waldorf steiner

[heninthemidden]

hi,

anyone had good experience of waldorf steiner education system?

No-northernrefugee39,you are mis-informed if that is your answer. Anthroposophy takes none of these "truths" as a starting point.

Gosh- there must be an awful lot of published "mis information" then Isenhart.

Even Rudolf Steiner's work at the RS archive?

Or do anthros only "take what they want" , have the "freedom" to choose the bits they fancy?

Suppose they choose the unsavoury bits?

Dictionary definition

"an·thro·pos·o·phy (nthr-ps-f)
n.
A system of beliefs and practice based on the teachings of Rudolph Steiner and maintaining that by correct training and personal discipline one can attain experience of the spiritual world."

Anthroposophy The Spiriual Science

And these are definitions who aren't even critics.....

No, anthroposophists do not have this freedom if their basis is as stated above. You are free to do so, however, as you have aptly demonstrated in this thread.

So- "anthroposophy is a sytem of beliefs based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner"

but only some teachings?
because everything I listed was part of Steiner's work.

This is a free country, and this thread demonstrates that we are free, yes, to discuss the teachings of Rudolf Steiner.
Particularly if our taxes are going towards schools based on these teachings.(Until, that is, people who don't like it happeneing threaten legal action. What for, I really couldn't envisage.)

So Isenhart, which of those things in my list do you say Steiner didn't write or lecture about?

What happened to the rest of your dictionary definition, northernrefugee39?

Wow, Northern Refugee that is scary! Anyway, I did that as a place to carry on the talk if this got closed due to Steiner Fellowship bullying, my fb profile page is private even to my network so I wont take it down, but I can understand why you would not want to join.

I have to comment in a slightly Steiner-defensive way (or defense of one good teacher!) that on the subjects of the writings of Steiner, she agreed many were outdated and irelevant, and that we should move on from them, and that she did not think that was betraying the principles of Steiner. Same teacher also agreed his work is open to interpretation and that few take it at face value. So when it suggests something barmy exists, it can be interpreted as giving a name to a phenomenon. (I am not defending Steiner really, but just for the sake of balanced discussion!)

Unfortunately they don't seen to all be like her.

isenhart you still haven't answered northern's question...

"open to interpretation" isn't that what people say about the bible/quran/torah...?

You're right, tattifer-I didn't get that far yet. Here's the point I was responding to:

So- "anthroposophy is a sytem of beliefs based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner"

but only some teachings?

Q: Anthroposophy is now only some of the definition?

erm, still no answer...

just flew by,
Good to see that now you are talking amongst yourselves. well done!!! here a new word for some ponderin,,,
WC survivor

MANATEE- I think it's a great idea. There are a few yahoo groups, some private obviously.
The waldorf critcs one is a good open discussion.

There are quite a few people who still live near communities which now shun them. It becomes quite hard when your dc's are involved.

isenhart this was the full definition
"an·thro·pos·o·phy (nthr-ps-f)
n.
A system of beliefs and practice based on the teachings of Rudolph Steiner and maintaining that by correct training and personal discipline one can attain experience of the spiritual world."
Was it the "correct training" part being left out you object to?
What is this "training"?
Is it "first class" meditations, enabling the initiate to step onto the path, absorb spirit, learn to communicate to higher worlds?
Is the "training" correct, only if one follows Rudolf Steiner's indications?

And I know that there's a lot of talk of "freedom" ( ie , in anthro words "spiritual activity"), but unless one has an inkling of what anthroposophical belief entails, there is no freedom to chose to reject it is there?
Knowledge is freedom, to chose.
And what the schools do, is a deliberate cover up- thus curtailing any freedom of choice.

I didn't object to anything being left out I merely asked a question. That question was-what happened to the rest of the definition that you had provided?

Isenhart are you a politician??? You just seem very practiced in never answering direct questions, turning them around, and talking general rubbish.

Fb group deleted...as I am getting paranoid about lack of anoniminity (sp!?) on the net, I don't even want to go into the exact reasons why!!!

Manatee, sad to hear about fb, I did want to join but had reservations for the same reasons. Did you get some unwanted visitors?

Maria33, you said:
"Every Steiner School should have above it's door "You are now entering a place where we cannot agree on what reality is" because the reasonable assumption in today's world is that most schools do accept maintsream views on psycology, child development, special needs etc unless they explicitly state otherwise".
Genius it might just happen! We could also add 'Will mothers please leave their faculties at the door - you are now entering a sacred place of woo'.

Isenhart7 works for the Association of Waldorf Schools in North America Media Guide her only reason for being on this thread is to limit any negative press using the strategies detailed in the link above.

One actually can't work for the Waldorf Schools in North America Guide, as it's not an entity. Sorry to disappoint. Again I'm here because my experience with Waldorf/Steiner education is relevant to OP's question.

MANATEE-no.

Barking, interesting link! And regarding the fb group the answer is 'sort of!' Sorry, a bit ribbish being vague but I am really paranoid now!!!

Isenhart if you are not involved with these or similar, why are you avoiding answering the question of what relevent experience you have of the OP's question??? It is not a rude question, everyone else has talked about their involvment with Steiner.

On a different note I recieved a reply to my email this morning!!! Not much in it though, saying that he will have to discuss it with the school administrator before formally addressing the complaint. Which is kind of worrying, I don't see why he should...but I am not going to jump to negative conclusions just yet.

I am going to a birthday party/steiner leaving party for one of dd's friends on Saturday. I am feeling kind of nervous actually, about the other parents that were involved, being there. But I am determined to go all the same!!!

My answer to OP's question is yes. My relevant experience is 14 years of being a Waldorf/Steiner parent.

Isenhart perhaps you could tell us about some of the good experiences you have had at Steiner??? (Not being sarcastic and sorry if it sounds that way, but maybe the conversation got somewhat stuck???)

MANATEE-there is no perhaps about it-I could definitely tell you-I also should have the freedom to choose what I wish to share about myself, my children, and/or my childrens' classmates in a public forum.

??? So could I, but if I didn't want to, I would leave this thread, as I would no longer be contributing.

Well, thought I would just share 3 good moments and 3 bad moments as a little snapshot:

Good-

Every rainbow walk for dc's birthday's have been fantastic.

The festivals, michaelmas, Martinmas, St Johns, Advent Spiral- all brilliant and will be missed.

The sense of independance both my children have had there.

Bad-

The total lack of sense which resulted in potential child sexual abuse going unreported. (And the associated defensive reaction).

Being made to feel like rubbish about tv, non-organic food, and state education.

Watching children who do not behave as expected get treated very harshly, including being physically pulled by their arms.

Manatee "The total lack of sense which resulted in potential child sexual abuse going unreported"

That's shocking, there are protocols put in place to protect children (and teachers, so they are not left floundering but can seek advice from those trained in identifying and finding the source of abuse). No amount of flimflammery and gnomes should be allowed to get in the way of protecting children from harm.

But maybe the child in question being blonde haired and blue eyed is??? Or perhaps it was that the child's mother worked at the school??? Or maybe the teacher felt a bit rude repeating the language she had heard used, and the situations she was told of >( >( >(

Did they not talk to social workers or the police? If the language was that bad surely they should have been worried enough to take it outside the school?