STEINER WALDORF SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS

[theantignome]

hi everyone, i wanted to start a new thread with a NEW topic heading here, as the active one at the moment with over 700 posts looks like it is all about the Cambridge school. This may confuse newcomers.

Let's continue the debate here !
All newcomers welcome !

I will shortly link our two previous threads on MN for any one new to have a look at.

Davy, could you also give a link to your new yahoo list here please ? Thanks.

looks like we have rattled the cage, The Bee/eva/sune/whatever....

Diana - I have often wondered about whether the Steiner schools themselves are a contributary factor to family breakdown. The need to divorce yourself from modern society in order to give your children the true Steiner experience must put a huge strain on couples where one partner is not so sure...

Stripey- thanks for that the most sensible thing said by a Steinery so far.

Sune, you have no idea how you come across do you?

Diana, I can hardly make sense of what Sune is saying actually. If I had been wrngly accused, yes, I would rant and rave.
And it's also well know that the anthros watch wikepedia, I've heard it from several sources. They are patanoid that the truth will out.

And how concescending and how typical to blame the parents and the kids for the negative experiences at Steiner; ( we have been happily married for 15 yrs by the way)
You are digging yourself an extremely large hole Sune, and I'm glad you show yourself up so terribly....

Our kids too are thriving since they left Steiner school, they are happy, popular and well liked by other kids and teachers.

Thebee/sune, why don't you explain what is so marvellous about anthroposophy as stripey asks?
As many people have asked actually?
What is it about the anthroposophical in steiner education which is so wonderful?

Or is it too complicated? Too hard to explain? To difficult for us to understand?

Barking- where did you find that picture!!?

Janni- the point about the Steiner system contributing to family breakdown is really interesting.
There were four break up's of families while we were at the school- all from camphill families; lots of kids involved, all very tense and draining. There were affairs happening too. Many of these were in established anthroposophical families.
The strain also of not being able to work fulltime because the kids are on half days for so long must add to it too.

I totally recognise what you're saying there, Northern. DH used to say 'they're keeping families in poverty' because the school day/terms were set up for the benefit of a) the teachers b) the children and c)sod the parents and their lives

I've got to run, but just want to say two things:

No, it wasn't a case of "one or two" teachers at one specific school. I went to the largest waldorf school in Sweden. The absolute majority of the teachers were total crackpots. The anthro teachers were ALL crackpots. The school was a disaster - because the grown-ups were utterly incompetent.

And NO, it's not about the families. I'm not from a "divorce houshold" - neither were the majority of the kids in my waldorf class, though divorce rates are HIGH in Sweden. Incompetent teachers are the answer. My family has been in several schools. None showed the same deficits as did the waldorf school. Problems may occur anywhere, but the inability to deal with reality is pretty typical for waldorf.

(And sadly, there are parents who divorce, partly as a consequence from one parent entering the anthro movement.)

Anthroposophy is to blame for waldorf schools and waldorf schools inability to function properly. Anthroposophy is responsible for the faulty pedagogical considerations made by waldorf schools. When you deny anthroposophy's role in waldorf education, you appear like a pitiful liar, Sune. It's dishonest. You may think differently than I do about anthroposophy, but to deny it's essential influence on waldorf is outright stupid.

And btw, my parents have been married for over 30 years, still married. Waldorf was a fucked-up experience anyway.

And the wiki situation is largely the result of anthros like Sune.

That's another piece of advice; don't take wiki seriously when investigating cults, sects or odd religious denominations, or the gurus. That's not an advice restricted to anthroposophy actually.

an advice = a piece of advice.

Well said ZZooey about the functioning of the schools. That's what always struck me - the lack of common sense, the lack of awareness of reality (badly phrased, but you know what I mean). Ane as a new parent, how would you ever know about these bizarre beliefs influencing the teachers' decision making ?

That's why threads like this are VITAL

thanks Janni

I realize I was to say "deny its essential influence" of course.

Anyway, since the schools say anthroposophy isn't important to the childrens every day school experience, why would parents care to study the beliefs in depth? And say they do, and pose a question to the staff, the answers would be deflecting and nonsensical, no real answers, or answers that mean something else than what people would normally interpret the same words to mean.

Sune has some nice quaint notions of etiquette or politeness. He has quoted that thing where I wrote on the critics list "Y'all know me and I ranted and raved" several times now. I guess it seems very bad to him - he seems to think I will be embarrassed by it. Zooey has pretty well convinced me it isn't a question of not understanding English well enough, though he does seem to think slang is a very bad thing, maybe a sign of poor breeding or upbringing?

It occurs to me that his English is very "textbooky," the way a person might speak if they didn't hear English spoken or converse in English much, but just go with what they learned years ago in a very outdated textbook.

Zzoey wrote:

"I went to the largest waldorf school in Sweden. The absolute majority of the teachers were total crackpots. The anthro teachers were ALL crackpots. The school was a disaster - because the grown-ups were utterly incompetent."

Just as a short note: The school she refers to is the school where the son of one of the Waldorf pioneers of Sweden has gone. The son is now Minister for the Environment in Sweden.

thebee, you wrote"

"Just as a short note: The school she refers to is the school where the son of one of the Waldorf pioneers of Sweden has gone. The son is now Minister for the Environment in Sweden."

I think the modern version of the phrase must be "you can pass a camel through the eye of a needle sooner than you will find an honest, non-self-interested politician". Not an endorsement!

You also wrote:

"Her own view of herself and her natural way of being ("Y'all know me") does not seem to differ that much from the admin's view of her."

What, exactly, is negative about "Y'all know me"??? Many of us have expressed confusion at this. Please clarify.

Sune: Can we talk? I ranted and raved - I'm trying to understand if you think that is a bad thing? Is that what you thought is a bad thing, or did you think my slang use of "y'all" was a bad thing? In the southern US, "y'all" is used as a sort of second person plural (by everyone; it's not like some uneducated thing). The New England equivalent is "you guys." I use both, I grew up in New England but also spent summers in my childhood with relatives in Tennessee. Where I live now, the equivalent phrase is "Youse," and I've never really gotten used to that . . .

But maybe it's the ranting and raving you think is a bad thing?

I, 2004:

"Waldorf or Rudolf Steiner education is based on an anthroposophical view and understanding of the human being, that is, as a being of body, soul and spirit. The education mirrors the basic stages of a child's development from childhood to adulthood, which in general reflects the development of humanity through history from our origin, far back in past times up to the present."

"While anthroposophy forms the philosophical and theoretical basis of the teaching methods used in Waldorf schools and is reflected in the attitudes of many Waldorf teachers and in the general structuring and orientation of Waldorf education during the different stages of development, anthroposophy is not taught as such to the students in the overwhelming majority of Waldorf schools world wide.

"If anthroposophy is taught in some form by an individual teacher, it is done against the basic Waldorf tradition and in complete contradiction of the intention of Waldorf education, as expressed by Rudolf Steiner as the founder of Waldorf education."

Alicia AKA Zzoey to me today, four years later:

"When you deny anthroposophy's role in waldorf education, you appear like a pitiful liar, Sune. It's dishonest."

DianaW:

"maybe it's the ranting and raving (followed by ranting and raving, followed by ranting and raving) you think is a bad thing?" as a way of discussing things.

I'll set up a meeting with me, myself and my twin brother to discuss the question.

kneedeepinthedirtylaundry:

"What, exactly, is negative about "Y'all know me"???"

Nothing in the expression itself. It only tells that Diana according to herself views

"ranting and raving" and then going on to "rave and rant" followed by "more ranting and raving" "systematically, every 2 hours or oftener", as a - to her - natural way of discussing things where she disagrees with others.

"Many of us have expressed confusion at this."

You mean Diana and Diana?

I, for one, Sune, have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in the reams and reams of stuff you post on Mumsnet in self-defence.

I would read it if you posted about why you are into anthroposophy, what is so great about it, why you are convinced it is a good belief system to underpin the Steiner curriculum. Perhaps we could even have a debate!

The rest of your posts are self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing.

Sune, I hope not to be terribly impolite with you frankly, but this is what I mean. You know dictionary definitions of word but you don't know how the language is used. To say someone "ranted and raved" could be negative but it can also be used in a more casual way. There are times when it is good to rant and rave. You do it yourself, you just aren't familiar with the terms.

There's also a meaning of "rave" that involves dancing all night and using drugs - maybe you could repeat my quote now far and wide implying I use drugs? I'm sure it's in the dictionary, but I'll "leave that one with you," as Lush/Pheonix says . . . maybe you can go look it up and paste it in here, and then you'll have a link to use people to show that Steiner critics are drug users.

So it wasn't the "y'all"?

It only sounds like ranting to you, Sune, because she's disagreeing with you!

Diana at the definition of rave....

Anthroposophists don't hold with expressing emotions do they? It's all so unspiritual, perhaps that is what gets to Sune, rather than putting feelings of frustration in a spiritual box.

Knee and Janni, yes , no one cares about your links Sune. How about a personal appraisal of why anthroposophy is so important in the schools?

We all know they don't actually teach it, but anthroposophy is behind every choice, decision, and detail of the curriculum.
The teachers are told not to let on to the parents about it, Steiner said this too.
So don't try to put over that anthroposphy isn't the end all and be all of Steiner educatio.

You know what, many people would really love an education system similar in many ways to Steiner Waldorf, but MINUS anthroposophy. I would for one.

Thebee,

"While anthroposophy forms the philosophical and theoretical basis of the teaching methods used in Waldorf schools and is reflected in the attitudes of many Waldorf teachers and in the general structuring and orientation of Waldorf education during the different stages of development, anthroposophy is not taught as such to the students in the overwhelming majority of Waldorf schools world wide.

Yes, this sounds good in theory. I agree with Northern - I'd like many aspects of a Steiner education for my little one, without the Anthro faith creeping in. But the experiences related to on this thread, and the look on the faces of ALL the kindergarten children I saw, suggests that, in practise, something seriously isn't working, on who-knows what kind of scale.

So perhaps the following happens more than it should?
"If anthroposophy is taught in some form by an individual teacher, it is done against the basic Waldorf tradition and in complete contradiction of the intention of Waldorf education, as expressed by Rudolf Steiner as the founder of Waldorf education."

Regarding this:
"Waldorf or Rudolf Steiner education is based on an anthroposophical view and understanding of the human being, that is, as a being of body, soul and spirit. The education mirrors the basic stages of a child's development from childhood to adulthood, which in general reflects the development of humanity through history from our origin, far back in past times up to the present."

And if a child's development doesn't tally with where, in this picture, they should be developmentally at that time in their life, does that mean there is something wrong with them??? I get the feeling that, in order to confirm the anthroposophical view and understanding of the human being, what is happeneing in a child might be overlooked while the teacher looks for what they believe SHOULD be there?