Steiner Schools

[corelegacyfitness]

What are your thoughts on Stenier Educations?

Was that by any chance The Advent Spiral?

Steiner links spirals to the astrological sign of Cancer. The symbol of Cancer is two intertwining spirals, which "point to the dawn of a new age." In this case, the first spiral (the journey inward) represents the "end of the Atlantean culture." The second spiral (the journey out) represents "the rise of the new Aryan culture".

• 'Take the sign of Cancer, for example. Its true significance is not always known, but this sign, which consists of two intertwining spirals, when rightly understood points to the dawn of a new age. Whenever an important event occurs in the world, whenever one stage of evolution is superseded by another thereby bringing something new into the world, two such spiral movements intertwine. One spiral of the sign of Cancer indicates the end of the Atlantean culture; the other, the beginning of the Aryan culture. Our ancestors thus perceived in the heavens the outward sign for the rise of the new Aryan culture.'

From 'The Birth of the Light', Rudolf Steiner, Berlin, December 19, 1904.

• See more at: wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/SignSymbols/19041219p01.html#sthash.UiB7Yt2N.dpuf.

(Incidentally, note the Steiner font 'Waldorfschrift' for the words 'Lectures' and 'Rudolf Steiner Archives' at the very top of the page.)

...So as we can clearly see, the Advent Spiral is nothing more than an event that draws the Steiner school community together on a chilly night, much more earthy and naturey and so much less gaudy than a visit to good old Santa Claus and the elves at the local shopping centre, and not in any way related to Anthroposophy.

rescueranger I can only talk about my own experience of science teaching in my daughter's school. The teacher holds a PhD in Microbiology and despairs of the way that we teach GCSE science in this country. Did you know that the GCSE still has the "correct" answer of "three" when discussing how many states of matter there are, whereas there are at least 7, possibly more? (I checked the GCSE curriculum last year and it still says this) State science teaching hasn't kept up with latest developments. He also explains to the children why they must answer incorrectly during the exam (anything other than three would not get marked correctly) and what the real answer is and why there may be more. I can understand why the Physics teacher at the local 6th form is so happy to have pupils from my daughter's school, pupils who are self-starters and keen to learn more, and have all the skills necessary for science courses.

The children have definitely developed their own painting and artistic styles by Upper School - there are some very talented artists there.

Worldgonecrazy, what are those seven states of matter, according to the teacher?

I can think of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, then there is Bose-Einstein Condensate (a rare state), and a few states involving magnetic characteristics of substances that have been reported only since 2012ish. There are probably more -- low energy and high energy states, etc.

Explaining to schoolchildren why they must answer incorrectly in an exam and openly despairing of the way science is taught in Britain reinforces the 'contra mundum' state of mind that is a characteristic of many cults, isn't it?

The teacher has created a classroom world where lucky Steiner students are privy to special information the surrounding unenlightened ('simple, semi-illiterates'?) just can't accept or understand or isn't interested in absorbing, and a special way of teaching that the rest of the world is too blinkered to embrace, and in order to give unto caesar what is caesar's the students have to pay the necessary lip service to the 'hopelessly out of date' GCSE facts.
The same disparagement of mainstream education in general (brutal, harsh, unsympathetic, mired in the old, and hopelessly out of date) has been seen throughout this thread.

' "Your body is a space capsule, your head the command module" so begins the introduction to a 3-D moving pop-up picture book on the human body now available in the U.K. "When you reach puberty your hormones switch on' announces a heading in the London Science Museum permanent exhibition called 'A Study of Ourselves". An advertisement for beer displayed on vast billboards in the U.K. recently, showed a series of ape-like figures progressively reaching a vertical posture, the penultimate figure with a bowler hat (symbol of the English business gentleman) and the final form carrying a can of the appropriate beer. A question mark pointed to the potential evolutionary leap which awaited discerning drinkers.

These three examples are particularly gross reflections of deeply held beliefs in the West, beliefs firmly underpinned by faith in scientific objectivity. One of these is that the human body is nothing more than a highly complex machine which human beings will eventually be able to take apart and reconstruct. A second, that our bodies and our minds are subject to the outcome of a complex chemistry. The third, that human beings have evolved from a primitive animal condition and that any further evolution is in the random and arbitrary hands of environmental influences.'
These are the opening paragraphs of an article entitled 'Teaching Biology in a Human Context'.
The author is Dr Graham Kennish, former science advisor for the University of Plymouth Steiner BA course (now closed I believe).

He starts by describing mainstream science (which he has already characterised as 'deeply held beliefs') as something of an intellectual straitjacket, implying also that it is the servant of technology* and responsible for the mushrooming of methods of mass destruction --
What is objectivity? Is it confined to what can be measured in mass, distance and time or can it include the faculty of observation; thinking and an open mind? There may be few technological or military applications in an open-minded contemplation of the universe but this must surely always remain the bedrock of freethinking enquiry and scientific progress. We stifle or undermine it at our peril.
Steiner/Anthroposophic 'open mindedness' by contrast promises a holistic understanding, understanding for its own sake, of science, a no strings attached alternative to a system of beliefs that has lost its way.

*What is the issue with technology, you may well ask. The problem of technology is that it represents the forces of Ahriman, and materialism.

When it comes to teaching human biology, Kennish is preoccupied with the following question:
'The periods [classes] are widely known as Human Science to allow the widest possible context to the biology arising from this [i.e. avoiding the mainstream straitjacket]. How can the wealth of knowledge currently available about the human body, for example, be presented without a fragmentary succession of organs and systems, implying that all these and more constitute the whole?
Kennish wants science to provide a 'context for the liver' and all the other organs, a context for the material biology, and to lead students to contemplation of the mystery of life and death itself. It is not enough to study all the details (not that students will be exposed to all the details anyway) -- this is the content of the derided scientific objectivity after all. For Steiner students, gaining spiritual insight is the name of the game, and this is the aim of the study of 'human science'.

Unless there is a context for biology... an adolescent's thinking will be confined by the practical or the popular, so deeper, less conscious questions will remain unaddressed. God forbid that anyone should merely address the factual.

He goes on to provide a striking example of the Steiner tendency to focus on appearance, on outward form, in a few paragraphs devoted to consideration of the skeleton and the form of the body.
'These pictures are neither fanciful nor arbitrary and are available to any keen observer with the controlled imagination which lies at the heart of objective knowledge about the world. They lead the adolescent to respect and have confidence in his own unaided faculties, so that further study of details and reading about experiments which explore the most minute aspects of physiology can be related to a meaningful whole. Another message received is that knowledge about the human body does not rest solely on the biochemical or genetic analyses of experts, but is a mystery open to any keen observer with clear and mobile thinking. Adolescents also have a context within which to appreciate and admire the results of medical technology alongside the deeper issues raised that challenge human attitudes to birth and death. The adolescent's burgeoning inner life is also confirmed as a reality which the body supports and responds : I have a brain but I am not my brain. I have feelings but I am not my feelings, I have a body but I am not my body. '
The Steiner reduction of science to what can be observed and the shoehorning in of the fundamental 'spiritual' nature are seen here. Also clear again is the disparagement of formal, mainstream science.

He also provides a mind-boggling example of pseudoscience in this little gem:
'The light-sensitive cells in the retina actually point away from the light. The act of seeing involves the whole organism, not just the eye, and the image which reaches the retina bears little resemblance to our perceptions of the world around us. We cannot see light but only the outcome of its penetration of matter. At night, outer space is filled with light from the sun but appears black until reflected by the moon. So what is it that we 'see'? Is it a coincidence that we say 'I see' when we understand something? Dim stars cannot be seen looked at directly but appear when the focus of our gaze is turned slightly to one side. Is this not often true when we search our memories and thoughts? Suddenly a thought 'dawns on us' and we see it 'in a flash'. The genius of language leads us to the widest considerations.
So, the opportunity arises to consider such fundamental questions as to the nature of light, or the biographies of individuals who have been deprived of sight or hearing. The widest possible considerations should be able to arise within a human science period.'

Light is a Steiner buzzword, of course.

Here is Eugenie Scott of the US National Centre for Science Education, on the subject Steiner’s ‘scientific’ views…
'...if schools follow Steiner’s views on science, education will suffer. Steiner believed that materialism was insufficient for the understanding of nature. He believed that science needs to “go beyond” the empirical and consider vitalistic, unobservable forces...'
This is a good encapsulation of the thoughts of Dr Kennish,and what Dr Kennish says has unfortunately moulded a generation of Steiner 'science' teachers in Britain. What he says is also pure, orthodox Anthroposophy, straight from the guru.

The science curriculum in Steiner schools is based entirely on observation (see the focus on form in the Kennish article), and the theories which form the backbone of scientific knowledge are almost completely omitted. This is so that children will not be prejudiced by material 'dogma' and can advance quickly past mere facts into matters of the spirit, of metaphysics.

Can you tell me what your child has been taught about "the nerve-sense system, the metabolic-muscular system, and the rhythmic system," and the elements "earth, air, fire, and water" ? How do "planetary influences' affect the growth of plants?

Again I think your information is theoretical with limited knowledge of what is going on in different schools. Don't know about the Graham Kennish book - I gather he is a retired teacher with a particular view. Many children at Steiner schools pass GCSE and A'level sciences and of course have specialist science teachers taking those subjects. We don't go to GCSE but dovetail KS3 science alongside the Steiner curriculum. So children should get the knowledge they need.

Siri, at least three if not more people who have had children at the schools, some for periods of time including me, have been on this thread (and plenty plenty more in past threads) who corroborate everything mathanxiety says. I think it's time for you to stop flogging this one.

What is your role at the school your kids went to? Are you employed, or PR spokes person? If the teachers at your school are Steiner waldorf trained, which they probably are if your school is a member of SWSF, they will be teaching the Steiner curriculum which is prescribed.

Different schools? How many different schools do you have intimate knowledge of? You keep on trying to say that each Steiner school is unique, different, not at all connected to any other Steiner school, the word 'Steiner' in the name of the schools is meaningless, etc.
I keep on mentioning SWSF and alluding to accreditation.
I have asked you if your school is accredited. You should know this if you participated in setting it up. I would love to hear your answer.

You keep on insisting there is a difference between theory and practice when it comes to Steiner schools despite the existence of accreditation bodies and processes in every country where Steiner schools operate and despite the fact that there are specific Steiner teacher training courses with specific Steiner reading lists, and that self development on the part of teachers involves immersing themselves in Anthroposophical tracts and soaking up the insights given by the guru. You have chosen to ignore simple visual evidence of the uniformity in Steiner education worldwide that is offered by the peach blossom pink paint in early years classrooms. You have not mentioned the 'chalkboard art' link I posted, a detail of which (the Parsifal myth/coming of age process) was corroborated by Worldgonecrazy.

Dr Graham Kennish was the science advisor for the University of Plymouth Steiner BA course. His views heavily influenced the 'science' part of Steiner 'teacher training' in the University of Plymouth.

Yet you say of him 'I gather he is a retired teacher with a particular view'

Your worrying tendency to distort is jumping off the screen here.

Yes Maths we are accredited and I agree there is a high level of commonality amongst Steiner schools but each do have their own characteristics. I am saying that because I know our school is not how you describe and yet we are still accredited.

Clearly we draw on the educational ideas of Rudolf Steiner but we check out whether things work and don't follow blindly. We also do not draw on everything he ever wrote a hundred years ago and especially all the stuff about clairvoyance/the occult etc. I think most teachers in our school at consider that irrelevant to teaching.

We also consciously as a school look at what we do and ask why we do it and think about the impact - does it work? We never say Rudolf Steiner said this and so we must do it. We have pink in the Kindergarten because it is a calming and nourishing colour for young children. It may have a deeper meaning and teachers may be aware but if it did not work as a calming colour we would not use it.

I know there are people who do treat RS as a guru but there are very many who do not and my understanding is that he said specifically in his lectures not to treat him as a guru. He also wrote a very great deal and there can be different interpretations. There are many myths. I honestly think Maths that you have read far more than the average teacher. But if they have read it their interpretation may be different from yours. You see hidden dastardly meanings, I think because you seem to be coming from a religious standpoint. Many teachers and parents do not.

We do teach the Steiner curriculum but one of the key elements here is that the teacher has great freedom in how they teach - something previously available to state school teachers, the loss of which is widely bemoaned - and can be both a good and a bad thing. So we can teach key stage 3 alongside our Steiner curriculum and still be accredited. We can use mainstream reading schemes and train our teachers on the Sounds Write phonics teaching programme and still be accredited. We draw often on educational psychologists and occupational therapists' reports and frequently advise parents to seek the advice of those professionals. We have brought in training for teachers from educational psychologists, occupational therapists, mainstream experts on ASD, child protection, had a mainstream anti- bullying work-shop. We refer to GPs, CAMHS and children's services using the CAF process. We have worked closely with the Greenwich Council early years SENCO in relation to individual children and used to have termly visits but since the cuts, that has stopped. Our Kindergarten teachers attend Greenwich early years training when it is available. We also use WRAT screening widely which is a mainstream assessment took. And we are still accredited as a Steiner school. I believe many schools are the same as I but I do not know in any detail and therefore can only speak for my school.

Coffee I acknowledge yours and others negative experiences of Steiner schools and I do not belittle them. There will be families who have been through Greenwich who will no doubt also have stories to tell about frustrations. But if you notice, there are also many who say their experience has been positive. I am sure there are many with a mixture of experiences.

Firstly, I would say no school of what ever kind, does not have parents/children with a bad story to tell. As Steiner schools are a group it is easy to say then 'all Steiner schools are bad.' If a parent had a bad experience at a mainstream school they do not go on Mumsnet and say all mainstream schools are bad.

However, there is a certain commonality in the complaints and my sense is the sources of those include:

1. An overly dogmatic approach by a teacher especially if inexperienced - new fledgling schools are more likely (although not exclusively) to stick rigidly to what they read because they do not have the confidence to do otherwise and sometimes common sense goes out the window; and

1. Poor communication between teacher/school and parent - I think this is a big one.

1. Sometimes parents can have an unrealistic expectation of Steiner schools. They often struggle to raise the money to pay the fees and have huge expectations which, if not delivered, results in strong feelings of being let down especially if they had been trying to assuage bad experiences in their own education.

The Steiner Fellowship is working on helping schools to improve through organising conferences and training and advice to schools around how to better handle incidents of negative social situations including bullying and how to better communicate with parents in those circumstances. There are also many working to improve understanding of dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties which I think is the source of problems with reading standards. Of course both of these issues can be problems in all schools. I have encountered as much misunderstanding of dyslexia in mainstream schools as Steiner schools. That is a major reason for children transferring from mainstream to our school.

Coffee, Greenwich was started by parents. I was part of the second wave and together with others grew the school into an established organisation. I am now on the Senior Management Team and am an employee of the school. I am not an anthroposophist and dislike dogma along with my colleagues. I have no axe to grind and am not trying to trick or mislead people into bringing their children to our school as you suggest. I do not say our school is better than mainstream as it depends what parents want. Simply, we offer something different if that is what people want and we are part of a modernising movement within Steiner education which is not organised but just part of the natural development of Steiner's original ideas on education.

I hope that answers most of your questions.

A couple of other points:
The Advent Spiral is a lovely solemn festival involving the singing of hymns and Christnas songs and the lighting of candles. Steiner may well have developed it out of some spiritual belief in 1904 but honestly that is irrelevant today. It is a warm and reverential ceremony enjoyed by all and carries no other significance than that.

My eldest child did her preschool year in Greenwich Steiner School kindergarden, before moving to state school for Reception onwards.

She loved the outdoor play and still talks fondly about playing there versus tarmac playground in her school.
But:

• She was desperate to write. She bombarded me with questions on how to write this word and that word. When she wrote her own name on her work at school she was told she wasn't allowed to do that.
• Agree with the others that all art etc was in very much the same style. No black crayons, no felt tip pens, rounded corner watercolour paper. No individuality
• It was very evident from talking to her teacher that her teacher didn't get her - didn't understand what made her tick, and tbh didn't really like her. The teacher appeared to want a bunch of personality-less drones who would sit quietly to listen to the very dull sing-song stories, and comply with the routine with no individual thought at all.

I do think that there are advantages to the Steiner school for early primary years - I would love my kids to do the shorter school days aged 4/5/6/7 for instance, rather than 9-3.30.

The advent spiral thing is insane. Take a bunch of small children, and get them to carry lit candles through large amounts of semi-dry foliage strewn around the floor. Each places their lit candle amongst the semi-dry foliage, meaning that the later children have to negotiate lit candles on the floor as well. Place several more lit candles on top of pieces of fabric draped around the room. Perhaps I'd have found it more 'warm and reverential' if I hadn't been so focussed on whether the whole place would catch fire at any moment…

this thread is fascinating. Thank you for your input, especially mathanxiety and coted'azur

One of my friends is a Steiner believer, her children are Steiner educated.

One of things that has always puzzled me is the VAGUENESS of the whole concept. She has never really explained the whole thing, in fact the way she explains it is always every much about the school being more arty, not so focussed on maths/English. I am quite nosy/interested in people who do things a bit differently, but it has always remained very vague.

I have read up on the whole Steiner thing before, and the antroposophs, but she never "owned up" to her real beliefs, if that makes sense.

Thanks to this thread, I now understand WHY that is, and has give me more of an understanding of it all.

I don't think it is at all bad, though some aspects seem slightly sinister or even a bit weird.

But in real life, she and her husband are probably the most gentle friendly helpful people ever, and her children are very lovely too. There is a gentleness about them I sometimes see in my seriously Christian friends (happy-clappy ones) too.

It's fascinating really.

It's sort of Christian but not quite Christian? But the karma and reincarnation don't fit in with that.

Goodness I need to start educating myself a bit more on this!

Siri, what is the point of the anthroposophy if it is seemingly so insignificant? Why not just have the schools without it?

Considering that Rudolf Steiner wrote hundreds of thousands of pages, I think following every last word of it all would be a little difficult.

But your denial of being a Steiner school rings hollow -- Pootlebug seems to have observed the straight Steiner experience that I have commented on at your school.

Since you are accredited you are subject to ongoing scrutiny, and you were scrutinised thoroughly during the accreditation process to ensure that the 'brand' is not compromised, and to make sure there is adherence to the orthodox Steiner curriculum and that the teachers are imparting what Steiner wanted Steiner teachers to impart.

Clearly we draw on the educational ideas of Rudolf Steiner...
This is a distortion.
To be accredited as a Steiner school, a school must only adhere to the educational ideas of Rudolf Steiner. End of.
...but we check out whether things work and don't follow blindly.
This is simply hard to believe.
You are saying that you cherry pick from the hundreds of thousands of ideas Steiner had, and from the millions of words he spewed forth, without reference to the well-established Steiner curriculum that is taught worldwide, and only do what your own school has by a process of bumbling around until you hit on the right formula perhaps? found to 'work'? There is no room for making things up as you go along if you are under the Steiner umbrella.
We also do not draw on everything he ever wrote a hundred years ago and especially all the stuff about clairvoyance/the occult etc.
All of his educational ideas arose from his 'clairvoyant experiences'. Those that work do so by sheer chance. Not a single one had any basis in science or experimentation or rational thought.
I think most teachers in our school at consider that irrelevant to teaching.
You are posting assumptions you do not know to be true unless you yourself are clairvoyant.

We never say Rudolf Steiner said this and so we must do it.
I wouldn't expect you to all sit down and do that. You wouldn't have the time for one thing. He wrote reams.
You don't have to though. There is already an established curriculum and established ways of going about assigning different temperaments to the children, established ways of deciding which children are ready to advance to the next year, established ways of teaching all the different subjects, including history as the 'chalkboard art' link shows, and maths will be taught with gnomes. Likewise, science and 'human science' (which is not the subject known as biology in other schools) will follow the established curriculum and the well-established pedagogy will be used, with its prescribed aim of facilitating incarnation. As Pootlebug found in the case of her own child at your school, the Steiner model will be followed down to the smallest detail such as children not being allowed to write their names on their (copied) artwork. The reason for this is to do with the incarnating soul.
So this statement of your is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that there is a well established curriculum.

We have pink in the Kindergarten because it is a calming and nourishing colour for young children. It may have a deeper meaning and teachers may be aware but if it did not work as a calming colour we would not use it.
You have peach blossom pink in kindergarten, though iirc you denied this upthread. You have that particular colour on the walls because Steiner said that was the colour of humanity. Ever since Steiner made his pronouncement the walls of kindergartens in Steiner schools have been this colour. I would bet the farm that no other colour was ever suggested for the school in Greenwich, no other colour was ever tried to assess its nourishing and calming properties, and no discussion of the colour of the walls ever took place.

What exactly do you mean by the word 'nourishing' in the context of paint colours? It is an extremely odd word to choose in relation to colour.

I do not see hidden 'dastardly' meanings. I know there are meanings to the Advent Spiral that you have sought to deny. My friend whose children go to a Steiner school did not keep her cards as close to her chest as you are doing and there is plenty of information online to confirm that I am correct in my assessment of what elements such as the Spiral are all about and that the reason they are done -- the same rituals worldwide, depending on the environment. The reason is that they further the Anthroposophic religious mission of Rudolf Steiner.

I am not coming at this from a 'religious' viewpoint. That approach is for Steiner schools. I am asking you why you keep on denying the Anthroposophic elements?

I am wondering why unsuspecting parents are being lured into making significant decisions for their children based on the appearance of being ecologically sound, allegedly 'child centred', warm-and-fuzzyness that is presented at open days, while there are staff members, accreditation bodies, a centralised administrative centre for the religion where the Pedagogical Section works busily (the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland -- check out the swirly art and the nourishing peach haze; I believe that is the Archangel Michael with the wings in the ceiling on the right...) who have a different agenda for the children than the one they tell the parents about.

None of it is local, random, child-centred, plucked out of thin air (except for the original plucking out of thin air) and none of that is told to parents.

The common complaint about Steiner schools is that:
Steiner schools actively deceive parents wrt the religious nature of the schools and the real aim of the curriculum.
(Perhaps this is what you are referring to as 'poor communication'? If so, then that is the granddaddy of all distortions.)

I have no axe to grind and am not trying to trick or mislead people into bringing their children to our school as you suggest. I do not say our school is better than mainstream as it depends what parents want.
This is a distortion. You have consistently throughout this thread adhered to the Steiner party line that mainstream schools are harmful and harsh, etc. You have disparaged mainstream approaches to treatment of children and their academic approach too.

Your insistence that your Steiner school is a mainstream school in all but name is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it really is a Steiner school, and that in order to meet the objection of parents to Steiner students failing academically (because of the shortcomings of Steiner pedagogy and the Anthroposophic zeal of Steiner teachers and the Anthroposophic Steiner organisation) it is necessary to use tried and true methods of teaching academic subjects while retaining the core of what makes Steiner 'Steiner'.

You do what you are obliged to do in order to maintain accreditation with the powers that be, but the core of what you do is based on the untried and completely unscientific methods of Rudolf Steiner, and this core will not be ditched in order to focus completely on what academically focused schools do. Despite the fact that you have had to use necessary mainstream elements to teach reading and satisfy parental and governmental expectations of academic results, the Steiner elements will remain because Steiner schools have a religious mission without which they would have no reason to exist.

The Spiral is every bit as much an Anthroposophic esoteric-Christian-woo ritual as Steiner intended it to be back in the days of the Stuttgart school in the Waldorf factory. Perhaps someone has deceived you as to its reality? Or perhaps you are the perfect Steiner stooge-parent who is completely taken in by appearances?

If all it is is a Christmas pageant of sorts then why not just put on a common or garden nativity play and be done with it? Or a communal 'carols from around the world' type event, if children get their feelings hurt by being cast as 'fifth shepherd'.

There seems to be a lot of concern that teachers at Steiner Schools have no academic teaching qualifications but that is common with independent schools also. In fact some of the highest achieving private schools in the UK have teaching staff that aren't formally qualified.

May I just say that, I have many friends in teaching, in both private and state schools and I have formed the opinion that teaching qualifications do not necessarily produce the best teachers. I've met many new teachers at the University that I work in that I wouldn't let anywhere near my child...

Just a quick note on Steiner. I am currently researching options for my daughter (2yrs) and have a Kings School and a Steiner School within 5 mins. I have met many Steiner students and all seem very engaging, bright and normal. I went to an open day yesterday and found the experience positive although my mind is not made up.

Additionally a friends neighbour has children at both of the aforementioned and both seem to be confident and highly communicative for their age, but this may just be due to upbringing.

I am trying to be subjective in my approach as I know how easy it can be to find something positive or negative in anything. I certainly would not like to pass judgement without experiening all of the purported 'facts' for myself.

You might like to have some sort of quality assurance all the same though?

Your comments on teachers and teacher training are really very damning.

By the time you have experienced facts for yourself it may be too late to get your child out of Steiner and back on track. Best to be objective and not subjective therefore, and to read everything you can lay your hands on.

Bear in mind that the visual impact is very strong when parents see a Steiner environment for the first time, but appearance is not necessarily the truth when it comes to Steiner open days. The devil is in the details. Look very, very closely.

Here is a site full of links (apparently American) run by a very enthusiastic Steiner/Waldorf supporter. This particular page focuses on academics and on the many ways in which Steiner differs from mainstream and in a yellow box down the page a bit you will find questions parents should ask when investigating the Steiner option for their child.

Would any of these questions occur to a parent who walked into an open house off the street, full of curiosity but not primed with months of research?
Would any of these questions occur to you intuitively after a visual inspection of the Steiner school on an open day?
It is pretty weird that anyone would need to know the right questions to ask or risk not getting told what they are really letting themselves in for, but heyho.

Check out the questions parents should ask on the Birth History Survey too.

Can I ask Math.have you ever actually set foot in a Steiner School or attended an Open Day?

Yes, to both questions.

Visually speaking, it was very seductive. The buzz words sounded very soothing and reassuring. The first impression would definitely attract parents who are, in the words of Siri, looking for 'something different'.

onadifferentplanet

my family spent years in a steiner waldorf- I agree with everything mathsanxiety says. When it began to go pearshped with my kids, I researched extensively too. Other posters agree with what she/he says too.
Why are the steiner people so...persistant about questioning? mathsanxiety has a very deep understanding, which I think many people who may be parents don't; take note of what she/he says.

I think I have some understanding too, my son has been Steiner educated for the last five years very successfully he is doing extremely well academically, has a broad general knowledge and the most wonderful empathy towards others . I was not looking for something different I was looking for the school which (in my opinion) was the right one for him, just as one of the countries top independent schools was the right one for his brother.
On a forum such as this everyone is entitled to their opinion and I thought people welcomed alternative views after all we are all different. I had the great pleasure recently of hosting a party for ds and his peers, they are a lovely bunch of young people not in the least bit woo or odd and none of then appear in anyway to be traumatised by a Steiner education , they all have FB and watch tv they don't sit on toadstools playing with gnomes all day or hugging trees, they also produce some outstanding art work on square cornered paper and use black where required too.
I do not need to 'get my child out of Steiner and back on track' he is on track for the future he wants which is to go to Uni like his siblings, I have no doubt at all he will get there. Interestingly despite not going to a 'proper' school he recently successfully interviewed for a part time job where all the others who applied went to the local high school. Obviously his new employer was impressed by his manner ,intelligence and abilities.

Meh.

All my children have gone to RC and state schools and so far those old enough to do so have gone on to university where the two that have graduated have done so with high honours, they have all done or are doing extremely well academically, have a huge amount of empathy as far as I can see (how to measure this beats me though..) do nice art on square and rectangular paper and in other media besides painting/drawing too, and use the colour black whenever they feel like it.

They behave themselves, speak politely to adults, work hard, and have never been in trouble. DS's friends' mothers often remark to me what a helpful lad DS is when he is at their houses. He has apparently made brownies, vacuumed, emptied and/or loaded dishwashers and helped out with plumbing disasters and setting up big screen TVs and laptops. He is always willing to help out at home too. He and his friends provided the muscle when we moved house, working tirelessly for two days at age 17 for the reward of pizza. They are all odd in their own ways.

DDs 3 and 4 do not have FB or instagram, etc.. They both like Pinterest.

They have all worked at part time jobs in their teens, in law offices, antique furniture/theatrical prop businesses, babysitting, doing odd jobs. DD1 worked all through university in a museum and had a job lined up for herself before graduation. DS likewise. DD2 is currently in university and works part time too, and will work this summer also. DD3 will be a lifeguard this summer. DD4 will babysit and do some sport camps.

I note your backhanded disparagement of the uncouth (semi-illiterate?) local high school student body. This assumption of superiority is very common to Steiner parents ime.

Nobody said anything about Steiner schools not being 'proper'.
What has been stated is that Steiner got his pedagogical ideas from clairvoyant experiences and that none of them was ever empirically tested before being put into practice by his devotees, who place great store in their Steiner lineage and emhpasise the directness of the link back to Steiner (except it seems on forums such as this one where many seek to deny that their schools have anything to do with Steiner.) If students succeed in Steiner schools that can only be ascribed to sheer chance therefore. It may well be that they succeed despite the approach they have been subjected to.

Or perhaps many of them have parents who teach them academic subjects at home, which is something I have observed.

The other huge complaint is that all the deep woo and the reasons for it are hidden from prospective parents.

"except it seems on forums such as this one where many seek to deny that their schools have anything to do with Steiner"

At least this thread didn't attract that man who prowls internet forums to spread disinformation and vitriol on threads about Steiner schools. What was his MN nickname? He was creepy.

Maybe they pulled his plug and are now sending out more reasonable-sounding advocates to fly the Steiner banner these days, such as our very own Siri123 who has only ever graced MN with her presence once before, back in October 2013.

"I am trying to be subjective in my approach as I know how easy it can be to find something positive or negative in anything."

I guess you mean "objective".

This is not about picking at a tiny little problem, like you would find in any school if you examined it hard enough. This is about schools with the same name whose ethos and methodology is based on the same philosophy lying to prospective parents by omission about their teaching system. It is shocking.

"I certainly would not like to pass judgement without experiening all of the purported 'facts' for myself."

What I experienced was more than enough. I had multiple appointments with various teachers and management, and went to their information day. Not once in all that time were the words anthroposophy, reincarnation, spirit, or spirit world even mentioned, let alone explained to prospective parents as having an important place in the school's ethos and methodology. All I got was lots of blah blah about how everything is so soft and cuddly in the school, delivered in that creepy singsong voice common to all Steiner school teachers.

Welcome to MN, by the way, CosThetaSaidSo.

It's just wonderful how Steiner threads always bring new people to MN