mud, maths being taught with a story abot a goblin with piles of money he leant called Goldfinger or something, stories of ugly black elves who everyone hated and golden haired princesses, it was all there, a year or two ago)
If the Steiner curriculum wasn't adhered to, I suppose the "Steiner" would be obsolete. If the school belongs to the Steiner School's fellowship, they are more "Steiner" rooted I would imagine, and not autonomous atall.
One phrase absolutely makes me wince, and sums up quite a lot, although I'm sure you didn't mean it in any condescending way:
"We all find parent education a real challenge."
I actually believe I am well educated!(In terms of years spent at educational institutions, as a lecturer myself at various times, more educated than many of those teaching my kids)
I'm sure you meant, telling parents the nuances of anthroposophy, the "difficult" areas.
But the phrase "educating parents" does grate somewhat. We sent our kids to be "educated" not us. That phrase sums up the feeling that the teacher has the "knowledge", is more important than the parent, the child has ben drawn karmically to the teacher, who has a sacred task etc etc. It really sticks in my gullet, and is the opposite of "humility" in my book.
More to the point, would be "telling" the parents about anthroposophy at the onset. Even mentioning the word would be a start- the school ours were at didn't mention it, in promotional ,aterial or spoken. they didn't mention reincarnation, karma, spirit worlds, clairvoyance, souls, occult science either. Sorry Raconteur, this isn't aimed personally at you , you understand! It's something the organistation has to deal with, otherwise, they find atheist parents, who were sold a holistic, creative education, very angry at being lied to. I would question whether schools are now being upfront, as you say. You only have to read experiences here to see that isn't so.
The studying a book by Steiner to "explore pedagogical questions" is interesting, because the only pedagogy explored is one man's. Most people's think of pedagogy as ideas of education and instruction generally, not based on the hudred year old clairvoyant visions of their guru.
Would you say the personal spiritual path of the teacher holds as much importance as the teaching of the children? This was the impresion I got quite often.
I hope I haven't come accross as too feisty, as I'm prone to do, it isn't meant!
Well, I'm a little overwhelmed. There certainly are plenty of questions. I suppose I'll just answer them more or less in order. First of all, I'll say that all these questions are very sensible ones, and all are ones that teachers should be ready and able to discuss with parents (and with each other!!)
First of all, Steiner education, like all education, has a creative aspect and an applied aspect. As a teacher, in planning my lesson I can try to find a unique way of bringing a subject for the particular group I'm about to teach. Or I can look up the curriculum plan for the day and use this. If the latter happened regularly it would be a "Steiner method" school; they would use the nice beeswax crayons and teach acoustics in sixth grade, as the method says to do, but there wouldn't be any real creative work going on (in an extreme situation). Most Steiner schools want to have people working from the source, that is, the source of Steiner education. To do that, in my experience, you have to have some deep connection to a spirituality compatible with anthroposophy. So part of the employment process is to check on this; they either ask about the applicant's spiritual path generally or about her/his connection to anthroposophy specifically. I think it's an acceptable question (i.e. sufficiently work related) as long as schools are open to a range of answers. One of our school's best and most long-standing teachers has no connection to anthroposophy, though she respects it; she is simply a very deep human being with a wonderful sense for how to enable children to learn. She is deeply respected at the school by everyone.
Hierarchies...At some schools there might well be a group who thinks they are better because of their anthroposophical background; I have never experienced this personally, however. The practical demands of teaching are pretty clear, and trump anything else - if you are competent and stable you get a lot of respect. A teacher at the Steiner school I worked at before my current school mocked all the Steiner-trained teachers (she had attended a normal teacher training); she thought they had weak practical skills. So there was a potential for a kind of reverse hierarchy there.
I'm sorry to hear that northernrefugee experienced a lack of compassion and humility, or even cruelty; this is intolerable in any school - in any social setting. Honestly: Steiner schools are not utopias. They have all the problems of any other school. There are insecure and intolerant people everywhere, and having an ideology to fall back on can intensify this. I do think that practicing any spiritual path helps many people overcome such tendencies - but it may intensify them in a few people, too. What can I say? I apologize for my colleagues if they've caused you distress. We've had a lot of intense work on social health at our school these last years, and it has helped our awareness of how to address issues such as bullying. This is another place where Steiner schools need to keep open to learning from what the society around is doing!
Any racial theory - by anyone - that claims that certain races are inferior or superior offends me deeply. Most anthroposophists, though, have only run into Steiner's statements about needing to overcome all prejudice (gender, race, etc.) and the need for all peoples to work together - that all together are important for the whole of humanity, each having special gifts to bring. You have to realize that this is what you find in his most well-known writings; the weird comments (of which there are, alas, plenty) are mostly in works that your average teacher, or even dedicated anthroposophist, either has never read or maybe has read once many years ago. So people are partly just not aware of these, and partly a little in denial; if someone brings this up, the first reaction is going to be - "there's no way Steiner said something like that" - because it seems so opposed to Steiner's thinking, or at least to most people's ideas about this. The second reaction, once the person is convinced that he really did, is that it is irrelevant; "just ignore this, it has nothing to do with anthroposophy". On one level, this is kind of a good answer - it means that anthroposophists believe that racial prejudice really does have nothing to do with anthroposophy, and since the latter is formed by real people in the world today, it is a self-fulfilling expectation. On another level, it totally ignores the fact that Steiner was able to make such comments.
My personal take? For Germany at that era, he exhibited a fairly typical mix of idealism and racial stereotyping. I take the latter as something we all want to put behind us as fast as possible and check out the more worthwhile sides. Remember, though, I get to cherry-pick, as I'm not an anything-ist!
The question of how to address parents about the nature of Steiner education and anthroposophy is really good. We all find parent education a real challenge. It's perfectly possible to bore a group or individual totally, or convince them that you are unhealthily single-minded, by going on and on about anthroposophical ideas when they just want to hear about the education itself. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible for a parent to feel that s/he was not adequately informed. Most people I've talked to about this have had more direct experiences with the former situation; many parents simply have a limited interest in hearing about spirituality, reincarnation, Lucifer and Ahriman (anthropomorphized yin and yang principles, more or less), or whatever.
In our training we were advised to be sensitive to what parents actually want to know. It's my impression that now many or most schools are increasingly careful to ensure that parents understand that there is a spiritual background to the education; our school is extremely public about this. And I agree that this sort of "disclosure" is important; people should understand what they are getting into.
If the question about being compelled or invited to study groups applied to the trainings, I suppose that there's little choice there (study of books by Steiner are frequently part of the course). In schools, however, there are no compulsory anthroposophical study groups, at least that I've ever heard of (and it seems a pretty unlikely idea). But in faculty meetings teachers might well study a book by Steiner on education. Does this count? The intention is to explore pedagogical questions.
Personally, I found that my Steiner teacher training deeply respected my and others' own spiritual paths; teachers and students showed genuine interest in my Quaker experiences, for example.
I'm running out of steam fast, friends. Olympic games? Yes, our school takes part in these; the children of various schools join together in mixed teams to "compete".
Sorry for the length of this missive...you asked so many questions!!!
Thank you Raconteur for joining in. I loved your anecdote about the black child in the Waldorf school. I could see that happening among the kids.
My concerns are mostly about disclosure. I have heard many claims from Waldorf teachers that they (going against the stream perhaps) disclose what parents need to know about Waldorf. Further investigation, however, often makes it clear that what Waldorf teachers believe parents "need" to know and what parents believe they need to know are often at odds. Currently, if one looks at Waldorf school websites, Anthroposophy is often either missing or relegated to a link or two (even AWSNA's website is conspicuously quiet about it). My first question to you is - Do you feel prospective parents should do their own research about Waldorf, or do you feel it is the Waldorf school's responsibility to disclose in DETAIL the spiritual underpinnings of Waldorf that might cause parents concern?
On a lighter note - are you familiar with the Waldorf activity called "Greek games" or "Olympics" - typically conducted around the 5th grade?
One question which I'd love to ask, (and actually was answered for me on Times thread, but since always denied, is , are teachers advised, encouraged, not to talk to parents about anthroposophy,but to concentrate on the arty creative stuff? A teacher who trained at Emerson, and another , said this was what happened, but all other steiner people laugh and vehemently deny this. What happened in your training when it came to "explaining" the reincarnation, soul, spirituality part to parents?
Are you compelled or "invited" to the weekly anthroposphical study groups?
How much is your own path to spiritual developpment emphasised within the training?
Hi raconteur, thanks for coming in on this discussion, it's the first "teacher2 who's been brave enough to show! THANKS[smile}
I come also from a long line of an established Quaker family too as it happens, which made me all the more horrified at the lack of humanity I experienced at Steiner, i.e individual kindness, lack of compassion,cruelty in some cases, lack of humility, the teacher as having a "sacred" task, not allowed to be questioned, the whole movenment is more important etc was my impression.
My feeling about the race thing is that although the final quest of the "Universal Human" is mankind's ultimate spritual goal, the evolutionary process that Steiner lays out , is to jettison the "lesser" races on the ladder upwards; in fact this is the only way in his book. Spiritual "progress" is only possible if you "progress" into a white skin.
This is seen again and again in his writing, ethnic divergence is marked within a spritual hierarcgy. A small aryan advanced group rises spiritually through reincarnation, while the mass of the "lower" races decline.
It is possible to incarnate in a different skin colour, and therefore rise higher, the skin being a mantle for the incarnating soul.
Since reincarnation is the central tenet of anthroposophy, the race belief cannot be set aside, and certainly m modern anthroposophists should address it, and denounce these theories, rather than try to argue around them.
Hope this makes sense, i've written a bit fast as kids need feeding!
When you accept a job as a teacher in a Steiner School, are you asked about your views on anthroposophy?
Is there a hierarchy among the teachers with those who believe most strongly in anthroposophy slightly looking down on those who are less convinced by it?
It's been a while since I looked at this discussion thread. I'm not an anthroposophist - or an anything-ist - but I've read a lot of Steiner's work and work as a teacher in a Steiner school, and if you folks don't jump down my neck (if your bark is worse than your bite, barking!), I'm happy to answer any questions.
A little background might help you get to know me: I grew up in a conventionally religious family but turned atheist at around age 12. In my early twenties I connected strongly with the Quakers and also became very interested in alternative spiritualities. At a time when my interest in education as a career direction was reviving, a friend invited me to visit a Steiner school where she worked. I was struck by the beauty of the classrooms, the peaceful flow of the day and the joy of the children. I worked there part-time for a year, then full-time the next year. I was convinced enough to do a year of teacher training (at Emerson College in Sussex).
I see tons of problems and challenges for the schools, including inadequate mentoring for new teachers, inadequate funding, too little awareness of other approaches to education in most training courses and schools (the Plymouth University Steiner training course is an exception here). I also despair over some of Steiner's racial and ethnic comments, but like most people I know don't consider these remotely representative of his thought, even less representative of his work, and least of all representative of how Steiner education has manifes
3 x FREE CHILDRENS BOOKS FOR EVERY READER
- this song was taught to my child's class (5th grade). This teacher is currently TEACHING WALDORF TEACHERS. Well, at least she's not teaching kids for the moment. I don't know, plumandolive, is this song worth getting worked up over? Are these the images that should be floating around in a 10 year old's mind?
. And now she has quietly moved on... perhaps to YOUR SCHOOL. 
