Sprocket, for a "net novice" you're doing very well I'm not much better though.
I've met a few teachers from Michael Hall- there was one who particularly stood out- I think he was Dutch, and was very charismatic. (This was before we realised the full extent of the anthroposophical web you understand, and we were quite enthusiastic about the whole Steiner thing.) Anyway, as a Steiner teacher, I should imagine this particular man was quite inspiring. Looking back, and knowing what I was only gradually learning then- I would think that the charisma is also quite anthroposophical, spiritual, believing in cosmic and astral forces and the higher worlds. It's something that anthroposophists can give out- a kind of superior confidence, which comes from them *knowing", while the rest of us are stumblimng around in the dark. They will be saved in Steiner's "war of all wars".
But obviously, that confidence and knowingness is quite alluring.
I don't think Michael Hall's academic results are atall impressive to be honest. But then , you don't end your kids to Steiner school for academic results. That goes totally against the grain ( academia is too Ahrimanic, not spiritual enough.) But after however many years of education, I think you would want enough qualifications to be able to do what you want to do. ( My eldest- 13- isn't particularly academic, and is dyslexic, which wasn't picked up at Steiner. She is talented at art, loves making things, and biology! She wants to make wildlife documetaries. I would hate for her drams to be shattered for the sake of a "spiritual education")
There was a woman on another chat board, in the States actually, who said she sent her children to Steiner school because the children there "looked cool"; the same woman also likened living with her children to living with the Bloomsbury Group, because they had discussions and painted. The image obviously was ultra important to her- she must have had the label "Bohemian intellectual" imprinted in her brain! Very shallow reasons I know, but Steiner school's don't have a monopoly on that style of education, which is the impression they love to give. People buy into it , and also for what it isn't.
Most arts and culture people find the "art" extremely prescribed and copied, and the children aren't encouraged to read literature atall until they're about 14- everything they are taught comes from the mouth of their one teacher.
I have to say, that since my eldest daughter has been going to her liberal, progressive, arts/drama orientated secondary school (a Quaker one) she is so much more confident, interested, alive,is given respect and responsibility, has amazing teachers; the drama, art and music are wonderful, they have artists in residence for art, sculpture, english, poetry, they have orchestras, bands, singing, the biology teachers let them have an aray of creatures, the physics teacher is so enthusiatic, he has groups of them watching stars, who have to be picked up at at god knows what hour. Today she came home having been picked to go to masterclasses as gifted in art. It makes the Steiner curriculum a joke in comparison. The children were so bored , even the most anthroposophical of the parents complained. Steiner schools are meant to produce confident children, but somany I know had their confidence totally undermined there.
Oh hi Isenhart, funny how you pop by when someone is interested in Steiner education- just keeping an eye? Watching for new initiates?