Steiner/Waldorf Schools - requesting info from those in the know...

[Rantmum]

...anyone know anything about the Steiner/Waldorf school system, pros and cons (particularly with reference to early years/primary education, but any info is good!. Had not really given them too much consideration but have recently moved and met several mothers who speak highly of the their approach.

dittany- you said-

"I was amazed that at that Steiner school in the video all the children were sat behind desks facing the front hanging on the words of the teacher - even repeating back en masse, whatever it was he had pronounced to the class. How very 19th century"

It's quite surprising, isn't it? And you know what's almost spooky- EVERY school- almost without exception- looks the same- same paintings of the same subjects..in the same colours...(all over the world from the photos I've seen.)

All those old fashioned desks with inkwells and lifting lids- two to a desk- (so often kids get left to sit on their own 'cos there's an odd number).
And the teacher stands at the front- talking-telling stories and drawing coloured chalk drawings on the board.And the kids copy screeds of the teacher's writing off the board. No text books, no audio visual aids etc. Just the one class teacher- for SEVEN years- ( except for extra subjects like french.
Very old fashioned. And old fashioned punishments too- like standing outside the class for hours and hours.
Progressive, liberal.....no -plain, non-materialistic- anthroposophical.

"Another thing I have just remembered were the teachers stating a number of times:

'The child chooses his/her parents'."

With this in mind, I'd like to ask if anyone has iny expeience of Anthroposophy and adoption?
I was adopted at birth, and this (along with several other things) was offered as a source of my edginess with Anthropsophy.
Trouble is, that so far as I have been able to establish, this is one of the few topics Rudi didn't ever spot off on. Wannabees however did seem to feel the need to impart some 'wisdom' on this, almost always telling me that this or that other Anthro, who had said something different, "doesn't know what they are talking about" So, it very much struck me as being unable to admit "I don't know" they would just make it up as they went along.
There did seem to be some commonality though: all the stuff that had 'inhibited' my karma or similar guff had all been planned by me in the spirit world, so that I would fetch up in an Anthrosophical situation in order to resolve my karma, and thereby 'progress' spiritualy next time around.
Bottom line? Mum and Dad were only vehicles enabling a physical existance so that ultimately Anthroposophy could take over.
I suppose that it also explains the thinking behind me being assured at 46 years of age "your real education starts now". This from a twenty-something wannabee.
Now, what do you think they might do with the information you give them for their 'individual child study'?
FWIW, Dad is still around, a hale and hearty 94 year old. He remains the greatest formative influence in my life. Dad, not Rudi.
Problems with that anyone?
Davy

Stripey - I gave links to morning prayers of three Steiner schools in three different countries, AND www.anthroposophy.org.uk which says the same prayer is used in upper classes of all Steiner schools. These are exact, word by word translations. Then I posted a report on Steiner schools in the UK, which had the same verses.

After all these posts which took place on 16 Jan between 20:15 and 20:55, you reply at 20:57: 'Er, that says at the top "example of morning verses as recited in one school"'

The only possible explanations I see were:
(1) You were playing dumb
(2) You are dumb (unlikely, given the clarity of your later posts)
(3) You were deliberately winding me up

I had let it go, but now that you come back to it: Which is the correct answer? Why exactly did you ignore the myriad examples of the exact same prayer recited in Steiner schools in different countries?

Single teacher for seven years - after so many years of authority/affection/guidance, teacher would become a de facto third parent for the child. Is that the point, I wonder?

Someone was saying here that teacher blatantly told children 'this is right, your parents are wrong', and that when taken from the school the kid said "you are taking me away from my real family".

Would the bond have been this strong if there were several teachers?

Cote - I was the one who said my seven year old PLEADED with us not to take him out and said we were 'taking him away from his true family'. It hit pretty hard, but it might also have been that we were in the process of adopting a little girl and that he KNEW that phrase would get to us. It was, however, astonishing to see how deep was his attachment to the school, despite the fact that in our eyes, his class one experience had been an unmitigated disaster and six children left the class that year.

Easeonline - the adoption question really bothered me, too. I remember all the birthday celebrations in kindergarten and the story told of crossing the rainbow bridge to wake up in the arms of your earthly parents. It WAS very sweet, but what WOULD they say in the case of an adopted child?

Janni It WAS very sweet, but what WOULD they say in the case of an adopted child?

I can't say for sure, but my experience was that it depended on the moment- who was asking, and why; who, and how many were listening.

Davy- it all sounds so very anthro- making it up as they go along, contradictary ideas- and of course- karma meaning it was all your fault in the first place! The same things were intimated many times about the bullied at the school we were at- they attract it was the inferrence.
Then the wonderful anthros take over from the people who've loved and cared for you. Do the anthros ever ask- what's love got to do with it? Doesn't come into the karmic stuff much does it?
94! They made them well then didn't they!

Cote-I don't think they're coming back! There has been some nasty things said on this thread- particularly when people's backs are against the wall and I'm really sad that you- and I- have been on the end of it.- It's only defence. Just because you researched stuff before you became embroiled means you've got a lot of sense.

And the teacher as parent point you make- yes. Steiner schools believe the teacher IS more important than the parents. The soul - before it comes to this world- on it's way to the next- chooses it's parents. The teacher's "sacred" task- is to help this soul/child on it's journey to the next reincarnation. The parents, and children, are really seen as empty vessels in Steiner speak- to be continually reincarnated- until eventually- when the earth moves to the next epoch- human kind will be spiritually ready.

The advent spiral- so very significant in the school year- symbolises the transition from the atlantean to the post atlantean epochs.

I think I've got this right- it's very convoluted and there are lots of epochs and soul transition stuff he talk about.Sometimes I glaze over- it's quite mad and rambling- but it's all there in his writing.

"So it sounds to me like an outlet for narcissists, having a class of children's undivided attention for seven years."

God- the teacher my eldest had was such a self-satisfied, puffed-up prick-(who also denigrated women, and belittled his wife in front of people). A little muscle used to twitch in his cheek when I asked him awkward anthro questions- AND I was a woman.

Boring? He invented the word.

I'm still here - and I don't think I have said anything nasty.

I'm just not sure what to say anymore - we are never going to convince each other and tbh I don't see any need to. I'm happy with my choice, you weren't and have now chosen something more suitable. Thats ok! I am certainly not a rabid defender of Steiner or Anthro-ism, just a parent who is doing what I feel to be right for my child.

Hey Stripey- you weren't included in that
I thought we were getting along and agreeing a lot of the time.

And I hope I haven't said anything horrid- except about Ruudii- where I can get quite personally vindictive really.

And I don't think there's much left to say either.
After all- it's not people here I'm angry with about the cover up of anthro stuff- but the people at the schools and institutions.

I think I'll quite miss this thread when it dies

Phew - I thought the same.

There was one thing that I wanted to put something about. Thenew wrot a really good piece much earlier about the wet on wet paintings-in answer to my birt about Steiner's reason for the children doing these colour washes in limited colours with no lines- to remind them of their previous soul life as it was still so near to them. this is a bit of the new,s

"the curriculum teaches children about colour, about colours that can demonstrate feeling and reflect in nature and how colour can blend and change. for a young child with a wonderful imagination to have the freedom and guidance to explore and feel colours and give meaning to colour, the benefits are great."

IMO- stopping children using lines - and forcing them-guiding strongly- perhaps , rather than forcing- is contrary- in a big way - to their developpment. From cave paintings, and the beginning of time- humans have used lines- it's bonkers to stilt this- and I think it goes against a child's natural instncts. Kids drawin the sand with lines, they use lines all the time- and it stops creativity.
But then- it's not about creativity in the first place for Steiner- but the spirit, soul and reincarnation.
Bye!

"for a young child with a wonderful imagination to have the freedom and guidance to explore and feel colours and give meaning to colour, the benefits are great."

Sounds good, and I have no doubt that the 'guidance' is indeed provided, but I rather think the 'freedom' bit is a little restricted to say the least.
For my money, this freedom to 'explore and feel colours' results most often in something along the lines of Mummy being blue with yellow hair, Daddy being green with orange hair, and maybe a pink cat, dog, budgie, hamster, rabbit or whatever getting in there somewhere too.
YKWIM, those exuberant masterpieces of colour exploration that decorate Mummy and Daddy's workplaces and Granny's kitchen.
During what was called my staff 'training' we were to do a (wet-on-sopping-wet of course) painting of something about dragons.
I did mine and was then 'guided' to make (say) George yellow rather than blue, and the dragon red rather than whatever I had used.
I was able to argue that what our mentor was scolding me for for was that I had painted my own interpretation rather than her interpretation: an entirely legitimate task, but not the same as she set.
This was my first hint of the occult significance of colour in Anthro terms.
I was able to articulate my reservations: what chance a six year old?

For those of you who would like an update on the French Government claiming that Anthroposhy is a cult. Here are my findings:

1/ The link that Cote kindly provided

By CoteDAzur on Sun 13-Jan-08 22:08:15
Here is the French government's June 1999 report on cults ('sects' in French).

www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dossiers/sectes/r1687p2.asp

It was drawn up by a chap called Jacques Guyard in June 1999. After extensive research, I enclose an extract from the US Dept of States website:

.....In March a Paris Correctional Court fined Jacques Guyard, the president of the parliamentary commission and a drafter of the 1996 National Assembly report on so-called sects, approximately $2,850 (20,000 francs) in response to complaints by three groups that were named in a parliamentary commission's June 1999 report on the financing of religious groups named in the original report. The court also ordered Guyard to pay approximately $12,850 (90,000 francs) in damages. The Federation of Steiner Schools, the New Brotherly Economy, and "le Mercure Federale" (an anthroposophical medical association) had filed a complaint against Guyard for slander for calling the groups "sects" in a June 1999 television interview. The court found that Guyard had made accusations against these groups when existing evidence did not warrant even a serious inquiry into their activities. The court noted that the parliamentary commission's report resulted from written declarations from persons claiming to be victims of anthroposophy, but that the parliamentary commission had not heard any of the claims in person, and that there was no supporting documentation for accusations that the groups had used mental manipulation, pressured persons to give them money, or used practical medicine that endangered lives. The court rejected Guyard's attempts to qualify his statements, and also rejected a request from Guyard's lawyer for parliamentary immunity. The 1999 report in question focused on multinational groups, especially Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists. The stated basis of concern was that these groups may use excessive or dishonest means to obtain donations, which then are transferred out of the country and beyond the reach of French tax authorities.....

Full article here
www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/eur/754.htm

Alternatively you could Google "Jacques Guyard & Anthroposophy" if you wish.

Whoops typo "anthroposophy"....silly me!

....all that link shows is that Steiner groups are willing to resort to the law when they are under scrutiny or criticism. Rather than considering the criticisms that are made against them they attack their critics.....

They did consider the criticisms, they found them to be unreasonable and slanderous and took action, like anybody would if they were in that situation.

...It's totally outrageous that a group or organisation can sue for slander - that recourse should be limited to individuals, otherwise there can be all sorts of abuses of the system....

Why should it be limited to individuals?

Slander is slander regardless of how big or small the individual/organisation and fortunately the law sees it differently to you.

...Once again, don't you think it would be a good idea to actually address what Steiner schools' critics are saying about them rather than going on the attack?...

Dittany...I have done some research regarding the French Government that a poster on here used as a defence to claim Steiner is a cult. The French law courts found that Steiner was not a cult and fined the Slanderer. I was addressing one of the many claims that the critics use on this very board and posted this information for all to see. And you accuse me of attacking?

Oh and to answer the racism in Rudolph Steiner's philosophy, I don't like it and don't agree with it.

Davy/ease- the children's "painting" classes- by a specialist when they reached class 5 , I think- was exactly the same- stage by stage copying exactly what the teacher painted- they weren't even allowed to do the blue dragon in the first place.
As an exercise in a kind of craft- I can see the benefit- but to be called creative - is risable.

and here