waldorf steiner

[heninthemidden]

hi,

anyone had good experience of waldorf steiner education system?

Gosh, look at this-STEINER WALDORF EDUCATION SCIENCE TEACHER TRAINING COURSE

" At least a year's study of anthroposophy is assumed and familiarity with key ideas and basic texts such as 'Occult Science'."

" The course is built around the question: "How do we meet today's adolescents with a meaningful science curriculum based on spiritual
science?" Such a question is a real challenge to those trained in a
natural scientific discipline."

"Challenge" - Pah! I should say so.

"Science as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

• Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
• Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society."

www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

FFS, so basicaly Steiner educated kids are given nothing that would prepare them for a science based job in the REAL WORLD! Great that is, a school that wipes out many career paths because they believe 'spiritual science' is more important sigh.

Thecaty You said your children's Steiner School recieved an 'excellent' oftead. As 'excellent' is not one of the levels given out by Ofstead, I am guessing that this is what the school are saying, they did the same at the school we have escaped from left. Funny though, but their Oftead report was not available to actually read. Not even onling as the school was actually only registered as a childcare provider, so all it said was the number of children they can have.

Got another friend of dd from Steiner having a party tomorrow, must arrange a suitably black outfit

Oh and Isenhart I am most certainly expert in the natural/social science divide as I study the only subject which is equally divided between the two-geography. However, I have never heard pure science being otherwise reffered to as 'occult' or 'spiritual' scince, and I have read many a paper on the subjext of defining science. Strange...

Regarding science - The chambers dictionary lists science as a noun meaning knowledge (archaic); further investigation cites archaic as an adjective meaning not absolutely obsolete but no longer in general use; antiquated, savouring of the past; old fashioned. Under science I also find critically tested and systematised all things difficult to do with one individuals experience. As a science graduate it was drummed into me from a-level that you have to have replicable and reliable results to confirm a hypothesis. That means another person has to be able to repeat the experiment, under the same conditions and get the same results.

An aside about ologies.
As with other classical compounds, adding the suffix to a initial word-stem derived from Greek or Latin may be used to lend grandeur or the impression of scientific rigor to humble pursuits, as in cosmetology ("the study of beauty treatment") or cynology ("the study of dog training"). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-logy

I would want my children to be fully aware that others may not share their useful modes of reality. When do the children realise that what they are taught and the experiences they are allowed to engage in may differ from that of the rest of the world? And at that point does it constitute a momentous realisation that what you think is not true in the way you believed it to be. Eventually we all realise the truth about Father Christmas and the tooth fairy but they seem to be small matters compared to what yuor entire education taught you.

Bully for you, MANATEE! Doth thou refer to Facial Feminization Surgery or Fat Finger Syndrome?

Many of you are relating horrible and unacceptable experiences. I'm struck by Northern's "I'm always surprised at the lack of simple human kindness and common sense among some of these people."

These are bad teachers. But then what does one expect when you pay someone 16k full-time annual salary? Many of these people augment this wage by creating a "spiritual mission." I know that I'm doing disservice in this generalisation to many free-thinking and progressive Steiner teachers who do not quote Steiner as a matter of principle. But there is a definite trend toward the not-so-grounded-in-reality in many independent Steiner schools. This is why I keep coming back to these issues being fundamentally implementation issues.

In my fifteen years of experience with Steiner education, from teacher training, teaching, trusteeship and now parent, I have seen an incredibly wide scope of attitudes and approaches toward children and education, all under the umbrella of Steiner.

What Northern, Barking and others are missing is that there is a viable, relevant and interesting debate within the Steiner education movement. As Maria pointed out not long ago, this is not a black and white issue.

I'll respond to Barking's "if you knew what anthroposophy really means you would pull your child out immediately" after supper.

isenhart7 Are you on crack??? The more you talk the more it becomes apparent that you are either on drugs of mad!

Ironically two of my fingers are rather fat atm, alas not due to fat finger syndrome, but swelling after a nasty accident with a sharp implement...(it was almost like being in Steiner KG with all that blood pouring from my fingers and sharp implement nearby...only I was not chopping fruit!)

Zazizoma You are right, the better teachers at the school we were at, were open to change, new ideas, differing interpretations etc. However the fellowship rules all, and seems comprised of only the most fascist of anthroposophists going. Shame.

Manatee - the little black dress never lets you down.

Spiritual science. An oxymoron taken very seriously by the gullible. No idea what they mean by research, not what you mean by it, I'd guess.

Thecaty:

1. No one here has withdrawn their children from Sws's cos they didn't get to be an angel or a donkey or whatever...

2. Lucky you if there is no bullying in your school - there was masses at ours (and my dc's were not actually on the receiving end much but I still thought it was an extremely unheathly emotional evironment for them to be in)

3. Most of us here have withdrawn our children from fairly rarified atmospheres and put them into state schools. I don't think anyone on this thread is homeschooling and my experience in SWE has shown me how bad my judgement sometimes is and made me very wary of homeschooling, so your example is bizarre.

4. We are not 'followers' of Northernrefugee and her self created 'myth' (whatever that's supposed to be - presumably her hatred of SWS's after her kids were bullied to within an inch of their lives and where she shelled out thousands for people not to educate them) I agree with some of what she says but take issue with other things. It's called debate. I don't follow ANYONE and the only place that's ever been a problem was at the SWS my dc's attended.

You might not like it that some SWS's are below par but they are and I suspect that the reasons that the SWSF even takes the time to bother about this is because they know that these stories have a ring of truth about them.

Rather than waste their time bullying ex-parents who are venting their anger on-line they should take a long hard look at why these complaints are being raised and attempt address these issues. I would have thought that they would welcome the candidness of these threads as it gives them an opportunity to protect the children in their care who they are supposed to care so much about.

Rant over....

Re Manatee and "basicaly Steiner educated kids are given nothing that would prepare them for a science based job in the REAL WORLD."

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I taught upper school maths at a Steiner school, and of the 12 students who graduated, two went into physics, one went into engineering, and one went into design school where she worked on mathematical modeling of trigonometric functions. All at very competitive institutions.

I believe the reason the Steiner schools start with Greek science is that they follow a sort of intellectual "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." So the Greek perspective on science would therefore proceed Gallieo and Newton. Conventional physics training is much the same . . . classical or Newtonian mechanics often proceeds any discussion of modern quantum physics or relativity.

That's not to say there isn't a great deal of ammunition for scorn within the Steiner curriculum if that's the attitude you would like to take.

The maths taught to my dd was excellent. The methods used by her particular teacher were inspired and excellent - maths is still her favorite subject.

I also liked other aspects of the curriculum and teaching practice but the school where she was was awful.
The lack of support for NQT's, the abysmally low pay, the lack of infrastructure, the lack of career development opportunities and a lack of mentoring contributed muchly towards this.

I think the interesting conversation to be had is whether it is possible for SWE to move beyond Steiner and where that leaves both the education movement and anthroposophy - perhaps there would be a split? How would you keep SWE different from the mainstream if you lost the spiritual impluse?

I think these are really involved and complicated questions and need both the pov of sympathetic critics and critical supporters. This would take SWE forward, but maybe SWE doesn't want to move forward.. This was the understanding I finally reached and then, despite some of the things I liked, I felt like I had no option but to remove my dc's, even the ones who were quite suited to many aspects of this approach... I couldn't leave my dc's in an school that could (at the drop of a gnome) be taken over by delusional religious fanatics who would inevitably have more authority than the more moderate majority.

"design school where she worked on mathematical modeling of trigonometric functions"

I have studied mathematics (trigonometry is rather basic, incidentally) AND I have studied design as part of Architecture degree in university. Yet I have NO IDEA what the above sentence means.

What does "mathematical modeling of trigonometric functions" even means? Trigonometric functions are mathematical. You can't "model" a mathematical function.

And why would anyone do mathematical modeling in "design school", anyway?

I'm really curious. Please do explain.

To respond to Barking's "if you knew what anthroposophy really means you would pull your child out immediately."

This is the attitude I find so difficult to work with on this thread. Perhaps Barking, Cote and Northern truly do believe that if I don't agree with them I am simply ignorant. It's hard to move forward with discussion and enjoy a needed debate under this attitude of dismissal.

I don't equate Steiner education with anthroposophy. That does not mean there isn't a relation, and I also recognise that some people do equate them. I am not an anthroposphist, yet value much of what SWE offers. I was drawn to it initially for many of the same reasons as Northern.

As I've stated in numerous posts, I believe that any good educator will be able to explain why they are doing something in a way that relates to the real world. What an individual teacher believes, whether that my child is an incarnating spirit, or a random occurrence of nature, is irrelevant provided they behave professionally, and with compassion and common sense.

The SWSF does not have a monopoly on SWE. None of the principles of this method are copyrighted. I suppose the organisation has as much power as one decides to give it.

How about a SWE reform movement? Take back your schools! We're still left with the problem of how to pay for good teachers and a solid infrastructure. Ideas?

Hey! I didn't even read most of this thread. Who are you and why do you think I have an opinion on whether or not you are ignorant

Good grief Cote, here's my errata . . .

I misspelled Gallileo, it should have been computer modeling of trig functions, and in my last post I misspelled anthroposophist.

Anything else I should clear up?

MANATEE, Thou surely doth protest too muchly! If I were on crack, surely I'd be immersed enough in the modern culture to know what you meant by FFS. Instead, I had to look it up given your very charming, but unfortunately not very helpful, response to my inquiry.

Hey hey Zazizoma - not that old chestnut 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'. Paleontologist and professor of anatomy Neil Shubin in 'Your Inner Fish' 2008 reminds us Haeckel was comparing apples to oranges. So Steiner schools are following a kind of intellectual - what exactly? Are you the same person making a stab at the theory of evolution in the beginning of this thread by talking about 'random genetics'? If genetics were random you might well be sitting there with two heads. And I think you just might be
But then anthroposophists don't like Darwin, do they?

zazizoma, I'll say it since it needs be said and Cote is pleading the 5th. You are OBVIOUSLY a complete loser!

What you "should" do is perhaps answer the questions rather than acting all shocked that someone noticed what you said didn't make sense.

"Computer modeling of trigonometric functions" still doesn't mean much. As I said before, these functions are mathematical and rather simple. You can even graph them in Excel - functions are built in. What is there to "model" on a computer?

(Hint: "Computer modeling" is used to arrive at a simulation or a mathematical description of an idea/problem. Something you don't know how to solve. It doesn't make sense to even try to model for several simple equations that 16 year old learn at school)

And you haven't answered my other question: What does any of this have to do with "design school"?

Zazizoma - if you want reform and diversity and you want to have more good schools and ditch the anthroposopy, then I salute you! I do think it matters that the teachers believe in 'incarnating souls' within the Steiner setting and I think you can understand why, if you're honest. And I think your use of random is confused. Doubtless you're feeling a mite insulted but within this spirit of debate maybe you should feel encouraged too.

I can only assume isen is threatened by my perspective.

So wilder, I'm either ignorant or dishonest?

Would you share with my why you feel it's important whether or not your child's teacher believes in incarnation? Do you mind if they are Christian? How much disclosure do you want?

I am green with envy that you are either ignorant or dishonest while I am either on crack or mad. But thanks for speaking of me in the third person, as if I'm not here-I do so love that!

Maria-

"How would you keep SWE different from the mainstream if you lost the spiritual impluse?"

Instead of the "incarnating spirit" model, one could focus on a "developing individuality." If a SWE school were to have the same teacher follow a student throughout their lower school years with the intent to see the picture of a developing individuality, and to assist in that development, I think you'd most likely lose the karmic "woo" which creeps in. I think the "spiritual impulse" as such is poorly understood, and easily becomes dogmatic. I think the intent of how a teacher should be holding and caring for a developing child is the important bit.